MICRO-URBAN COMMUNITIES

Presented by:

Cynthia Hoyle, FAICP

Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District

1

Creating and Implementing Livable

Transportation Solutions

Convergence of Issues Impacting

Transportation

• Foreign policy and foreign oil dependence

• Global warming and environmental issues

• Obesity and health epidemic related to inactivity

• Aging transportation infrastructure

• Transportation congestion and capacity

inadequacies

• Aging population and mobility issues

• Lack of local government funding

2

Why Create a Multi-Modal Transportation

System?

LRTP Mission: To provide a

safe, efficient, and

economical transportation

system that makes the

best use of existing

infrastructure, optimizes

mobility, promotes

environmental sensitivity,

accessibility, and

economic development,

and enhances quality of

life for all users.

We must ask: “How

do we make mobility

easy and as

inexpensive as

possible?”

3

How to Create Mode Shift Provide people with choices:

• Invest in bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure

• Calm traffic

• Create Safe Routes to School

• Build Transit Supportive development

• Retrofit sprawling neighborhoods

• Revitalize walkable neighborhoods

• Education and Encouragement

Measuring the Health Effects of Sprawl; Barbara McCann and Reid Ewing; Smart Growth America and Surface Transportation Policy Project, 2003

TO SUCCEED YOU HAVE

TO:

ENGAGE THE

PUBLIC

CREATE

WORKING

PARTNERSHIPS

CREATE PLANS

WITH VISION

PLAN FOR

IMPLEMENTATION

BE CREATIVE

WITH FUNDING

OPTIONS

You Want This!

Disconnected Land-Use Peds/Bikes/Transit -

Afterthought

Not This

Congestion

What if we do not plan for mobility

choices/mode shift? Commute to work times increase

Rockford and Peoria average commute time=19.62 min. and 19.02 min.

Austin, TX avg. com. Time=22.86

Ann Arbor avg. com. Time=24.61

Population Reference Bureau says: Flexibility will be key…with respect to housing, work location, work hours, commuting, and means of transportation.

Communities that provide for choices in housing and transportation will be more attractive.

7

C-U average commute to work time <15 minutes

C-U Community Characteristics • Intensely urban campus

• Community as a whole: non-SOV commute to work rate is 23%

• Average commute to work time <15 minutes

• High levels of transit service

• Quality neighborhoods adjacent to the campus many faculty/staff walk, bike, or take the bus to work

• Students/faculty/staff have universal access to the transit system

• Bicycle Friendly Community/University

8

C-U Community Partnerships

• 2001 - MPO (CUUATS) begins, LRTP & CUMTD adopts

Strategic Plan

• 2002 - CUMTD hires planner to represent transit in

community planning processes

• 2004 - CUMTD sponsors Safe Routes to School programs

starting w/ International Walk ‘n Bike to School Day

• 2005 - CUMTD sponsors bicycle education, bicycle maps,

& organizations

• 2008 - Illinois Public Media (U of I) sponsors C-U Fit

Families community network to reduce obesity

9

Champaign

County Bikes

Micro-Urban? Community of <250,000 w/ attributes of larger community, arts, culture,

nightlife, technology, diverse population & affordable-uncongested

10

Plans and Process

11

Long Range Transportation Plan 2025 (LRTP 2025) adopted in 2004 by Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS)

miPLAN – Mobility Implementation Plan to implement LRTP 2025

Champaign Moving Forward - Transportation Master Plan 2008

Update to Champaign’s

Comprehensive Plan

Community Plans

12

Urbana Bicycle Plan –

Adopted plan becomes part

of Comprehensive Plan 2008

Long Range

Transportation Plan 2035-

Adopted 2009

Champaign Tomorrow

Comprehensive Plan –

Adopted March 2011

LRTP 2025 Preferred Scenario calls for:

Express bus service between core and fringe areas of

the community

An enhanced arterial fringe road system that provides

improved mobility around the community

Transit intensive corridors

High capacity transit system in the University District

Mixed use, denser development and redevelopment

13

If implemented LRTP 2025 will: Create higher population density, less sprawl

Promote alternative transportation modes

Save money on infrastructure

Create walkable activity centers and reduce reliance on

automobiles

Make travel safer for pedestrians and bicyclists

Increase mobility for motorists

Educate residents about alternative transportation

modes, safety, and new transportation concepts

14

WHAT is IT?

