Transit Use at UNC Charlotte: The Potential Impact of the Northeast Corridor Light Rail

Transit Line

By: Philip Holleran

December 6, 2006

Outline

• IntroductionIntroduction

• Overview of UNC CharlotteOverview of UNC Charlotte

• LRT proposal for University AreaLRT proposal for University Area

• LRT impacts on ridership at other LRT impacts on ridership at other UniversitiesUniversities

• DataData

• Method / AnalysisMethod / Analysis

Outline

• Three ScenariosThree Scenarios

• No Build / BaseslineNo Build / Basesline

• LRT with little TOD / student residence LRT with little TOD / student residence impactimpact

• LRT with significant TOD / student LRT with significant TOD / student residence impactsresidence impacts

• RecommendationsRecommendations

UNC Charlotte: At a Glance

• Two campusesTwo campuses

•Main Campus: Northeast CharlotteMain Campus: Northeast Charlotte

•Uptown CampusUptown Campus

• Current Enrollment: 21,000Current Enrollment: 21,000

• Staff: 3,000 (UNC Charlotte: Admissions, Staff: 3,000 (UNC Charlotte: Admissions, 2006)2006)

• Predicted Enrollment: 29,000 in 2012 Predicted Enrollment: 29,000 in 2012 (UNCC’s Big Day,2006) 38% Growth(UNCC’s Big Day,2006) 38% Growth

• Predicted staff in 2012: 4,140Predicted staff in 2012: 4,140

LRT in the University Area?

• CATS’ second (proposed) line to run through CATS’ second (proposed) line to run through UNC CharlotteUNC Charlotte

• Many in University community see potential Many in University community see potential inin

• Transit useTransit use

• Connection to CBDConnection to CBD

• Greater connection with townGreater connection with town

• Link to new Uptown campusLink to new Uptown campus

NE Corridor Proposed Alignment

Purpose of Study

• To determine potential LRT use by students To determine potential LRT use by students for journey-to-school tripsfor journey-to-school trips

LRT’s Impact on Other Universities

• Student transit use surveys availableStudent transit use surveys available

• University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UtahUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah

• Portland State University, Portland, OregonPortland State University, Portland, Oregon

• Other measures:Other measures:

• San Diego State University, San Diego, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaliforniaCalifornia

• University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaCanada

LRT’s Impact on Other Universities

• University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UTUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT

• LRT used for to/from campus travel by LRT used for to/from campus travel by 22% of students22% of students

• 36.5% use some form of transit36.5% use some form of transit

• Discount transit pass used as incentiveDiscount transit pass used as incentive

(Guiver and Robinson, 2006)(Guiver and Robinson, 2006)

LRT’s Impact on Other Universities

• Portland State University, Portland, ORPortland State University, Portland, OR

• University served by LRT lineUniversity served by LRT line

• 37.9% of student to/from campus trips on 37.9% of student to/from campus trips on transittransit

• Many on LRTMany on LRT

• Subsidized transit passes available to Subsidized transit passes available to studentsstudents

(PSU Student Transportation, 2005)(PSU Student Transportation, 2005)

LRT’s Impact on Other Universities

• University of Alberta, Edmonton, ABUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, AB

• Overall LRT ridership up 50% when Overall LRT ridership up 50% when extended to Universityextended to University

• Sizable portion attributed to university Sizable portion attributed to university studentsstudents

• Enabled students to live further from Enabled students to live further from campus, along linecampus, along line

(McLachlan, 1995)(McLachlan, 1995)

LRT’s Impact on Other Universities

• San Diego State University, San Diego, CASan Diego State University, San Diego, CA

• LRT use measured through transit pass LRT use measured through transit pass salessales

• 450/year before LRT450/year before LRT

• 7,000/year after LRT7,000/year after LRT

(D. Richeson, personal (D. Richeson, personal communication, September 26, 2006)communication, September 26, 2006)

Data

• All student data is based on Fall 2006 All student data is based on Fall 2006 enrollment and includes:enrollment and includes:

