CUUATS CHAMPAIGN URBANA URBANIZED AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY 1776 East Washington Street Urbana, IL 61802

Announcement of a Meeting for the CUUATS Policy Committee Champaign‐Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS) DATE: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 TIME: 10:30 a.m. PLACE: CCRPC ‐ John Dimit Meeting Room Brookens Administrative Center 1776 E. Washington St. Urbana, Illinois 61802 AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Audience Participation IV. Approval of Agenda V. Approval of Minutes A. CUUATS Joint Technical/Policy Committee Meeting of September 5, 2012 VI. New Business A. Approval of Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) FY2013‐2016 Amendment – Jeremy Borrego B. Approval of 2010 Champaign‐Urbana MPO Urban Area (UA) and Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) Boundaries – Jeremy Borrego C. Approval of Updated Champaign‐Urbana Urbanized Area HSTP 2012 – Eileen Sierra D. Consideration/Approval of Roundabout Policy for the Champaign‐Urbana MPO – Sharif Ullah E. Approval of 2013 CUUATS Policy Committee Meeting Schedule – Rita Black VII. Old Business A. Committees and Working Groups 1. CATS III Technical Committee – Bill Gray 2. Olympian Drive – Bill Gray 3. miPLAN – Bill Volk 4. Champaign County Rural Transit Advisory Group (RTAG) – Rita Black 5. Long Range Transportation Plan 2040: Sustainable Choices – Rita Black B. Agency Reports 1. City of Champaign – Roland White 2. City of Urbana – Bill Gray 3. Village of Savoy – Brent Maue 4. C‐U MTD – Bill Volk 5. Champaign County – Jeff Blue 6. University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign – Morgan Johnston 7. CC Regional Planning Commission – Cameron Moore 8. IDOT District 5 – Craig Emberton 9. IDOT Central Office – Tom Caldwell 10. FHWA – Betsy Tracy Champaign County Regional Planning Commission strives to C. Announcements provide an environment welcoming to all persons regardless of VIII. Audience Participation physical or mental challenges, race, gender, or religion. Please call 217‐328‐3313 to request special accommodations IX. Adjournment at least 2 business days in advance.

1 CUUATS 2 3 CHAMPAIGN URBANA URBANIZED AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY 4 1776 East Washington Street 5 Urbana, IL 61802 6 ww.ccrpc.org 7 8 9 10 Champaign‐Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS) 11 Joint Policy Committee and Technical Committee 12 13 MINUTES – SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL 14 DATE: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 15 TIME: 10:30 a.m. 16 PLACE: Champaign County Regional Planning Commission – John Dimit Meeting Room 17 1776 E. Washington, Urbana, IL 61802 18 Policy Voting Members Agency Present Absent Champaign County Ralph Langenheim (proxy) Pius Weibel Champaign Roland White (proxy) Don Gerard (Vice Chair) Urbana Mike Monson (proxy) Laurel Prussing Savoy Bill Smith (proxy) Robert McCleary UIUC Jack Dempsey CUMTD Don Uchtmann (proxy) Ron Peters (Chair) IDOT Craig Emberton 19 20 Technical Voting Members Agency Present Absent Champaign County Jeff Blue Champaign County John Cooper Champaign Roland White (Chair) Champaign Rob Kowalski Urbana Libby Tyler Urbana Bill Gray Savoy Dick Helton Savoy Jim Miller (proxy) Brent Maue CCRPC Cameron Moore UIUC Helen Coleman UIUC Morgan Johnston (Vice Chair) CUMTD Bill Volk IDOT Dist 5 Bob Nelson IDOT Dist 5 Scott Lackey 21 22 Others Present: Betsy Tracy (FHWA), Tom Caldwell (IDOT Central Office), Dave Clark (Champaign), Cynthia Hoyle 23 (CUMTD), Gary Cziko 24 25 CUUATS Staff: Rita Black, Gabe Lewis, Sharif Ullah, Eric Hansen, Udit Molakatalla, Eileen Sierra, Preeti 26 Shankar, Jeremy Borrego 27 Recording secretary: Beth Brunk

CUUATS Joint Policy & Technical Committees 1 September 5, 2012

1 MINUTES 2 I. Call to Order 3 In Mr. Peter’s absence, Mr. White as Vice‐Chair of the CUUATS Policy Committee called the meeting to 4 order at 10:30 a.m. 5 6 II. Roll Call 7 The roll was taken by written record and a quorum was declared present. 8 9 III. Audience Participation 10 Gary Cziko of Urbana 11 Mr. Cziko rode his bicycle on Staley Road which has recently been improved. Staley Road from 12 Springfield Avenue north to Boulder Ridge Drive was a very nice ride with 5’ to 6’ shoulders. However, 13 north of Boulder Ridge Drive to Bloomington Road, the shoulder narrows to 2’ to 3’ and is completely 14 dominated by a rumble strip which makes it unusable for bicyclists. 15 16 Mr. Cziko understood that the original plan for Staley Road included bicycle accommodations that were 17 removed due to financial constraints. Mr. Cziko was surprised that IDOT approved the design. 18 According to FHWA, if a rumble strip is used, there should be 4’ of recovery room on the right, and the 19 rumble strip should be placed as close to the edge line as possible. Recent designs incorporate a 20 narrower rumble strip into the edge line. The League of Illinois Bicyclists has worked with IDOT to come 21 up with better standards for rumble strips. FHWA has also revised their standards to make them 22 friendlier for bicyclists. 23 24 Mr. Cziko wanted to raise this issue so CUUATS could form a policy on this or be aware of national and 25 state policies. For photos and videos to illustrate what Mr. Cziko discussed concerning rumble strips, 26 look at the website: www.staleyrumble.notlong.com. 27 28 Mr. White responded that this issue had to do with funding limitations, and Champaign decided to focus 29 the Complete Streets elements on the urbanized area. The segment of Staley Road with the smaller 30 shoulder was not intended for bicyclists. The rumble strips are a safety measure to warn motorists as 31 there are steep embankments on Staley Road. Mr. White will look into Mr. Cziko’s comments and 32 recommendations about the specifics of the design. 33 34 IV. Approval of Agenda 35 Technical Committee: 36 There being no changes, Mr. Moore made the motion, seconded by Mr. Blue, to approve the agenda as 37 distributed. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 38 39 Policy Committee: 40 There being no changes, Mr. Uchtmann made the motion, seconded by Mr. Langenheim, to approve 41 the agenda as distributed. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 42 43 V. Approval of Minutes 44 A. Regular Technical Committee Meeting – June 20, 2012 45 There being no changes, Ms. Johnston made the motion, seconded by Mr. Moore, to approve the 46 minutes of the Technical Committee June 20, 2012 meeting as distributed. Upon vote, the motion 47 carried unanimously. 48 49 B. Regular Policy Committee Meeting – June 27, 2012 50 There being no changes, Mr. Emberton made the motion, seconded by Mr. Uchtmann, to approve the 51 minutes of the Policy Committee June 27, 2012 meeting as distributed. Upon vote, the motion carried 52 unanimously. 53

CUUATS Joint Policy & Technical Committees 2 September 5, 2012

1 VI. New Business 2 A. Approval of Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) FY2013‐2016 Amendment – Preeti 3 Shankar 4 Ms. Shankar reported on one TIP modification. Federal Transit Administration requested a new column 5 to show fund types in Table 25 – CUMTD Local Projects. No action is required from the Committee on 6 this item. 7 8 CUMTD submitted a $76,000 multi‐school district Safe Routes to Schools grant to be used for 9 teaching/awareness of pedestrian and bicycle safety programs for FY2013. This new project will be 10 added to the TIP as an amendment in Table 27. 11 12 Technical Committee: 13 Ms. Johnston made the motion, seconded by Ms. Tyler, to approve the TIP Amendment for the Safe 14 Routes to Schools project as presented. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 15 16 Policy Committee: 17 Mr. Uchtmann made the motion, seconded by Mr. Emberton, to approve the TIP Amendment for the 18 Safe Routes to Schools project as presented. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 19 20 B. Approval of Draft Federally Obligated Projects Listing FY2012 – Preeti Shankar 21 CUUATS is required to publish an annual listing of all transportation projects in the MPO’s urbanized 22 area that received federally obligated funding from 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. 23 24 Technical Committee: 25 Mr. Moore moved to approve the draft Annual Listing of Federally Obligated Projects FY2012 as 26 presented. Mr. Volk seconded. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 27 28 Policy Committee: 29 Mr. Smith moved to approve the draft Annual Listing of Federally Obligated Projects FY2012 as 30 presented. Mr. Uchtmann seconded. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 31 32 C. Consideration/Approval of Complete Streets Policy for the Champaign‐Urbana MPO – Rita Black 33 Ms. Black stated that the Complete Streets (CS) Policy for CUUATS was modeled on the Campus Area 34 Transportation Study (CATS) Phase III CS policy and information from the National Complete Streets 35 Coalition. The draft CS policy was sent to all CUUATS members two weeks ago for comments. 36 37 Mr. White commented that the CUUATS CS Policy is meant to be a guideline not a regulation so the 38 CUUATS members have a joint vision for Complete Streets. It was also be useful to have a CS policy in 39 place when applying for grants. 40 41 Technical Committee: 42 Mr. Volk moved to approve the Complete Streets Policy for CUUATS. Mr. Kowalski seconded. 43 44 Mr. Nelson had two concerns about Attachment A of the policy. First, the sentence on page 8, second 45 paragraph states: “These exceptions may be reviewed by the CUUATS Technical Committee for 46 comment and the consideration of alternatives.” The word “consideration” is too ambiguous. Current 47 procedures for IDOT already include submitting any bike travel assessments during Phase I to CUUATS 48 for comments. Mr. Nelson thought that this sentence was not needed. Mr. Nelson asked what the 49 trigger would be to have a policy reviewed. Would the CUUATS Technical Committee review every new 50 project in the TIP? Mr. White suggested that if CUUATS or a member agency had a comment on a 51 project, it would be posted as an agenda item in the upcoming CUUATS Technical Committee meeting. 52 53 Secondly, under Existing Policies and Regulations, Mr. Nelson thought that the sentence: “To support 54 this Complete Streets Policy, design principles, existing policies and regulations of member jurisdictions