WHY do IT?

miPLAN's Purpose - What mobility options does the community want, both now and in the future?

To implement the LRTP 2025. LRTP found:

Cities do not have the $ to build and/or maintain new arterial roads serving fringe development. (Champaign has $50 million deficit in funding for arterial construction.)

If we continue with our current growth design, e.g. travel by auto, our community will face serious roadway congestion problems in less than 20 years.

15

Summary of E-Survey Results

o Non-SOV modes primary mode for students

(87%) even if they own a vehicle.

o SOV is the primary mode for employees at

73%.

o Users are satisfied with level of transit service

overall-80% were satisfied or better.

o Market segmentation was done to assess

potential to increase use of non-SOV mode

choices. We asked what would encourage

them to switch modes.

16

Summary of Public Input

17

Strong consistency found for the following

top priority mobility improvements: Improved bicycle infrastructure and routing (In

progress)

Better street lights (Campus locations in

progress)

Additional sidewalks (In progress)

Later evening MTD service (Implemented)

Additional direct MTD routes along major arterials

(Implemented)

Mobility Enhanced Development MED defined as - a

compact walkable

neighborhood with a wide

array of transportation

choices for trips, frequent

and well –connected

transit, biking amenities,

and car-sharing. MED

also include diverse

housing stock, and a

concentration of small

retail and service-

oriented business that

meet day-to-day needs of

local residents.

18

Mobility Enhanced Development Findings:

Transportation costs in core significantly less than fringe. Average $/month spent on transportation: Core=$832 or less Fringe=$1372 or less. (2004 data)

MED Recommendations:

Build on current density and urban form. Maximize options and choices in alternative forms of mobility. Provide tools to create mixed-use, mixed-income market-rate developments through infill and redevelopment. Maintain affordability through community development programs and by factoring in both household housing and transportation costs.

19

Green Corridors – Creating Sustainable

Neighborhoods

What might a transit intensive corridor look like?

Currently working on Very Small Starts grant application for corridors.

20

High Capacity Transit Implemented CUMTD

August 2009

21

High frequency transit service between two downtowns

and campus = service every 10-15 minutes during

academic year.

Road Diets and Complete Streets (Champaign adopted CS Policy in 2008 and Urbana CS

Ordinance in 2011 (Comprehensive Plan)

Four Lanes w/o center

turn lanes

Center turn lanes, bike

lanes, ped refuge island at

bus stop

22

Bike and Pedestrian Improvements

Bike lanes – calm

traffic

Pedestrian priority –

ped scramble

23

Pedestrian and Transit Upgrades

Upgrading pedestrian

infrastructure

Upgrading transit

infrastructure

24

Support for Mode Shift

Car share - Zipcar Safe routes to school

25

Bicycle Friendly

Community/

Businesses

C-U SAFE ROUTES

TO SCHOOL

PROJECT

(C-U SRTS ROJECT) www.cu-srtsproject.com

Reduced annual bus pass from

$238 to $60

Mode Shift Measures of Effectiveness

• 9% increase in transit ridership since August 2010 (over 11 million rides)

• Average VMT decreasing in University District/average VMT level for C-U

• 24% increase in bike facilities

• 34% decrease in fatalities since 2008*

• Decrease in purchase of parking passes last 2 years

*CUUATS Choices 2035 LRTP 2011 Report Card

http://www.ccrpc.org/transportation/pdf/LRTP2035/2011_LRTP_ReportCard_Final.pdf

C-U Trips to Work (U.S. Census & ACS)

Public

Transit

Bicycle Walking

2000

Census 6.8% 2.5% 11.6%

2010 ACS 7.3% 3.6% 13.1%

27

Cynthia Hoyle, FAICP

choyle@cumtd.com

cynthiahoyle@orionplanninggroup.com

www.cynthiahoyle.com

References 28

www.ihavemiplan.com

www.cu-srtsproject.com

www.ccrpc.org/transportation

http://ci.champaign.il.us/departments/

planning/champaign-tomorrow-

comprehensive-plan/

http://urbanaillinois.us/council-goals