1.
MICRO-URBAN COMMUNITIES
Presented by:
Cynthia Hoyle, FAICP
Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District
1
Creating and Implementing Livable
Transportation Solutions

2.
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

3.
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

4.
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

5.
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!

6.
Disconnected Land-Use Peds/Bikes/Transit -
Afterthought
Not This
Congestion

7.
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

8.
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

9.
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

10.
Micro-Urban?
Community of <250,000 w/ attributes of larger community, arts, culture,
nightlife, technology, diverse population & affordable-uncongested
10

11.
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

12.
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

13.
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

14.
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

15.
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

16.
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

17.
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)

18.
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

19.
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

20.
Green Corridors – Creating Sustainable
Neighborhoods
What might
a transit
intensive
corridor
look like?
Currently
working on
Very Small
Starts
grant
application
for
corridors.
20

21.
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.

22.
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

23.
Bike and Pedestrian Improvements
Bike lanes – calm
traffic
Pedestrian priority –
ped scramble
23

24.
Pedestrian and Transit Upgrades
Upgrading pedestrian
infrastructure
Upgrading transit
infrastructure
24

25.
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

26.
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

27.
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

28.
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