CUUATS Joint Policy & Technical Committees 3 September 5, 2012

1 may be reviewed and modified where appropriate” could be construed that the MPO will be allowed to 2 modify a member agency’s manuals and policies. Ms. Tyler suggested changing the sentence to read: 3 “. . . existing policies and regulations of member jurisdictions may be reviewed and modified by those 4 jurisdictions in consultation with CUUATS where appropriate”. 5 6 Ms. Tyler suggested that the Livability Section on page 3 should be listed first as the most important 7 rationale over Economy or Environment. Also, since the City of Urbana has a Complete Streets Policy 8 that was adopted by ordinance as an amendment to their Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Tyler would like to 9 see a reference to the ordinance number and date added to page 6 as a “Whereas, . . .” Mr. White 10 would like to add a similar reference to Champaign’s Complete Streets Policy. 11 12 Mr. Volk and Mr. Kowalski agreed to a friendly amendment. 13 14 Technical Committee: 15 Amended Motion: To approve the Complete Streets Policy for CUUATS with the following additions: 16 1) Under exception, if CUUATS or a member agency had a comment on a proposed project, it 17 would be posted as an agenda item at the next CUUATS Technical Committee meeting. 18 2) The sentence on Existing Policies and Regulations will be changed to read: “. . .existing 19 policies and regulations of member jurisdictions may be reviewed and modified by those 20 jurisdictions in consultation with CUUATS where appropriate.” 21 3) The Livability section will be placed before the Economy and Environment segments. 22 4) The cities of Urbana and Champaign will have their respective Complete Streets policies 23 referenced in the Policy. 24 Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 25 26 Policy Committee: 27 Mr. Uchtmann moved to approve CUUATS Complete Streets Policy as amended. Mr. Emberton 28 seconded. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 29 30 VII. Old Business 31 A. Committee and Working Groups 32 33 1. CATS III Technical Committee – Bill Gray 34 CATS last met on August 28th. CUUATS staff updated the Committee on the current status of 35 the University District Traffic Circulation Study. Member agencies will send proposed scenarios 36 of the University District to be modeled by staff. Signage to remind pedestrians on campus to 37 pay attention to their surroundings was discussed. 38 39 2. Olympian Drive – Bill Gray 40 Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) has a petition status hearing in August, and another is 41 scheduled on September 25th. The bridge design with the railroad is progressing. Most of the 42 environmental clearances have been received. The consultant has redesigned the Olympian 43 Drive/Lincoln Avenue intersection as a traditional intersection instead of a roundabout. This 44 draft intersection study has been forwarded to IDOT for review and comments. The Champaign 45 County Board approved the use of condemnation in right‐of‐way acquisition effective October 46 1st. A public meeting will occur after the ICC hearing. 47 48 3. miPLAN – Cynthia Hoyle 49 CUUATS is working on modeling a scenario to provide a baseline on the selected corridors. This 50 information will also be useful in the Small Starts grant application. 51 52 4. Champaign County Rural Transit Advisory Group (RTAG) – Rita Black 53 The Champaign County Board approved resolutions to continue transportation services in the 54 rural area. The proposal goes to IDOT for funding. 55

CUUATS Joint Policy & Technical Committees 4 September 5, 2012

1 5. Long Range Transportation Plan (LTRP) 2040: Sustainable Choices – Rita Black 2 At the first meeting last week, attendees examined the proposed logo, website, public 3 participation process and the urban/metropolitan boundaries. Tolono is now part of the 4 urbanized boundary based on the designation by the US Census Bureau. Ms. Black asked for 5 input from the member agencies to define the boundaries so work can begin on the LRTP 6 process. Feedback is also needed on the functional classifications based on the new 7 boundaries. 8 9 Mr. White asked how and when Tolono would be notified about their inclusion in the urbanized 10 area. Ms. Black stated that she has sent a letter and called Tolono’s mayor but has not yet 11 received a response. 12 13 Mr. Gray asked if the map of functional classifications could include all the current 14 classifications and then highlight the changes. Ms. Black will send Mr. Nelson the map format 15 used in the past. 16 17 B. Agency Reports 18 1. City of Champaign – Dave Clark 19 The Fourth Street Extension project from St. Mary’s Road to Windsor Road is 40% finished. 20 Other completed road projects include Towncenter Boulevard/Moreland Boulevard 21 intersection, Staley Road from Springfield Avenue to Windsor Road and North Fourth Street 22 Extension from Bradley Avenue north a few blocks. Most of the annual maintenance work on 23 concrete streets is done except on Newton Drive in the Research Park. An asphalt overlay 24 project will begin on 9/10/12 in an area north of Kirby Avenue between Duncan Road and 25 Centennial Park. Canadian National Railroad will be replacing their crossing at Country Fair 26 Drive in the next 4‐6 weeks. 27 28 2. City of Urbana – Bill Gray 29 The High Cross Road side path is complete except for restoration work. UC2B has some 30 parkway restoration to finish. The bids were high on the Boneyard Creek Improvement project 31 so Urbana is working with the contractor/consultant to restructure the plan to fit in the budget. 32 Pending Urbana City Council approval of the Boneyard plan, the project could tentatively start 33 in October‐November. Design work including bike lanes, resurfacing and sidewalk ramps is 34 ongoing for Main Street from Cedar Street to Vine Street and Grove Street to Dewey Street. 35 36 The preliminary design of Lincoln Avenue between Saline Court and Olympian Drive is 37 progressing with the receipt of environmental approvals. Reconstruction of Airport Road east 38 of US‐45 is stalled over right‐of‐way acquisitions with property owners. Philo Road 39 reconstruction south of Windsor Road has started and is slated to be done by November 1st. 40 Urbana has just received approval from IDOT to design High Cross Road between University 41 Avenue and Florida Avenue. The plan for resurfacing and adding bike lanes to Washington 42 Street from Philo Road to Dodson Drive will be submitted to IDOT later this week. 43 44 Urbana received IDOT approval for intersection improvements at Goodwin Avenue and Green 45 Street. A consultant is working on a design to replace the traffic signals at Florida Avenue/Philo 46 Road. In northwest Urbana, a consultant is designing a plan to replace the streetlighting. 47 Design work on the Safe Routes to Schools grant has just started. On US‐45 north of Airport 48 Road, construction of southbound and northbound turn lanes for the new Mervis Industries 49 recycling plant is underway. Work on Willow Road for Creative Thermal Solutions is complete. 50 The railroad crossing at University Avenue/Lincoln Avenue has been successfully upgraded. 51 Urbana will be micro‐surfacing several streets within the area bordered by Vine Street, 52 Washington Street, Main Street and Cottage Grove. 53 54 Mr. White asked Mr. Gray to give a brief recap of the fringe road agreement with the County in 55 reference to the Philo Road Improvement project. The County was unable to use motor fuel or

CUUATS Joint Policy & Technical Committees 5 September 5, 2012

1 property taxes to fund their 50% local share of the $700,000 Philo Road reconstruction south of 2 Windsor Road due to various restrictions. Instead, the County funded the Philo Road project 3 through an extraordinary portion allocated to the Lincoln Avenue improvement project. Once 4 the Philo Road project has been completed, Mr. Gray and Mr. Blue will present an amended 5 Intergovernmental Agreement to their respective Council/Board. Mr. White understood that 6 the County will work to find a way to honor existing fringe road agreements without defining 7 what those ways were. 8 9 3. Village of Savoy – Jim Miller & Bill Smith 10 Mr. Miller reported that Phase I of the multi‐use path in Prairie Fields Subdivision is complete. 11 Concrete street patching will occur on Burwash Avenue in early October. An asphalt overlay 12 project on Hartwell Drive, Hartwell Court and Graham Street will begin next week. 13 14 Mr. Smith commented that Dick Helton is recovering well. The Village of Savoy Zoning Board of 15 Appeals gave a variance to a new IMAX theater in Savoy. 16 17 4. C‐U Mass Transit District (MTD) – Bill Volk 18 MTD has received three new paratransit vans and hopes to obtain 10 new hybrid buses in the 19 first part of 2013. At that point, the MTD fleet will be 50% hybrid. Last weekend, two more 20 shelters were constructed at David Kinley Hall (DKH) on Gregory Drive and Allen Hall with plans 21 to add kiosks at those locations. The first week of University classes went smoothly with 22 ridership up 8% from last year – approximately 54,000 riders per day. 23 24 5. Champaign County – Jeff Blue 25 The road between Fisher and Foosland is being milled in preparation for an asphalt overlay. 26 The job should be done in mid‐October. A bridge east of Flatville should be open within the 27 next 2‐3 weeks. Another bridge reconstruction east of Pesotum on County Road 16 will start on 28 3/15/13. Two bridges in Rantoul and Crittenden Townships are under construction. The 29 County is working with IDOT to secure funding for safety improvements on the Dewey‐Fisher 30 Road from St. Thomas More High School to US‐136 in 2014. 31 32 6. University of Illinois – Morgan Johnston 33 St. Mary’s Road is now open. Springfield Avenue is closed for approximately 7 weeks between 34 Mathews Avenue and the Grainger Library crosswalk to extend chilled water under the street. 35 The University will install a rapid rectangular flashing beacon (RRFB) at the Grainger Crosswalk 36 to replace the existing system at that location. A pedestrian must push a button to activate the 37 RRFB if there is no break in traffic. 38 39 During October, two resurfacing projects are scheduled: 1) First Street from Peabody Drive to 40 Kirby Avenue and 2) Dorner Drive from Peabody Drive to half way to Gregory Drive. In an effort 41 to reduce energy consumption, the University plans to install adaptive lighting LEDs at Fourth 42 Street/Pennsylvania Avenue parking lot. If no motion is detected by occupancy sensors, the 43 lights will power down by 50%. 44 45 Next summer, several road reconstructions are scheduled: 46  Sixth Street from Armory Avenue to Gregory Drive 47  Stadium Drive by the railroad viaduct 48  Gregory Drive from Oak Street to First Street 49  Gregory Drive from Fourth Street to Sixth Street 50 51 Ms. Johnston will send the specifications for the LED lighting with adaptive control to Mr. Gray 52 and Mr. White. 53

