Mobility In The 21st Century Ite Conference 2010final

346 views
307 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
346
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Mode Shift is not simple. We know it takes the following pieces.
  • 􀂾 Public participation: A series of nine Neighborhood TransopolySM sessions were held in neighborhoods throughout the Champaign-Urbana area to elicit public priorities on future transportation investment. The “game” provided direct input on public priorities in transportation investment.
    􀂾 Market research: o Interviews were held with approximately 50 community leaders. o Three focus groups were held with existing, potential and disabled transit riders.
    o An on-board survey was conducted of 2,879 Champaign Urbana Mass Transit District (MTD) transit riders from both campus and non-campus routes.
    o An e-survey of 3,262 employees of major employers in the Champaign- Urbana area was administered.
    o An e-survey of 3,319 University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign (UIUC)
    students was conducted.
  • UIUC students: 49% walking is primary mode
    28% transit is primary mode
    7% bike
  • *Transportation Costs include the modeled cost of Auto Ownership, Auto Use, and Transit Use
    This report defines opportunities for and challenges to mobility enhanced development (MED) in the region that can be incorporated into CUMTD’s and the community’s long-range plans.
  • Mobility In The 21st Century Ite Conference 2010final

    1. 1. Presented by: Cynthia Hoyle, FAICP Hoyle Consulting Planning and Creating Multimodal Transportation Systems Sustainable Transportation Design and Planning ITE Annual Meeting 2010 Vancouver, BC 1
    2. 2.  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
    3. 3.  Infrastructure  Appropriate land- use and design  Interconnect modes, land-use, and infrastructure  Social Marketing – encouragement for behavior change
    4. 4. Average SF Co2e per passenger mile • Walking, Bicycling & Transit are the most sustainable forms of transportation • Limitations-Only effective with compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented land-use 00 Least Most Average 1lb (250 gm) CO2 per passenger mile (km) 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 lb Produced By Timothy Papandreou 2009 Timothy Papandreou Deputy Director Planning- Sustainable Streets, SFMTA
    5. 5. 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 Encourage Measuring the Health Effects of Sprawl; Barbara McCann and Reid Ewing; Smart Growth America and Surface Transportation Policy Project, 2003
    6. 6. Champaign-Urbana, IL –Typical Midwestern Community  Located in the center of Illinois amid soybean and corn fields  Home to the University of Illinois  Urbanized area has approximately 130,000 residents.  University has over 42,000 students and 12,000 faculty and staff  UIUC geographically located in the middle of the two cities. University is split down the middle. 7
    7. 7.  Intensely urban campus  Urbana 35% of the work trips are non-SOV  Community as a whole: non-SOV commute to work rate is 23%  Average commute to work time - 15 minutes  Excellent transit system  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 8
    8. 8. ENGAGETHE PUBLIC CREATE PLANS WITHVISION PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION BE CREATIVE WITH FUNDING OPTIONS You Want This!
    9. 9. DISCONNECTED LAND-USE PEDS/BIKES/TRANSIT - AFTERTHOUGHT CONGESTION
    10. 10. CommunityTransportation Plans 11 Long Range Transportation Plan 2025 (LRTP 2025) adopted in 2004 by Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS) big.small.all countywide visioning process called for more housing and mobility choices, less sprawl miPLAN – Mobility Implementation Plan to implement LRTP 2025
    11. 11. Champaign Moving Forward: Transportation Master Plan 2008 – Update to Champaign’s Comprehensive Plan Urbana Bicycle Plan – Adopted plan becomes part of Comprehensive Plan 12 Long Range Transportation Plan 2035- Adopted 2009
    12. 12.  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
    13. 13.  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
    14. 14. How do we implement the LRTP? Champaign-Urbana MassTransit District (CUMTD) funded the Mobility Implementation Plan (miPLAN) 15 Goals for miPLAN: •Develop cost effective mobility strategies to achieve goal of 8% non-SOV trips within the CUMTD service area by 2025 •Develop cost-effective mobility strategies to achieve the CUMTD goal of 35% non-SOV work trips in the CUMTD service area by 2015 •Develop specific implementation plan to institute the mobility strategies to achieve the above
    15. 15. 16
    16. 16.  Do you know what mobility options are currently available?  What kinds of transportation services do we want in our community right now?  How will we want to move around in the future? 17
    17. 17. 18  Interviews – 50 community leaders  Focus groups  On-board transit survey  E-survey 3,262 employees  E-survey 3,319 U of I students  Neighborhood Transopoly
    18. 18. 19
    19. 19. 20
    20. 20. Affordability Index Formula Affordability Index = Housing Costs +Transportation Costs Income 21
    21. 21. 22 http://www.cnt.org/repository/heavy_load_10_06.pdf
    22. 22.  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. 23
    23. 23. 24 Strong consistency found for the following top priority mobility improvements:  Improved bicycle infrastructure and routing  Better street lights  Additional sidewalks  Later evening MTD service  Additional direct MTD routes along major arterials
    24. 24. 1. Develop two alternative mobility scenarios 2. Green Corridors analysis for development of enhanced transit and mobility options along with increased densities and infill/redevelopment (MED Feasibility) 3. Modeling of the mobility scenarios using econometric, land-use modeling and transportation modeling (Benefit Preference Model and Mode Choice Model) 25
    25. 25. 26
    26. 26. www.cumtd.com www.ihavemiplan.com •C-U Housing – Transportation Affordability Index •Green Corridors Plan •Mobility Enhanced Development
    27. 27. 28
    28. 28. 29 High frequency transit service between two downtowns and campus = service every 10-15 minutes during academic year.
    29. 29. FOUR LANES W/O CENTER TURN LANES CENTER TURN LANES, BIKE LANES, PED REFUGE ISLAND AT BUS STOP 30
    30. 30. BIKE LANES – CALM TRAFFIC PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY – PED SCRAMBLE 31
    31. 31. GOODWIN AVENUE - BEFORE GOODWIN AVENUE – AFTER 32 Project has won several awards including Exemplary Human Environment Initiative Award by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
    32. 32. SIDEWALK CAFÉ - BEFORE SIDEWALK CAFÉ AFTER 33
    33. 33. UPGRADING PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADING TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE 34
    34. 34. CAR SHARE - ZIPCAR SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 35 BICYCLE FRIENDLY COMMUNITY/BUSINESS C-U SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROJECT (C-U SRTS ROJECT) www.cu-srtsproject.com
    35. 35. Benefit-Cost Analysis Preferred Investment Plan Development 5-10 Year Plan Final Report 36
    36. 36. Conclusion A sea A seamless multimodal transportation system is one of the goals for the miPLAN project. “How do we make mobility easy and as inexpensive as possible?” 37
    37. 37. Cynthia Hoyle, FAICP Hoyle Consulting choyle57@comcast.net choyle@cumtd.com www.cynthiahoyle.com 38 References: www.ihavemiplan.com www.cu-srtsproject.com www.ccrpc.org/transportat ion

    ×