• full time studentsfull time students

• part time studentspart time students

• undergraduate studentsundergraduate students

• graduate studentsgraduate students

Data

• GIS dataGIS data

• Mecklenburg County information on file Mecklenburg County information on file with Geography Department at UNC with Geography Department at UNC CharlotteCharlotte

• CATS Routes as of November 2006 CATS Routes as of November 2006 courtesy of CATScourtesy of CATS

• LRT route and station locations obtained LRT route and station locations obtained from proposed alignment posted on CATS from proposed alignment posted on CATS website www.ridetransit.orgwebsite www.ridetransit.org

Method

• Many extant ridership modeling techniquesMany extant ridership modeling techniques

• focus on entire line, entire populationfocus on entire line, entire population

• most dependent upon some form of census most dependent upon some form of census datadata

• Desire to focus on impact only at UNC Desire to focus on impact only at UNC CharlotteCharlotte

• No SES data available for studentsNo SES data available for students

Method

• Solution? Proximity AnalysisSolution? Proximity Analysis

• Fall 2006 students (in Fall 2006 students (in Mecklenburg County) geocodedMecklenburg County) geocoded

• CategorizationCategorization

• Analysis conducted on Analysis conducted on “Commuter” students“Commuter” students

• Live at least 1 mile from Live at least 1 mile from campus center (Belk Tower)campus center (Belk Tower)

• Most likely to use methods Most likely to use methods of transportation other than of transportation other than walkingwalking

Method

• Impact analyzed though use of three scenariosImpact analyzed though use of three scenarios

• Baseline / “No Build”Baseline / “No Build”

• Build with little to no Transit Oriented Build with little to no Transit Oriented Development (TOD)Development (TOD)

• Build with substantial TODBuild with substantial TOD

Scenario 1

• No LRT constructed / “present day” pictureNo LRT constructed / “present day” picture

Distribution of Commuters

• Commuters greatly distributed across Commuters greatly distributed across Mecklenburg CountyMecklenburg County

Distribution of Commuters

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

Out of County Commuters, Fall 2006

Areas of Commuter Concentration

Current Transit at UNC Charlotte

• How well are Mecklenburg commuters served How well are Mecklenburg commuters served by transit?by transit?

Current Transit at UNC Charlotte

Current Transit at UNC Charlotte

• Two CATS bus routes serve UNC Charlotte: Two CATS bus routes serve UNC Charlotte: 11 and 2911 and 29

• Commuter students served by direct routesCommuter students served by direct routes

1/4 Mile 1/2 Mile11 388 85529 516 1041

Total* 788 1444

Commuter Students Served by CATS Services

* Some students live in the service areas of both routes

Scenario 2

• AssumptionsAssumptions

• LRT Constructed as plannedLRT Constructed as planned

• UNC Charlotte enrollment remains at Fall UNC Charlotte enrollment remains at Fall 2006 levels2006 levels

• Residential distribution remains constant Residential distribution remains constant (Fall 2006)(Fall 2006)

• No TOD effect on student living No TOD effect on student living patternspatterns

LRT “Walk-to” Serviced Commuters

• Buffers of 1/4 and 1/2 mile created around all Buffers of 1/4 and 1/2 mile created around all stationsstations

LRT “Walk-to” Serviced Commuters

LRT “Walk-to” Serviced Commuters

• ResultsResults

1/4 Mile 1/2 MileLRT 158 577

Commuter Students Served by NE CORRIDOR

Park and Rides

• Park and ride (P&R) lots can boost ridershipPark and ride (P&R) lots can boost ridership

• For students to use P&R:For students to use P&R:

• Spaces must be ampleSpaces must be ample

• Cost of fare must be lower than cost of on Cost of fare must be lower than cost of on campus parkingcampus parking

• Unfortunately, neither are knownUnfortunately, neither are known

Predicting P&R Use

• Multiple methods exist for defining catchment Multiple methods exist for defining catchment areas, dependent upon functionareas, dependent upon function

• For commuters they would function as a For commuters they would function as a satellite lotsatellite lot

• General catchment area defined by an off-General catchment area defined by an off-center buffer (center buffer (Guide for Park and RideGuide for Park and Ride, 2004), 2004)