CUUATS Joint Policy & Technical Committees 6 September 5, 2012

1 7. Champaign County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) – Cameron Moore 2 Mr. Moore expressed his appreciation of IDOT for their funding of an enhanced public 3 engagement process for CUUATS’s LRTP. 4 5 8. IDOT District 5 – Craig Emberton 6 Updates on construction projects in the area include: 7  Fiber optic interconnect at various locations in Champaign‐Urbana – 35% complete 8  Rubblization/overlay of the southbound lanes of I‐57 south of Olympian Drive to two 9 miles south of Thomasboro – 56% complete 10  Bridge deck repair on Kirby Avenue overpass on I‐57 – complete 11  Intersection improvement (signal modifications) US‐150 (Springfield Avenue) at 12 Prospect Avenue – 65% complete 13  SMART resurfacing on Market Street from north of I‐57 to Ford Harris Road – 14 complete 15  I‐74 median cable guard rail installation from High Cross Road east to County Highway 16 24 – 46% complete 17 18 Ms. Hoyle asked if replacement is on the schedule for the Kirby Avenue bridge as it is too 19 narrow to accommodate the pedestrians and bicyclists that use the overpass. Mr. Emberton 20 did not know of any schedule but mentioned that people should bring their comments to the 21 Multi‐year Project Public Outreach held September 26th at the County Highway Department. 22 23 9. IDOT Central Office – Tom Caldwell 24 Mr. Caldwell reported that IDOT has a new bureau chief for Urban Program Planning, Karen 25 Shoup. She will be visiting all the MPOs. 26 27 10. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Betsy Tracy 28 The new 2‐year transportation bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Map 21), 29 started on 10/1/12. US Department of Transportation is working on how to restructure 30 programs and funds. There will be a focus on performance measures. 31 32 C. Announcements 33 Libby Tyler 34 Urbana has a Phase I Climate Action Plan out for review. It can be found on the webpages of the 35 City of Urbana and the Sustainability Advisory Commission. 36 37 Morgan Johnston 38 Public Safety Day is 9/13/12 on campus. Ms. Johnston hopes this event will expand to a 39 community‐wide format next year. Also on 9/13 will be “Light the Night” bike light set giveaway at 40 two locations on campus from 4‐8 p.m. 41 42 Rita Black 43  Ms. Black introduced Jeremy Borrego who is a new addition to CUUATS staff as a planner. 44 He received his Master’s in Urban Planning in May from the University of Illinois. He will be 45 replacing Preeti Shankar who will be leaving in October. 46  A public meeting workshop will be held on 9/18/12 to go over the existing Human Service 47 Transportation Plan for the urbanized area. 48  Public meetings will be held in October or November for the University District Traffic 49 Circulation Study/Small Starts application and Champaign County Greenways & Trails. 50 51 Cynthia Hoyle 52 Walk N Roll to School Day will be held this Friday, September 7th for those schools on a balanced 53 calendar. The other schools will participate on International Walk N Roll to School Day, October 3rd. 54

CUUATS Joint Policy & Technical Committees 7 September 5, 2012

1 VIII. Audience Participation 2 Gary Cziko, Urbana 3 Mr. Cziko noted that in addition to “Light the Night” bicycle event, Champaign County Bikes and the 4 University are sponsoring another Cycling Savvy class, on September 14th at 6:30 p.m. in the ARC 5 auditorium. It is free and open to the public. 6 7 IX. Adjournment 8 There being no further business, Mr. White adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m. 9

CUUATS Joint Policy & Technical Committees 8 September 5, 2012

CUUATS CHAMPAIGN URBANA URBANIZED AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY 1776 East Washington Street Urbana, IL 61802

Phone 217.328.3313 Fax 217.328.2426

www.ccrpc.org

TO: CUUATS Policy Committee Members FROM: CUUATS Staff DATE: 12 December 2012 RE: FY 2013-2016 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment REQUESTED ACTION: Approve TIP Amendment STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve TIP Amendment

BACKGROUND: The Champaign County Forest Preserve District (CCFPD) has submitted an amendment to Table 26: Champaign County Forest Preserve Projects FY 13-16. The following describes the proposed amendment to the table:

FPD-13-03 This project allocates $1,212,313.58 for the Right of Way (ROW) acquisition and conversion of an abandoned rail corridor to a Rails-to-Trails project in Champaign and Vermilion Counties. This project is a Recreational Trails Program (RTP), Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Fund (TCSP), IDNR state bond funds, and IDOT funds grantee. This project is listed in FY 13.

This amendment was approved by the CUUATS Technical Committee on December 5, 2012. The amendment was coalesced into one amendment from four separate amendments for a single project as per FHWA and IDOT comments.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the TIP Amendment.

CUUATS CHAMPAIGN URBANA URBANIZED AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY 1776 East Washington Street Urbana, IL 61802

Phone 217.328.3313 Fax 217.328.2426

www.ccrpc.org

TO: CUUATS Policy Committee Members FROM: CUUATS Staff DATE: 12 December 2012 RE: Champaign-Urbana MPO Urban Area (UA) and Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) Boundaries

BACKGROUND: CUUATS staff has commenced the planning process for the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) 2040: Sustainable Choices. The LRTP Working Group, composed of representatives from the MPO’s member agencies and other stakeholders, discussed and established a new 2010 Urban Area Boundary and Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary for the Champaign-Urbana MPO based on the U.S. Census Bureau 2010 designated urbanized area boundary for the Champaign-Urbana MPO. Maps of each boundary are included for consideration by the CUUATS Policy Committee.

The Urban Area (UA) boundary typically represents an adjustment or revision to the Census Urbanized Area Boundary. The UA boundary is established to help determine the allocation of apportioned funds by the State in consultation with the regional transportation planning organization housed within the MPO. It requires including the 2010 urbanized area as established by the U.S. Census Bureau. Changes to the UA boundary from the previous 2000 UA boundary are the inclusion of Tolono and a small portion of southwestern Champaign as part of the urbanized area. The boundary was altered to include an area half a mile north of the proposed Olympian Drive extension due to potential growth in this area.

The Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) boundary is a geographic area determined by agreement between the MPO and the State for the development of the long-range transportation plan (LRTP) and the transportation improvement program (TIP), which includes capital and non-capital surface transportation projects, for the metropolitan area. At a minimum, the MPA shall encompass the entire existing urbanized area (as defined by the Bureau of the Census) plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the metropolitan transportation plan. Changes to the 2000 MPA include an extension of the southwestern boundary to Barker Road and County Road 1000N to incorporate planned growth areas. The boundary also includes Tolono because it is part of the urbanized area and Mahomet because of the strong transportation and economic ties to the Champaign-Urbana area.

The Urban Area and Metropolitan Planning Area boundaries were approved by the CUUATS Technical Committee on December 5, 2012. The Urban Area boundary was adjusted to include the southwestern portion of the Champaign municipal boundary, as per the CUUATS Technical Committee.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed 2010 Urban Area (UA) and Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) boundaries.

CUUATS CHAMPAIGN URBANA URBANIZED AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY 1776 East Washington Street Urbana, IL 61802

Phone 217.328.3313 Fax 217.328.2426

www.ccrpc.org

TO: CUUATS Policy Committee Members FROM: HSTP Coordinator, Eileen Sierra-Brown DATE: 12 December 2012 RE: Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Human Service Transportation Plan (HSTP) REQUESTED ACTION: Adopt Updated 2012 C-U Urbanized Area HSTP

BACKGROUND: In 2007, the C-U HSTP development brought together service providers, riders, and the community at-large to address barriers to - and improve efficiency and equity of – Champaign-Urbana urbanized area transportation services. CUUATS Policy and Technical Committees adopted this plan on January 23rd, 2008. Since then, IDOT-Department of Public and Intermodal Transportation (DPIT) has used this document to prioritize federal grant applications under Section 5316, Section 5317, and Section 5310 (Consolidated Vehicle Procurement - i.e. rolling stock used in many human service transportation programs).

In March 2012, the U.S. Census did a full release of 2010 data, which prompted the update of the Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Human Service Transportation Plan (HSTP). On July 6th, 2012 a two-year public transportation bill was authorized, entitled Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). While MAP-21 re-affirmed HSTP coordination mandate, it also folded New Freedom into Section 5310 (CVP) and JARC program into both Sections 5311 & 5309 (rural and urban general public transit). As a result, the coordination mandate now applies to urban area fixed routes and ADA Paratransit services. CUUATS staff, therefore, updated the previously adopted C-U 2007 HSTP, which now includes the urban areas of Champaign, Urbana, Savoy, Tolono, and Bondville, and reconvened meetings with the human service and transportation stakeholders in the urbanized area.

