1 / 56

By: Philip Holleran

Transit Use at UNC Charlotte: The Potential Impact of the Northeast Corridor Light Rail Transit Line. By: Philip Holleran. December 6, 2006. Outline. Introduction Overview of UNC Charlotte LRT proposal for University Area LRT impacts on ridership at other Universities Data

padma
Download Presentation

By: Philip Holleran

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Transit Use at UNC Charlotte: The Potential Impact of the Northeast Corridor Light Rail Transit Line By: Philip Holleran December 6, 2006

  2. Outline • Introduction • Overview of UNC Charlotte • LRT proposal for University Area • LRT impacts on ridership at other Universities • Data • Method / Analysis

  3. Outline • Three Scenarios • No Build / Basesline • LRT with little TOD / student residence impact • LRT with significant TOD / student residence impacts • Recommendations

  4. UNC Charlotte: At a Glance • Two campuses • Main Campus: Northeast Charlotte • Uptown Campus • Current Enrollment: 21,000 • Staff: 3,000 (UNC Charlotte: Admissions, 2006) • Predicted Enrollment: 29,000 in 2012 (UNCC’s Big Day,2006) 38% Growth • Predicted staff in 2012: 4,140

  5. LRT in the University Area? • CATS’ second (proposed) line to run through UNC Charlotte • Many in University community see potential in • Transit use • Connection to CBD • Greater connection with town • Link to new Uptown campus

  6. NE Corridor Proposed Alignment

  7. Purpose of Study • To determine potential LRT use by students for journey-to-school trips

  8. LRT’s Impact on Other Universities • Student transit use surveys available • University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah • Portland State University, Portland, Oregon • Other measures: • San Diego State University, San Diego, California • University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

  9. LRT’s Impact on Other Universities • University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT • LRT used for to/from campus travel by 22% of students • 36.5% use some form of transit • Discount transit pass used as incentive (Guiver and Robinson, 2006)

  10. LRT’s Impact on Other Universities • Portland State University, Portland, OR • University served by LRT line • 37.9% of student to/from campus trips on transit • Many on LRT • Subsidized transit passes available to students (PSU Student Transportation, 2005)

  11. LRT’s Impact on Other Universities • University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB • Overall LRT ridership up 50% when extended to University • Sizable portion attributed to university students • Enabled students to live further from campus, along line (McLachlan, 1995)

  12. LRT’s Impact on Other Universities • San Diego State University, San Diego, CA • LRT use measured through transit pass sales • 450/year before LRT • 7,000/year after LRT (D. Richeson, personal communication, September 26, 2006)

  13. Data • All student data is based on Fall 2006 enrollment and includes: • full time students • part time students • undergraduate students • graduate students

  14. Data • GIS data • Mecklenburg County information on file with Geography Department at UNC Charlotte • CATS Routes as of November 2006 courtesy of CATS • LRT route and station locations obtained from proposed alignment posted on CATS website www.ridetransit.org

  15. Method • Many extant ridership modeling techniques • focus on entire line, entire population • most dependent upon some form of census data • Desire to focus on impact only at UNC Charlotte • No SES data available for students

  16. Method • Solution? Proximity Analysis • Fall 2006 students (in Mecklenburg County) geocoded • Categorization • Analysis conducted on “Commuter” students • Live at least 1 mile from campus center (Belk Tower) • Most likely to use methods of transportation other than walking

  17. Method • Impact analyzed though use of three scenarios • Baseline / “No Build” • Build with little to no Transit Oriented Development (TOD) • Build with substantial TOD

  18. Scenario 1 • No LRT constructed / “present day” picture

  19. Distribution of Commuters • Commuters greatly distributed across Mecklenburg County

  20. Distribution of Commuters Fall 2006 Distribution of Commuter Students at UNC Charlotte, per 1/4 mile square

  21. Out of County Commuters, Fall 2006

  22. Areas of Commuter Concentration

  23. Current Transit at UNC Charlotte • How well are Mecklenburg commuters served by transit?

  24. Current Transit at UNC Charlotte

  25. Current Transit at UNC Charlotte • Two CATS bus routes serve UNC Charlotte: 11 and 29 • Commuter students served by direct routes

  26. Scenario 2 • Assumptions • LRT Constructed as planned • UNC Charlotte enrollment remains at Fall 2006 levels • Residential distribution remains constant (Fall 2006) • No TOD effect on student living patterns

  27. LRT “Walk-to” Serviced Commuters • Buffers of 1/4 and 1/2 mile created around all stations

  28. LRT “Walk-to” Serviced Commuters

  29. LRT “Walk-to” Serviced Commuters • Results

  30. Park and Rides • Park and ride (P&R) lots can boost ridership • For students to use P&R: • Spaces must be ample • Cost of fare must be lower than cost of on campus parking • Unfortunately, neither are known

  31. Predicting P&R Use • Multiple methods exist for defining catchment areas, dependent upon function • For commuters they would function as a satellite lot • General catchment area defined by an off-center buffer (Guide for Park and Ride, 2004) • Proximity of stations and overlap negate need to off-center buffers

  32. Predicting P&R Use • Problems with this type of model: • Does not account for possible financial incentive to use P&R • Does not allow those living outside buffer to utilize P&R

  33. Predicting NE Corridor P&R Use • Assumptions • All commuters are equally likely to utilize park and ride • All commuters enter catchment zone as a result of trip to university • Out of county commuters considered for this model • Stats generated for 10, 15, and 20 percent utilization

  34. Predicting NE Corridor P&R Use

  35. Potential Riders: Scenario 2

  36. Scenario 3 • Goal of rapid transit - support land use plan (Corridor System Plan, 2006) • Plan includes TOD • Scenario 3 attempts to account for such development

  37. Student Use of TOD • Twofold: Demand, Ability to pay • Demand • 41% of Univ. Utah students want to live near LRT • Ability to pay • With LRT often come higher land values (Weinstein & Cowler, 2002; Arrington, 2003) • Students ability to pay is generally low

  38. Potential for TOD • Assumptions: • TOD will occur only on vacant land • Average dwelling units (DU) / acre = 12 (2025 Plan, 1998) • 2.5 persons / DU • Between 5 and 10% of new TOD population will be students

  39. Potential for TOD • Available land for TOD • Parcels identified as vacant my Charmeck tax records current November, 2006 • Parcels within 1/4 mile of stop considered • 2 categories • Total acreage of parcels • Total acreage within 1/4 mile

  40. Potential for TOD

  41. Potential Riders: Scenario 3

  42. Short Term Recommendations • Discount transit pass • Success well documented (Cura, 2000; Force, 2004) • University of South Florida • 1997 - 80,000 total rides (pre pass) • 2004 1,000,000+ total rides (with pass) (Force, 2004)

  43. Short Term Recommendations • University area circulator route • CATS service misses 2 of three concentration areas • One ‘horseshoe-shaped’ route could serve both these areas • Broken into 2 pieces for analysis

  44. Recommended Circulator Route

  45. Recommended Circulator Route

  46. Recommended Circulator Route • Other benefits • Can utilize existing CATS P&R at Harris & Sugar Creek • Could be extended for P&R service to Northlake • If LRT constructed, can serve as feeder routes

More Related