• Proximity of stations and overlap negate need Proximity of stations and overlap negate need to off-center buffersto off-center buffers

Predicting P&R Use

• Problems with this type of model:Problems with this type of model:

• Does not account for possible financial Does not account for possible financial incentive to use P&Rincentive to use P&R

• Does not allow those living outside buffer Does not allow those living outside buffer to utilize P&R to utilize P&R

Predicting NE Corridor P&R Use

• AssumptionsAssumptions

• All commuters are equally likely to utilize All commuters are equally likely to utilize park and ridepark and ride

• All commuters enter catchment zone as a All commuters enter catchment zone as a result of trip to universityresult of trip to university

• Out of county commuters considered for this Out of county commuters considered for this model model

• Stats generated for 10, 15, and 20 percent Stats generated for 10, 15, and 20 percent utilizationutilization

Predicting NE Corridor P&R Use

County/Region Total Commuters 10 % Usage 15% Usage 20% UsageCabarrus/Rowan 1454 145 218 291Gaston 607 61 91 121Mecklenburg 7816 782 1172 1563Union 614 61 92 123

Total 10491 268 1574 2098

Commuters' Predicted Park and Ride Usage

Potential Riders: Scenario 2

Low HighCATS Bus 788 1444LRT - walk-to 158 577LRT - park&ride 1049 2098

Total 1995 4119

Scenario 2 Estimated Commuter Student Transit Riders

Scenario 3

• Goal of rapid transit - support land use plan Goal of rapid transit - support land use plan ((Corridor System PlanCorridor System Plan, 2006), 2006)

• Plan includes TODPlan includes TOD

• Scenario 3 attempts to account for such Scenario 3 attempts to account for such development development

Student Use of TOD

• Twofold: Demand, Ability to payTwofold: Demand, Ability to pay

• DemandDemand

• 41% of Univ. Utah students want to live 41% of Univ. Utah students want to live near LRTnear LRT

• Ability to payAbility to pay

• With LRT often come higher land values With LRT often come higher land values ((Weinstein & CowlerWeinstein & Cowler, 2002; , 2002; ArringtonArrington, 2003), 2003)

• Students ability to pay is generally lowStudents ability to pay is generally low

Potential for TOD

• Assumptions:Assumptions:

• TOD will occur only on vacant landTOD will occur only on vacant land

• Average dwelling units (DU) / acre = 12 Average dwelling units (DU) / acre = 12 ((2025 Plan2025 Plan, 1998), 1998)

• 2.5 persons / DU2.5 persons / DU

• Between 5 and 10% of new TOD Between 5 and 10% of new TOD population will be studentspopulation will be students

Potential for TOD

• Available land for TODAvailable land for TOD

• Parcels identified as vacant my Charmeck Parcels identified as vacant my Charmeck tax records current November, 2006tax records current November, 2006

• Parcels within 1/4 mile of stop consideredParcels within 1/4 mile of stop considered

• 2 categories2 categories

• Total acreage of parcelsTotal acreage of parcels

• Total acreage within 1/4 mileTotal acreage within 1/4 mile

Potential for TOD

Total Acres Predicted DUs 2.5 persons/ DU 5% Student Pop 10% Studet PopAll Parcels 993.5 11922 29805 1490.25 2980.51/4 Mile Radius 478.15 5737.8 14344.5 717.225 1434.45

Vacant Land Availability and Predicted TOD Populations

Potential Riders: Scenario 3

Low HighCATS Bus (existing routes) 788 1444LRT - walk-to (existing) 158 577LRT - park&ride 1049 2098LRT - TOD Development 717 2980

Total 2712 7099

Scenario 3 Estimated Commuter Student Transit Riders

Short Term Recommendations

• Discount transit passDiscount transit pass

• Success well documented (Success well documented (CuraCura, 2000; , 2000; ForceForce, 2004), 2004)

• University of South FloridaUniversity of South Florida

• 1997 - 80,000 total rides (pre pass)1997 - 80,000 total rides (pre pass)

• 2004 1,000,000+ total rides (with pass)2004 1,000,000+ total rides (with pass)

((ForceForce, 2004), 2004)