On September 18th, a working group of stakeholders met to review updated sections and re-formulate the HSTP goals, objectives, and strategies. Based on input provided during the working group meeting, the HSTP Draft Plan was updated and posted online on October 1st for a 30 day public comment period. The Urbanized Area HSTP Working Group met again on November 13th, 2012 to review the final document; refine any of the strategies outlined under the newly formulated objectives; and to approve the Updated 2012 C-U Urbanized Area HSTP and submitted to CUUATS Technical and Policy Committees for review and final adoption. To review the draft plan click on this PDF link: Champaign-Urbana Urban Area HSTP (Update)

The CUUATS Technical Committee approved the C-U Urbanized Area 2012 HSTP on Wednesday, December 5th, 2012.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Updated 2012 C-U Urbanized Area HSTP

22001122 CChhaammppaaiiggnn--UUrrbbaannaa UUrrbbaanniizzeedd AArreeaa HHuummaann SSeerrvviicceess TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn PPllaann ((HHSSTTPP))

November 2012

Prepared by staff of: Champaign Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS) A Program of the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 2 of 33

Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 A. History ...... 4 B. Plan Development ...... 5 C. Components ...... 5 D. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP 21) Implications ...... 5 E. Champaign-Urbana Urban Area HSTP Update ...... 6 II. STUDY AREAS DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 6 A. Transit-Dependent Population Characteristics ...... 8 1. Age...... 9 2. Populations with Disabilities ...... 10 3. Populations with Low Income(s) ...... 12 4. Zero-Vehicle Households ...... 15 5. Minority Communities ...... 16 V. MOBILITY TODAY ...... 18 A. Travel Characteristics* ...... 18 B. Transportation Services ...... 18 1. Public Transportation ...... 18 2. Human Services Transportation ...... 18 3. Student Transportation ...... 18 C. Transportation Coordination ...... 21 D. Major Trip Generators ...... 22 E. Top Employers ...... 24 VI. OUTREACH EFFORTS ...... 25 A. Stakeholders ...... 25 B. Surveys ...... 25 C. Meetings ...... 25 VII. NEEDS, GAPS, BARRIERS, & DUPLICATION ...... 26 A. Client Related Needs ...... 27 1. Accessibility ...... 27 2. Affordability ...... 28 3. Availability ...... 28 4. Reliability ...... 28 5. Restrictions ...... 28 B. Operational Needs ...... 29 1. Funding ...... 29 2. Insurance ...... 29 3. Payment ...... 29 4. Staff ...... 29 5. Vehicles ...... 29 C. Vehicle Duplication and Redundancy ...... 30 D. Recommendations for Solving Client & Operational Related Needs ...... 31 1. Client Related Needs ...... 31 2. Operational Related Needs ...... 32 VIII. MOBILITY TOMORROW ...... 33 A. Goals ...... 33 B. Objectives, Strategies, & Measurements of Effectiveness ...... 33 C. Potential Sources of Funding ...... 33

C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 3 of 33

APPENDICES

A. Short & Long Term Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Charts B. Urban Areas Program of Projects (POP) C. Past Outreach, Survey, & Plan Development

**All maps contained within this document utilized the Champaign County’s GIS Consortium. C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 4 of 33

I. INTRODUCTION

A. History

SAFETEA-LU (the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users) mandated by 2007 and beyond all grantees of: the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310); Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) (Section 5316); and New Freedom Initiative (Section 5317) be part of a “locally developed coordinated public transit- human service transportation plan.” This planning process involved the local as well as representatives of public, private, non-profit, and human service agency transportation. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) passes through grant programs subject to this mandate to individual Departments of Transportation (DOTs) to select and determine how to meet coordination requirements. Therefore, to meet the mandate, the Illinois Department of Transportation – Division of Public and Intermodal Transportation (IDOT-DPIT) established regional Coordinators to locally develop Human Service Transportation Plans (HSTPs) and to facilitate coordination activities. The Champaign County Regional Planning Commission’s (CCRPC) staff for the Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS) was identified to house the HSTP Coordinator for both the Champaign-Urbana Urban Area (C-U HSTP) and East Central Illinois HSTP Region 8 (twelve surrounding rural counties).

In 2007, the C-U HSTP development brought together service providers, transportation funders, riders, and the community at-large to address barriers to - and improve efficiency and equity of - urban area transportation services. CUUATS Policy and Technical Committees adopted the C-U HSTP on January 23rd, 2008. IDOT-DPIT continued to use the C-U HSTP and the Region 8 HSTP as a framework for prioritizing local grant applications under FTA’s Section 5316, Section 5317, and Section 5310 (described further below).

Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) - commonly referred to as Consolidated Vehicle Procurement (CVP), funds is used to purchase small buses and vans for local programs throughout the state. The goals of the program are to maintain a safe fleet of vehicles to service transportation needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities and to support the continuation of existing services as well as the growth of existing or new services. CVP Program - Through the CVP Program, IDOT-DPIT makes grant applications for eligible municipalities, mass transit districts, counties, and private, non-profit organizations for ramp and lift equipped Paratransit vehicles. CVP application was developed to allow agencies to submit a single application for vehicles and/or vehicle funding available under the different grant programs.

Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) (Section 5316) – were available for capital, planning, and operating expenses that support the development and maintenance of transportation services designed to transport low-income individuals to and from jobs and activities related to their employment and to support reverse commute projects. C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 5 of 33

New Freedom Program (Section 5317) - were available for capital and operating expenses that support new transportation services and/or alternatives beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), including transportation to and from jobs and employment support services. "New" is defined as any service not operational or having an identified funding source as of August 10, 2005.

B. Plan Development

The Champaign-Urbana HSTP is designed to outline: . A comprehensive review of existing public transportation and human services coordination; . A context for continuing and broadening communication between human service agencies and transportation providers; . A platform to enhance transportation access for older adults, people with disabilities, and those with low-incomes through identification of unmet needs and strategies to address them; . A tool for human service agencies and transportation providers to identify coordination opportunities; and . An educational tool for human service agencies and transportation providers to identify coordination opportunities.

C. Components

The Champaign-Urbana HSTP has three major components: . Background on special needs transportation coordination in the urbanized area and a demographic profile of each community inside the urbanized area. . A view of mobility today, analyzing transportation resources, regional origins and destinations, existing transportation services, needs, gaps, and what is currently happening to coordinate services. . A vision of mobility in the future, examining anticipated demand for service, and laying out strategic goals and objectives for the next five years.

D. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP 21) Implications

On July 6th, 2012, a two-year public transportation bill was authorized, entitled Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), for federal Fiscal Years 2013-2014. In March 2012, the U.S. Census did a full release of 2010 data. Therefore, the Urban Areas HSTP was scheduled to be updated as part of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) document. Additionally, IDOT-DPIT requested coordination progress to be including in the plans’ updates. While MAP- 21’s authorization re-affirmed the statute mandating local coordination of transportation services, it also consolidated many funding programs by folding New Freedom into Section 5310 and the JARC program into both Sections 5311 (Rural Transit) and 5309 (Urban Transit). As a result, the coordination mandate expanded to cover both Sections 5311 and 5309. C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 6 of 33

E. 2012 Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area HSTP

This iteration of the Champaign-Urbana Urban Area HSTP fulfills IDOT-DPIT’s request for a coordination progress update, as well as completes the necessary five year update using new, available U.S. Census and American Community Survey (ACS) data. Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) are proposed within this document to evaluate progress toward goals and objectives within the plan. Data for MOEs will be collected annually from January through March.

II. STUDY AREA DEMOGRAPHICS

The study area for this plan is the Champaign-Urbana Urban Area, which includes the Cities of Champaign and Urbana, and the Villages of Savoy, Tolono and Bondville in Champaign County, Illinois. Map 1 illustrates the Human Services Transportation Plan study area.

Map 1: Human Services Transportation Plan Study Area C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 7 of 33 A key step in developing and evaluating transit plans is a careful analysis of the mobility needs of various segments of the population and the potential ridership of transit services. As part of the plan development process, an effort was undertaken to identify any concentrations of the targeted population groups, including:  Elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities  Persons and families with low-income(s)  Individuals with disabilities

Transit demand analysis is a basic demand projection for transportation needs in a given area. Several factors affect demand, not all of which can be forecasted. However, as demand estimation is an important task in developing any transportation plan, several methods have been developed. The analysis makes intensive use of several demographic data and trends, as seen below. The most detailed and reliable population data comes from the 2010 Census and is available at the block group level. This data is discussed in detail below with a focus on the general distribution of transit- dependent populations including youth, elderly, persons with mobility limitations, below-poverty persons, and persons in households with zero vehicles available.

The Champaign-Urbana-Savoy-Tolono-Bondville area has a 2010 population of 133,475 consisting of 53,994 households comprising over 39.4 square miles of Champaign County in east central Illinois. Map 2 shows the locations of the different municipalities within the urbanized area. * Once new ACS or U.S. Census data is available, the maps below will be updated accordingly.

Map 2: Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Updated 11/13/12 C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 8 of 33

A. Transit-Dependent Population Characteristics This section provides information on individuals transportation research describes as more commonly relaying on public transit due to mobility limitations. Four types of limitations that preclude people from driving are: (1) Physical – anything from permanent disabilities due to age, blindness, paralysis, or developmental disabilities, to temporary disabilities such as acute illnesses and head injuries; (2) Financial – People who unable to purchase or rent their own vehicle; (3) Legal – persons who are either too young (generally under age 16) or have lost or have not obtained a license; and (4) Self-imposed – people who choose not to own or drive a vehicle, some or all of the time, for reasons other than those listed in the first three categories (relatively small proportion of transit ridership). The Census is generally capable of providing information about the first three categories of limitation. Table 1 shows the total counts of youth, elders, people with disabilities, and individuals below poverty. It also shows the regional census statistics for zero vehicle households. Because these categories overlap, they cannot be totaled to capture a count of the urban area’s entire special needs population as this would yield too high a number. Table 1: Basic Socio-Economic Data for Urban Area and Municipalities Youth Age Disabled Pop. Below Poverty Zero Vehicle One Vehicle Elderly >65 Total Total Municipalities 0-17 Age > 5 Population Households Households Pop. Households # % # % # % # % # % # % City of Champaign 14,035 17.3% 6,154 7.6% 5,412 6.7% 18,382 22.7% 81,055 3,900 12.7% 12,818 41.7% 32,207 City of Urbana 5,218 12.6% 3,594 8.7% 3,125 7.6% 9,898 24.0% 41,250 2,653 16.9% 7,630 48.7% 16,961 Village of Savoy 1,473 20.2% 1,074 14.8% 480* 6.7%* 644 8.8% 7,280 214 7.6% 1,167 41.6% 3,257 Village of Tolono 964 28.0% 335 9.7% 251* 7.3%* 258 7.2% 3,447 19 1.3% 530 36.9% 1,328 Village of Bondville 89 20.1% 64 14.4% 39* 9.4%* 104 23.5% 443 9 3.9% 90 38.8% 191 Area Total 21,779 16.3% 11,221 8.4% 9,328 7.1% 29,286 25.7% 133,475 6,795 13.4% 22,235 43.7% 53,944 Source: Census 2010, ACS 2005-2009 Note: Some people are in multiple population groups; e.g., a senior with a disability. *These numbers are estimates as data was not available C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 9 of 33 1. Age

The total population of youth aged one to seventeen years in the City of Champaign was 14,035 persons in 2010, representing 17.3% of the total population. The City of Urbana reported 5,218 youth, or 12.6% of the population. The Villages of Savoy, Tolono and Bondville reported 20.2%, 28.0% and 20.1% of youth aged one to seventeen years, respectively.

Elderly persons (age 65+) represent 7.6% (6,154) of the total population in the City of Champaign. The City of Urbana reported 8.7% (3,594) of the population age 65 and over. The Villages of Savoy, Tolono and Bondville reported 14.8%, 9.7% and 14.4% of the population 65 years old and over. Map 3 graphically illustrates the distribution of elderly persons by block group across all municipalities. Not surprisingly, the block groups within the urbanized area have the highest number of elderly persons.

Map 3: Seniors by Block Group C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 10 of 33 2. Populations with Disabilities

The population with disabilities over 5 years old, as a whole, represents over 7.1% of the urbanized area. Map 4 shows the spatial distribution of the disabled population in the study area. The census block group with the highest density is located in Champaign, with the area roughly bounded by Market Street, Bradley Avenue, Prospect Avenue and I-74 having 21.3% of persons with a disability. These figures are presented previously in Table 1. Figure 1 graphically illustrates the distribution of persons with disabilities across all municipalities.

This data was obtained by applying the same proportion of disabled person’s distribution between the block groups as the 2000 Census. Total disability for the urbanized area was obtained from the 2010 Census and distributed in the above mentioned proportion. Once 2010 ACS data for disability at block group level is released, the map will be updated.

Map 4: Disabled Population by Block Group

C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 11 of 33

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, in the CUSBT area, there are over 10,592 people over 5 years old with at least one disability. This represents over 8.2% of the urbanized area population. Thirty six percent (36%) of the area’s senior (over 65 years) population has at least one disability. A much higher proportion of the senior population has a disability than the proportion of the youth and total populations with disabilities, for both the total area and each geographic area as can be seen in the graph below.

Figure 1: People with Disabilities by Municipality

Figure 2: Disability by Age Group C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 12 of 33

3. Populations with Low Income(s)

Low-income persons tend to depend on transit to a greater extent than persons with a high level of disposable income. According to the 2010 American Community Survey, the average poverty threshold for a family of four persons was $22,314 in 2010.

The 2010 per capita income for the urbanized area was $22,786 according to the Census. This figure is lower than the per capita income for Champaign County ($24,553), and is even lower than the state and national figures, which are $28,782 and $27,334 respectively (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Per Capita Income

As can be seen in Figure 4, according to Census 2010, over 26% of the population in the area is considered to be living below the poverty level. This contrasts with 20% for the county, 12% for the state, and 14% for the nation.

Disaggregating the low income population by geographical area as shown in Figure 5, it can be seen that 30% of Urbana’s population is low-income residents, followed by 26% of Champaign, 19% of Bondville, 10% of Savoy, and 7% of Tolono.

C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 13 of 33

Figure 4: Percentage of Population below Poverty Line

Figure 5: Percentage of Population Below Poverty Line by Municipality

In 2010, the census block group with the highest percentage of persons below poverty was located in the Campustown area of Champaign, with 88.2% of the population below poverty level. However, this is most likely a result of the high number of students living in that area. Outside of Campustown the area the south side of the Garden Hills neighborhood and the Northwood neighborhood addition are areas with the C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 14 of 33 highest concentration of persons with low income. Map 5 presents the geographical distribution of below- poverty persons within the study area.

This data was obtained by applying the same proportion of low income population distribution between the block groups as the 2000 Census. The total number of people living below poverty for the urbanized area was obtained from the 2010 Census and distributed in the above mentioned proportion. Once 2010 ACS data for poverty at block group level is released, the map will be updated.

Map 5: Low Income(s) Population by Block Group C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 15 of 33 4. Zero-Vehicle Households

The final census information related to the “transit-dependent” population is the distribution of households without their own vehicle. That distribution is shown for the study area in Map 6. The census indicates that 3,900 of the City of Champaign’s 30,712 households did not have a vehicle in 2010, representing about 13% of the total. The City of Urbana reported that 17% (2,653) of their 15,666 households are without vehicles. The highest number of zero-vehicle households was located on the University of Illinois campus in Urbana, bounded by Wright Street, Green Street, Springfield Avenue, and Busey Avenue. The distribution of zero-vehicle households is similar to that for low- income households.

The data for this map was obtained by applying the same proportion of zero vehicle household distribution between the block groups as the 2000 Census. Total zero vehicle households for the urbanized area was obtained from the 2010 Census and distributed in the above mentioned proportion; however, once 2010 ACS block group level data is released, the map will be updated.

Map 6: Zero Vehicle Households by Block Group C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 16 of 33 5. Minority Communities

A. Hispanics The total population of Hispanics in the City of Champaign was 5,111 persons in 2010, representing 6.3% of the total population. The City of Urbana reported 3,165 Hispanics, or 7.7% of the population. The Villages of Savoy, Tolono and Bondville reported 2.7%, 1.3% and 1.4% are Hispanics, respectively. Map 7 graphically illustrates the distribution of Hispanics by block group across all municipalities.

The largest densities of Hispanics are in the block group at the junction of Market Street and I-74 in the City of Champaign and Cunningham Avenue and I-74 in the City of Urbana.

Map 7: Distribution of Hispanics by Block Group

C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 17 of 33

B. African Americans According to the 2010 Census, a large percentage of African Americans reside in the southeast part of Urbana. The highest percentage of African Americans in the Urban Area resides in Champaign along Bradley Avenue, between Mattis Avenue and McKinley Avenue.

The City of Champaign reported 15.4% (12,474) of its population were African Americans in 2010, and the total population of African Americans in the City of Urbana was 6,651, representing 16.1% of the total population. The Villages of Savoy, Tolono and Bondville reported 6.6%, 0.8% and 0.2% of its populations being African American, respectively. Map 8 graphically demonstrates the distribution of African Americans by block group across all municipalities.

Map 8: Distribution of African Americans by Block Group C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 18 of 33 V. MOBILITY TODAY *New ACS or U.S. Census data was unavailable at the time of the plan update, when this data is released. Once data is available, these maps and sections will be updated accordingly. A. Travel Characteristics* The majority of urbanized area residents have access to at least one vehicle per household. As can be seen in Table 2, the number of vehicles available per household for people over 65 years is significant, whereas those residents who are classified as “low income” have the least access to a vehicle. Twenty five percent (25%) of the total number of persons in poverty in the urbanized area has no vehicle available. There are 1,240 households in the urbanized area headed by seniors who have no vehicle available for use. *Table 2: Vehicle Availability Per Household in Urban Areas Vehicles per Youth Youth Seniors Low-Income (Persons in Total Household (5-17 years) (18-64 years) (65 years and over) Poverty) No vehicle 6,776 175 4,280 1,240 2,490 available 1 or more vehicles 42,641 195 37,440 6,375 7,515 available Source: CTPP 2003

B. Transportation Services Below you will find a general description of types of transportation services (1-4) there are within the Champaign-Urbana HSTP Urbanized Area. Please refer to table 3 below for a list of existing transportation areas, and refer to the transportation directory for a more comprehensive listing of services provided by each transportation provider, online: www.ecihstp.org/ 1. Public Transportation – Agencies whose primary mission is the provision of transportation and use federal and/or state resources: . Urban Transit –  Fixed Route, Express and Direct Service;  Special Services; and  Half Fare Cab Program. . Rural Transit – Demand Response or another type of flexible transit service. 2. Human Services Transportation – Agencies whose mission is the provision of transportation: . Medical Vans; . Specialized Transit; . Senior Transportation; and . Other Specialized Transportation Providers. 3. Student Transportation – Agencies who provide transportation services to students: . School Districts; and . Public Transportation. 4. Private Transportation – Companies providing private transportation services: . Inter-City and Shuttle Service; and . Taxis. C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 19 of 33

Table 3: Champaign-Urbana Transportation Providers Type Services Organization Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (CUMTD) Urban Transit

Public CRIS Rural Mass Transit District (CRIS) Rural Transit

Carle Arrow Medi-van Medi-vans PRO Medi-van

Provena Covenant Medical Center / Faith in Action Champaign-Urbana Rehabilitation Center Specialized Carle Hospital American Cancer Society Human Services Developmental Services Center (DSC) Persons with Disabilities Disability Resources & Educational Services Pace, Inc. Circle of Friends Adult Day Center Senior Champaign County Nursing Home

Other American Legion Post 88

First Student School Districts Head Start Student Public Transportation CUMTD

Inter-City Amtrak

Shuttle Service Rantoul UC Express – A Precious Cargo Carrier Private Taxis Numerous Taxies (See Directory)

Other American Airlines

Regular transit service within the urbanized area is covered by the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (CUMTD). Total ridership in 2011 was 10,819,308. This fixed-route transit service is generally regularly scheduled bus service. The service is available to the general public with the payment of the appropriate fare. The fixed route refers to the fact that the service is consistently provided on a daily or weekly basis and at set hours along the same route. Map 9 illustrates the existing fixed-route transit lines and service that are provided by the CUMTD in the Champaign-Urbana urban area. CUMTD also provides Paratransit ADA service within ¾ mile of the existing fixed route transit service boundary.