Short Term Recommendations

• University area circulator routeUniversity area circulator route

• CATS service misses 2 of three CATS service misses 2 of three concentration areasconcentration areas

• One ‘horseshoe-shaped’ route could serve One ‘horseshoe-shaped’ route could serve both these areasboth these areas

• Broken into 2 pieces for analysisBroken into 2 pieces for analysis

Recommended Circulator Route

Recommended Circulator Route

1/4 Mile 1/2 MileUNCC1* 298 553UNCC2 433 659

subtotal 731 1212

11 (existing) 388 85529 (existing) 516 1041

subtotal 904 1896Total 1635 3108

Commuter Students Served by Proposed Routes

*does not count possible P&R riders

Recommended Circulator Route

• Other benefitsOther benefits

• Can utilize existing CATS P&R at Harris Can utilize existing CATS P&R at Harris & Sugar Creek& Sugar Creek

• Could be extended for P&R service to Could be extended for P&R service to NorthlakeNorthlake

• If LRT constructed, can serve as feeder If LRT constructed, can serve as feeder routesroutes

Conclusions

• LRT’s “walk-to” commuter ridership potential LRT’s “walk-to” commuter ridership potential is lowis low

• TOD development could have a small impact TOD development could have a small impact on commuter ridership on commuter ridership

• Park and Rides provide the greatest potential Park and Rides provide the greatest potential for commuter LRT usefor commuter LRT use

• Establishment of a circulator route can provide Establishment of a circulator route can provide better walk-to ridership than LRTbetter walk-to ridership than LRT

Cited Sources

“2025 Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan for Charlotte Mecklenburg: Final Report – October 1998.” (1998).

Arrington, G.B. (2003). “Light Rail and the American City: State-of-the-Practice for Transit-Oriented Development.” Transportation Research Circular: Ninth National Light Rail Transit Conference, Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board. pp. 189-204. Online. Retrieved on October 16, 2006, from http://trb.org/publications/circulars/ec058/ec058.pdf

Cervero, R. and Duncan, M. (2002). “Transit’s Value Added Effects: Light and Commuter Rail Services and Commercial Land Values,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1805. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.

“Corridor System Plan: Staff Recommendations.” (2002). Charlotte Area Transportation System. Online. Retrieved 10 October 2006 from http://www.charmeck.org/NR/rdonlyres/evk2qkx7t6qcmduxqbj47aaxzzyu4loz54q3uvb4kjhuchhe5qkuj3bgzlpdi7qodr5f4vfy4ghu4ykaycw7pfhulle/SystemPlanReport.pdf

Cura, F. (2001). “More Students to Take Transit as University Pass Programs Multiply.” Passenger Transport, 22. pp. 1-2.

Cited Sources

Force, K. (2004). “Public Transit 101: Effective Planning for College Campuses.” Metro, 100. pp. 32-36.

“Guide for Park and Ride Facilities.” (2004). AASHTO Task Force on Public Transportation Facilities Design. Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Guiver, D & Robertson, B., (2006). “Utah Transit Authority, University of Utah, Students, Staff & Faculty: Summary Report.” Salt Lake City: Valley Research.

McLachlan, L. (1995). “Edmonton Light Rail Transit Experience.” Conference Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Light Rail Transit: Volume I. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. pp. 52-65.

“PSU Student Transportation Survey, Spring 2005: Summary Report.” (2005). Parking and Transportation Services – Portland State University.

“UNC Charlotte: Admissions – General Information.” (2006). Online. http://www.admissions.uncc.edu/jump/Admissions/index_general.asp. Accessed: November 10, 2006.

Cited Sources

“UNCC’s Big Day.” (2006). UNC Charlotte Public Relations: UNC Charlotte in the News. February 3, 2006. Online. http://www.publicrelations.uncc.edu/default.asp?id=30&objId=36. Accessed November 10, 2006.

Weinstein, B. & Cowler, L. (2002). “”An Assessment of the DART LRT on Taxable Property Valuations and Transit Oriented Development.” Denton: University of North Texas. Online. Retrieved October 16, 2006, from http://www.unt.edu/cedr/dart2002.pdf