C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 20 of 33

Map 9: C-U MTD Fixed Route Service While the backbone of the public transportation system is the fixed-route public transit system, it is not always available or may not meet all the special transportation needs. Consequently, the community transportation providers fill in the gaps, including; taxi and ambulance companies, non-profit agencies, volunteer programs, human service agencies, etc. These agencies, in coordination with CUMTD, make up the special needs transportation landscape for the region. The greatest proportion of these trips is for medical services and daily needs.

The network of human service and transportation providers along with the public transit agency within the urbanized area are generally associated by formal contractual and funding relationships. In addition, there are many agencies that are more loosely connected by the sharing of program goals and work together for the common good of their respective patrons. The inventory to follow is an attempt to list all of the public transit and human services transportation providers. The list identifies the agency, a brief description of the transportation service, information about who is eligible, and the area served. C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 21 of 33

C. Transportation Coordination

Coordination takes time, effort, and flexibility. Having public transit providers and human services agencies that understand the value of working together and are invested in making improvements is critical. In the case of the Champaign-Urbana urban area, transportation coordination is currently being done mostly at the county level considering that the majority of the trips for services in the urban area are provided by CUMTD. Several of the agencies located in Champaign-Urbana work closely to maximize the number of trips provided. For instance, the Community Services Division of the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission and the Family Service Senior Resource Center (FSSRC) in Rantoul coordinate most of the trips for older adults in the urban area. Also, the Council of Congregations of Champaign-Urbana works closely with the hospitals, the Family Service Senior Resource Center, Faith in Action and the American Cancer Society coordinating medical trips.

C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 22 of 33

D. Major Trip Generators

Most trips performed by transportation providers are for medical purposes, followed by shopping. Many of these locations are in the Champaign-Urbana area, but clients are picked up out-of-urban areas for many of the transit providers.

Map 10: Trip Generators C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 23 of 33

Map 11: Trip Generators C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 24 of 33

E. Top Employers

Approximately 90% of the County’s top 25 employers are in the Urban Area. Twenty three companies/institutions employ more than 31,200 employees. The University of Illinois is the biggest employer (employing 11,676 people), followed by Carle Foundation Hospital (5,668 employees). Other top employers include Champaign Unit #4 School District (1,351), Kraft Foods, Inc. (1,300) and Parkland College (1,200).

Map 12: Top Employers C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 25 of 33

VI. OUTREACH EFFORTS

A. Stakeholders

A list of potential stakeholders was developed based on information provided by the Community Services Division at the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission. The mailing list included all agencies within the Champaign County area of Illinois who currently provide any type of transportation service or who may have clients needing transportation services. Also included were agencies listed in the local phone directory including child care centers, mental health facilities, hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living facilities as well as home health agencies. A list of the agencies including the name, address and contact person is shown in Appendix 1.

B. Surveys

On April 10, 2007, a survey was sent to all stakeholders listed in Appendix C and were asked to complete and return the survey to the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission by April 30, 2007. A total of 55 surveys were sent to multiple agencies within Champaign County. A list of agencies that returned a survey is included in Appendix 3.

C. Meetings

A public meeting with agencies that provide transportation from/to the Champaign-Urbana urbanized area was held in December 19th, 2007. At this meeting, CCRPC staff provided an assessment of the existing human transportation services in the urban area based on the data provided in the surveys. A draft of the HSTP was discussed with all the stakeholders and the different agencies had the opportunity to explain the services that they provide, their needs, and what their interest is in transportation services. Finally, possible recommendations were discussed for improving the provision of transportation to/from the urbanized area.

A workshop to update the C-U HSTP’s goals, strategies, and objectives as well as adding MOEs was held on September 18th, 2012 at the Brookens Administrative Building. To see a list of those of who attended and discussions held, visit our website (http://www.ecihstp.org/) and click on the link “Workshop Notes & Summary of Discussions.” C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 26 of 33

VII. NEEDS, GAPS, BARRIERS, & DUPLICATION

Service gaps and unmet needs persist despite on-going efforts to improve the quality of community transportation services by transportation and human service providers. This section identifies specific needs and challenges addressed by survey respondents.

All the agencies surveyed identified transportation needs within the Champaign-Urbana urban area. The general areas of destination needs fall in these categories:

. Medical Facilities/Appointments/Pharmacies . Grocery Store/Shopping . Social/Recreation

People living outside of transit service areas typically have more transportation difficulties due to their limited options. The transportation needs of people living inside transit service areas typically are service-related (e.g., same day reservations and eligibility restrictions). In addition to this data and references to national research, the following transportation gaps and needs were also identified based on professional and personal experience. These needs were classified into two categories based on the way that the service is provided: Client Related Needs and Operational Needs.

Client Related Needs Operational Needs  Accessibility  Funding  Availability  Insurance  Frequency &  Payment Reliability  Staff  Restrictions  Vehicles  Affordability

C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 27 of 33

A. Client Related Needs

1. Accessibility

Lack of centralized information - There is no single source for individuals seeking to find transportation options, eligibility requirements, fares, and service hours. PACE Inc. suggests that an overall lack of transportation services advertising exists and should be addressed.

Ease of Use - Once a person figures out how to use “the system,” whichever transportation system works for them, transportation becomes less challenging. However, learning how to use the system can be difficult for several reasons. . The transit systems and the transportation providers have different fare schedules, which can be confusing and difficult for riders. . Riders eligible for multiple transportation programs must make multiple trip arrangements depending on their transportation need, not with a single provider. . Riders may need help getting on and off the vehicle, but there is often no one available to help them. . Paratransit systems generally do not provide same day service, which means riders must always plan trips in advance and cannot be spontaneous about travel. In Champaign- Urbana, five agencies provide same day service.

Un-served or Underserved Areas - People often live in the more rural areas or the edges of cities due to lower cost housing options. To provide cost efficient service, CUMTD typically provides more frequent service in more densely populated areas. Consequently, many people outside these areas are without transit service. Even within transit service areas, however, the service levels in some areas may not meet people’s travel needs. For example, the ADA Paratransit services boundary typically extends only ¾ of a mile beyond the fixed-route transit system, so those people who live inside but at the edge of the urban area may still be outside of the transit service area.

There are not enough affordable accessible or lift-equipped vehicles for those people who are disabled but ineligible for Medicaid or ADA Paratransit services. Some of these people could ride the fixed-route bus, but are unable to access it for a variety of reasons such as: difficulty accessing the bus stop, bus stops that are too far from the accessible path of travel, residue on the boarding surface, cracked pavement, uneven joints, and pebbles or other rough surfaces that make boarding difficult. On the other hand, there are people who are eligible for ADA Paratransit services but need a higher level of service than the transit agency provides (e.g., door to door). Human service agencies typically provide a higher level of service, but are often designated for a specific target population (e.g. seniors) or specific destination type (medical trips). Health Alliance and PACE note that rural clients often have difficulty accessing services traditionally offered in urbanized areas.

C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 28 of 33

2. Affordability

Cost limitations - Cost of service is an issue for some customers, especially those who need to use these services regularly. Nearly 33% of agencies surveyed charge a fare for service, and 27% accept donations in return for providing transportation service to clients. For Health Alliance, affordability along with availability are the two enhancements most needed to improve provision of human service transportation in the urbanized area.

3. Availability

Scheduling limitations - Demand for transportation services exceeds the supply and capacity of local providers, making it difficult for users to schedule trips. Also, same-day service requests typically cannot be accommodated.

Temporal limitations - Transportation needs typically are spread throughout the day, but timeframes with the most transportation difficulty (although less traveled) are evening hours and weekends. People living outside of the CUMTD transit service area typically had more transportation difficulties due to their limited mobility options. Service hours on most transportation services are limited to weekdays during normal business hours in most cases, with the exception of CUMTD, which serves passengers on many routes from 6:00 am to 5:00 am.

4. Reliability

The frequency of transportation difficulty varied depending on the target population and destination type. Low-income people who are employed need transportation more frequently than people who have other types of transportation needs.

Also, the service provided needs to be reliable to assure customers they will be picked up and dropped off on time. Provena Covenant Medical Center expressed that what is most needed is a dependable, reliable small bus or van service for disabled and elderly people.

5. Restrictions

Program eligibility and trip purpose restrictions - Many of the existing services are available to subsets of the three target populations (seniors, people with disabilities and low income individuals). Fifty percent of the agencies responding had programs restricted only to clients. Other transportation programs are limited to taking people to/from medical appointments, or only to specific activities.

C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 29 of 33

B. Operational Needs

1. Funding

Limited funding - The amount of funding available for transportation is limited and more is needed to provide additional services. Lack of funding is the most recurring concern for agencies responding to the survey. Particularly, Champaign County Community Services expressed that all providers are struggling for funding to cover their services.

2. Insurance

Restrictions on service - Several agencies are willing to coordinate services, but doing so requires a change in insurance and/or an increase in insurance costs. It is believed that providing additional services will require more expensive rates and licenses. Some respondents replied that liability was a concern for coordinating transportation services. For instance, PACE Inc. expressed that they have encountered problems with adequate and appropriate vehicles for people with disabilities when they have needed them. In most of the cases, agencies are concerned with insurance issues.

3. Payment

Slow payment - Champaign County Nursing Home notes that VA and Title XX are generally several months delayed in paying for their client services. This could put a strain on agencies as they attempt to carry the deficit during payment processing.

4. Staff

Lack of drivers - Many agencies, such as Provena Covenant Medical Center, express difficulty in recruiting enough volunteers to maintain their services. Additionally, coordination between agencies could be more difficult when dealing with volunteers.

Driver training - Not all drivers are aware of laws regarding transporting special populations. Drivers must know the laws as well as the different levels of service and be trained to provide these courses. PACE Inc. stresses importance of having transportation volunteers take disability awareness and anti- discrimination training.

5. Vehicles

Lack of reliable vehicles - Agencies expressed frustration over the maintenance needs of vehicles. Another agency expressed concerns about lack of ambulance services and lack of appropriate vehicles for people with disabilities.

C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 30 of 33

C. Vehicle Duplication and Redundancy

Various sources of funding restrict transportation service to specific populations for specific purposes. This results in service duplication and redundancy in multiple areas, including: . Vehicles from different agencies may be traveling in the same corridor at the same time, but offer different services and thus do not pick up additional riders. . Schools, the public transit system, and the Medicaid agencies operate their own training programs for drivers. . Schools, the public transit system, and other transportation providers have their own in- house maintenance programs for vehicles. . Schools, the public transit system, and community providers purchase vehicles and equipment independently. . Each transportation system has different eligibility requirements. A person who may qualify for more than one type of service may need to apply for several different programs with each having different requirements and processes. For example, some applications accept self-reported disabilities while others require a doctor’s verification, and others require an evaluation.

C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 31 of 33

D. Recommendations for Solving Client & Operational Related Needs

Emerging issues often lead to new programs and reorganization of the transportation business for older adults, people with disabilities and people with limited incomes in the Champaign-Urbana Urban Areas. The chart below describes rider needs and recommendations per pressing issue.

1. Client Related Needs Need Description Recommendations Develop a regional directory providing information on Lack of centralized information transportation services available in the area. Start Providing a single source for working in a project that simplifies how to plan, transportation information reserve and pay for trips with a single phone call or one website visit Provide transportation users with a simple, easily Ease of Use Accessibility understood routes map, available electronically and/or Making transportation system easy in paper format, in combination with the solution for to understand need #1

Un-served/Underserved Areas Connect rural underserved areas via rural transit Providing service in areas not services to local transit service routes at connection served by public transit points Scheduling limitations Merge scheduling functions and possibly some service Scheduling rides with greater delivery functions under one entity to be able to flexibility provide more flexibility when scheduling a trip Temporal limitations Extend time of service for commuter routes and/or Availability Providing transportation outside provide other means of transportation, other than normal business hours for low- public transit, to low-income workers income workers, persons with Introduce tripper services to major trip generators at disabilities, and seniors key times during the day Frequency Expand CUMTD service area & route frequency for Making more available travel Reliability other transportation providers as possible for pick-ups accommodations outside of and drop-offs and/or add destinations existing service areas Program Eligibility & Trip Purpose Use smart technology that leverages existing taxpayer Restrictions investments Restrictions Providing a service without limitations regarding program Contract similar providers to co-mingle trips eligibility and trip purposes

C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 32 of 33

2. Operational Related Needs Need Description Recommendations

Joint purchasing to achieve greater cost efficiency Limited funding and eliminate redundant activities Providing more funding to Funding transportation and service providers Share resources - vehicles, maintenance functions, storage and support functions

Restrictions on service Providing services to others Standardize policies (so transit providers can pick Insurance without having to do changes in up insurance from a state or federal agency to insurance policies resulting in enable better transit coordination) different rates and licenses. Slow payment Accelerate reimbursement of Medicaid through a Payment Increasing funding sources for perpetual short-term loan to cover lag period payment Lack of drivers Recruit more volunteer drivers Finding drivers Staff Driver training Combine driver training sessions in the region Training drivers

Lack of reliable vehicles Utilize the Regional Maintenance Centers for non- Vehicles Keeping and maintaining vehicles routine service for reliability purposes

Cost limitations Provide vouchers, tickets, etc. to agencies serving Providing low cost service for Affordability the elderly, disabled, and individuals with low some customers, especially incomes. regular customers

C-U Urbanized Area HSTP | Page 33 of 33

VIII. MOBILITY TOMORROW

A. Goals

1. Improve accessibility, availability, and reliability of transportation services for people with disabilities, seniors and low-income individuals within existing budget constraints in the Champaign-Urbana urban area.

2. Maximize the resources available for affordability of special needs transportation through coordination in planning, service delivery, & reporting.

B. Objectives, Strategies, & Measurements of Effectiveness

Emerging issues often lead to new programs and new ways of organizing the business of providing transportation to older adults, people with disabilities and people with limited incomes in the Champaign Urbana urban area. Overall, the primary strategy and priority for this plan is to create a Human Services Transportation working group to implement recommendations of the Champaign- Urbana Urban Area Human Services Transportation Plan, which is being overseen by the CUUATS Policy and Technical Committees and is being facilitated by the HSTP Coordinator.

C. Potential Sources of Funding . Section 5307 . Supportive Housing Program . Section 5310 . Social Services Block Grants . Healthy Communities Access Program . State Councils on Developmental Disabilities, . Community Mental Health Services Block Protections, & Advocacy Systems Grant . Substance Abuse Prevention & Treatment Block . Community Development Block Grant Grant . Community Health Centers . Various Health & Human Service Programs . Maternal & Child Services Grants . Welfare-to-Work Grants . Medicaid . Work Incentive Grants

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A APPENDIX A – Based on today’s pressing issues, in the following pages are divided into short and long term priorities, both of which are recommendations for solving client related and operational related needs.

Short Term - Solving Client Related Needs

Goal #1 Improve accessibility, availability, affordability & reliability of transportation for people with disabilities, seniors & low-income individuals within existing budget constraints in the Champaign-Urbana area. Affordability: Availability: Limit the provider’s increasing Accessibility: Objective Increase transportation service’s availability particularly for low transportation service costs per Increase people’s accessibility to transportation options in the urbanized area by 15% by 2014. income workers, people with disabilities & seniors by 15% by 2014. rider by no more than 15% by 2014 to insure affordability of services. Accessible Taxis: Increase the Personal Assistant Program: Directory: Develop a specific overall number of ADA Research & investigate how to Employer Surveys: Survey Trip Generator Surveys: Survey Costs: Identify sources of Champaign-Urbana directory to accessible taxis. establish a personal assistant employers’ transportation needs & demand for tripper services to increasing costs & implement Strategy provide information on available program for riders with mobility level of demand for extended major trip generators at key coordination methods to address transportation options in the Urban door-through-door needs in homes service hours or routes. times during the day. costs. Areas. &/or at destinations. . Number of directory clicks . Number of accessible taxi . Number of hard copies vehicles operating within . Annual survey results of Measure of . Program established distributed the area. . Survey results . Survey results provider transportation costs Effectiveness . Updates on success of program . Number of presentations per rider . Number of referrals . HSPT Coordinator (CCRPC) . CCRPC (research & initiate) . HSPT Coordinator (CCRPC) Parties . PACE, Inc. . Family Services (administer . CUMTD . CUMTD . HSPT Coordinator (CCRPC) . CU MTD Responsible . Other working group program) . Transportation Operators . Transportation Operators . Human Service Agencies members a necessary . PACE . Developing & updating . Currently Zero exists . Requires multi-agency . Numerous factors involved information from multiple . Level of insurance required . Insurance cost of door-through- . Commute strategies may agreement on service . Possible future cuts in agencies to one source to provide such a program door programs due to liability require partnerships with characteristics, cost sharing, funding (state or federal) . Information requires on-going . Easy to start service but . Costs of running a PA program employers etc. . Unforeseen costs Obstacles maintenance often there are - no . Qualified employment pool . Expanding service . Other obstacles may arise . Possible demand increases . Multiple directories existing inspections; little . Coordinating schedules convenience requires depending on time & to the point of out pacing when varying information leads regulation; no drug and between transportation additional financial resources distance associated with funding levels to confusion of transportation alcohol testing; no record operators & the PA program service change

that are available checks . Opens job markets to transit- . Keeps price of transportation dependent individuals service down for individual . Partnerships with employers . Reduce demand for riders . Improve access to transportation may provide opportunities to Paratransit service & lower . Lower the cost of . Support & facilitate travel in the urban area reduce costs system costs transportation the increase in Benefits & . Benefit clients, operators & human service organizations . Consistent ridership . Increase service options use resulting in increase in Rider Impact . Enhance rider mobility & convenience . Enhance rider accessibility & . Enhance rider mobility possible routes/services . Increase ridership mobility . Improves service delivery & . Coordination strategies . Provide more options . Increase ridership rider satisfaction implemented could change . Increase employment . Increase ridership travel patters & behaviors transportation for low-income

workers Updated September 18th, 2012

Appendix A – Page 1 of 4

Short Term - Solving Operational Related Needs Goal #2 Maximize the resources available for special needs transportation through coordination in planning, service delivery, & reporting. Staff: Vehicles: Medicaid: Objective Increase the number of drivers by 10% & training events Decrease public providers’ & human service providers’ Increase efficiency of Medicaid funded trips by at least 10% by 2014. provided to the drivers by at least 1 training a year by 2014. vehicle maintenance costs by 10% by 2014. Certified Providers: Coordination: Model Diversify Funding Volunteers: Recruit new volunteer Trainings: Hold Recruit providers to Training & Expertise: Maintenance Center: Set up demand of current & future Sources: Channel drivers, encourage providers to make regionalized training become Medicaid certified Utilizing IDOT resources regional maintenance center Strategy demand for Medicaid possible private funding referrals of identified drivers to Faith In sessions (annually or & offer incentives due to for major & routine locally (include loaner program transportation & coordinate per rider for all providers Action (FIA) or other volunteer semi-annually, varying slow state reimbursement maintenance programs. similar to SMTD). trips & resources. to utilize other sources. programs (if exists). levels). rates. . Amount of service provided by the Regional . Average cost of . Number of identified Maintenance Centers . Amount ($) maintenance . Number of drivers’ Measure of Medicaid funded . Total Number of sources . Number of new volunteer drivers . Number of providers costs training sessions Effectiveness transportation per trip as certified providers . Number of providers identified attending IDOT . Capacity inventory provided by year reported by DHS able to utilize source maintenance training . Number of vehicles locally sessions . Length of vehicle’s useful life . HSTP Coordinator organize regional . CCRPC (research & contact) training session . Transportation providers utilizing . DSC . Possible others – Parties . Transportation providers making medical & Medicaid (non-emergency) trips, see . CU MTD/Others volunteer drivers (Faith In Action . CCNH o CUMTD Responsible directory list* provide venue only volunteer program currently) . SWANN o Parkland space o Other agencies . RTAC trainings utilized

. Schedule conflicts . Funding . Lack of funding . Current RTAC . Proving benefit & necessity . Administrative obstacles associated with being a Medicaid provider (payment scheduling process . IDOT approval services, vehicle inspections & insurance requirements) . Difficulties recruiting qualified & . Difficulties scheduling Obstacles . Making the trainings . Qualified mechanics locally . IL DHS certification programs & funding requirements available volunteer drivers vehicles’ maintenance meaningful to all . Facility able to house . First transit reimbursement process human service . Needed vehicles for loaner . Passengers’ understanding of approval & spend down of program eligibility agency needs program

. Developed for . Lower cost of agencies operating . Keeps more vehicles on the providing training Section 5310 road, & increases frequency, . Provides statewide Medicaid call center with more, less expensive options . Lower per trip costs . All drivers in the transportation & reliability of transportation . Allows local service providers another funding source . Enhances rider accessibility, region will have the Benefits programs . Keeps transportation’s cost . Encourages ridesharing mobility & convenience same training . Improves service low, preventing costs being . Improves system cost efficiency . Increases regional capacity . Improves service quality forwarded onto the delivery & rider . Increases vehicle rider/community satisfaction productivity Updated November 13th, 2012

Appendix A – Page 2 of 4

Long Term - Solving Client Related Needs

Goal #1 Improve accessibility, availability, affordability & reliability of transportation for people with disabilities, seniors & low-income individuals within existing budget constraints in the Champaign-Urbana Urban Areas.

Reliability: Availability: Accessibility: Increase frequency of CU-MTD’s job Increase availability of Restrictions: Objective Limit the increase of transportation costs (for access routes, & increase independent transportation options in the Implement the use of smart technologies to increase ridership by 15% by 2020. providers) by 20% by 2020. living transportation by all providers, urbanized area by 15% by 2020. including CU-MTD by 10% by 2020. Underserved Areas: Connect rural Routes: Expand service areas & the routes Technology: Make use of smart technology One Call-One Click Center: Merge scheduling underserved transit areas by frequency for other transportation that leverages existing taxpayer investments, Trips: Contract with common functions & possibly some service delivery functions Strategy linking rural transit services to operators as possible for pick-ups & drop- such as smart cards which can provide a providers to co-mingle trips. under one entity (scheduling center) to be able to local transit service routes at offs &/or add destinations related to service without limitations regarding program provide more flexibility when scheduling a trip. connecting points. employment access. eligibility & trip purposes. Measure of . Number of new rural transit . Number of rides scheduled using the scheduling . Number of rides provided outside of . Number of riders using smart technology . Number of trips provided as Effectiveness riders using local services center existing service areas to pay for their trips co-mingle trips

. CUMTD - Lead agency running scheduling center . Transportation providers . CU MTD . Transportation providers offering . All human service agencies with clients starting or Parties . CRIS Rural MTD services needed by individuals beyond . Transportation providers offering services Responsible . Transportation operators willing to schedule trips ending their trip in the . CCRPC current boundaries through the scheduling center same area

. Requires consolidation & agency support . Needed leadership, attention, & committed staff . Turf issues over service quality, loss of control & . Requires strict policy “place” in community directive from administering agency & adoption of policy . Coordinating routes for . Requires project governance, cost . Implementation of new technologies . Requires additional financial resources by participating agencies general public allocation/reimbursement models & service usually requires additional initial financial delivery standards for expanding service convenience . Requires administrative Obstacles . Varying scheduling processes resources . Potential complaints from existing operators about oversight, performance

competition monitoring & fraud control . Requires administrative oversight, performance efforts monitoring & fraud control efforts . Requires multi-agency agreement on service characteristics, cost sharing, etc. . Maximizes cost-efficiencies by consolidated trip . Improves access for the reservations & scheduling staff targeted population to . Maximizes opportunities for ride sharing . Enhances rider mobility & convenience regional medical facilities, . Enhances rider mobility & convenience . Improves service delivery & rider satisfaction . Increases ridership . Adjusting to travel patters & employment centers, & social . Increases ridership behaviors . Potentially provides leverage to securing . Improves service delivery & rider activities Benefits additional federal funding . Improves service delivery & rider satisfaction . Getting accustomed to new . Increases ridership satisfaction interactions with varying . Cost savings translate into increased service . Increases service options . Improves mobility for the . Increases service options riders targeted population . Enhances rider accessibility, mobility & convenience . Increases service options Updated November 13th, 2012

Appendix A – Page 3 of 4

Long Term – Solving Operational Related Needs

Goal #2 Maximize the resources available for special needs transportation through coordination in planning, service delivery, & reporting. Insurance: Funding: Implement standardize insurance policies among service providers in the Champaign-Urbana Objective Implement at least two cost saving strategies to address the barriers of limited funding & increasing demand by area by 2020. 2020.

Resource Sharing: Joint Purchases: Policies: Share resources such as vehicles, vehicle Strategy Joint purchasing to achieve greater cost efficiency & Investigate the possibility of a group insurance pool/policy to address restrictions that service maintenance functions, storage, & support eliminate redundant activities. insurance poses on transportation resources statewide. functions. . Number of agencies coordinating physical . Research results Measure of . Number of joint contracting by year Effectiveness resources . Reduction of insurance restrictions and/or costs

. Transportation providers with resources not Parties . Lead agency to acquire bids . Transportation providers Responsible being fully used that can be shared

. Requires lead agency to champion . Requires lead agency to champion . Turf issues associated with sharing vehicles . Administrative costs to lead agency may be prohibitive . Revising policies can be difficult due to high costs of purchasing, operating & . Some agencies may have entrenched . Numerous factors, including the bid process & various type of policies involved (liability Obstacles maintaining vehicles procurement/purchasing requirements coverage, workmen’s compensations etc.) will impact an individual agencies cost of . Reluctance to share agency funded vehicles . Joint purchase of some items may require large initial insurance coverage . Requires quality control, monitoring & cost expenditure allocation systems

. Agency level cost savings . Lower per trip costs . More consistent operating procedures . Increases ridership . Increases vehicle productivity Benefits . Shares administrative functions rather than resources or . Agencies can provide rides for other populations . Improves service quality services, therefore, may be more easily implemented . Consistent operating procedures . Encourages ridesharing . Opportunity to build & develop trust across agencies

Updated November 13th, 2012

Appendix A – Page 4 of 4

APPENDIX B Appendix B

Urban Area Program of Projects (UA POP): Champaign-Urbana-Savoy-Bondville Date: 5-31-11 Agency Name: Champaign County Regional Planning Commission General Public People with Disablities Applied Seniors (60 and older) Awarded TRC = Total Revenue Credits People with Low Income (150% of poverty level) Pending Dollar Amounts Student Application Federal Fiscal Grant CVP / JARC / NF / Local Project Service Area or Brief description of the project or Agency Name Mo - Year Year(s) Status 5309 5310 5311 5316 5317 DOAP ARRA DTIF Federal State Match Total TRC Trip Destination Population Served service/Additional notes Champaign County Nursing Home Jun-08 2008 Applied X $68,800 $17,200 $0 $86,000 $0 Champaign County Seniors Adult Day Care & Medical trips Champaign & Ford Developmental Services Center Apr-08 2008 Applied X $100,800 $25,200 $0 $126,000 $0 Counties People with Disablities Day program, medical, employment trips Champaign-Urbana & Chicago, St. Louis, Swann Special Care Center Jun-08 2008 Applied X $100,800 $25,200 $0 $126,000 $0 Indianapolis People with Disablities School and day training trips for residents Champaign-Urbana & Chicago, St. Louis, Swann Special Care Center Jun-09 2009 Applied X $41,600 $10,400 $0 $52,000 $0 Indianapolis People with Disablities School and day training trips for residents Champaign County Nursing Home Feb-11 2011 Applied X $41,728 $10,432 $0 $53,000 Champaign County Seniors Adult Day Care & Medical trips Total Awarded $354,400 $78,000 $443,000 Urban League of Champaign Operating - Money used to provide loans to low-income County Dec-07 2006-2007 Applied X $300,000 $0 $480,000 $600,000 N/A Champaign County People with Low Income individuals to purchase vehicles Denied $300,000 $480,000 $600,000 MTD X X

APPENDIX C Champaign-Urbana Urban Area Human Services Transportation Plan Stakeholders Inventory

Organization/Program Operating Agency Organization_AddressgypgTelephone Contact_Person Airport Shuttle Service Bluebird Charter Coach IL, 61820 800-400-5500 William McCreary, President American Cancer Society American Cancer Society 2509 S. Neil Street, Champaign, IL, 61820 217-356-9076 Amber Marks, Eastern Area Regional VP Canterbury Ridge Retirement and Assisted Living Canterbury Ridge Retirement and Assisted Living 1706 E. Amber Lane, Urbana, IL, 61802 217-328-3150 Joyce Fulton, Community Director Carle Arrow Ambulance Carle Foundation Hospital 210 E. University Avenue, Champaign, IL, 61820 217-337-3911 Mike Humer, Director Carle Vermilion County Shuttle Service Carle Foundation Hospital 611 W. Park Street, Urbana, IL, 61801 217-383-3285 Gary Masters, Support Services Manager Champaign County Nursing Home Champaign County Nursing Home 500 S. Art Bartell Rd., Urbana, IL. 61802 217-384-3784 Traci Heiden, Assistant Administrator Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District 801 E. University Avenue, Urbana, IL 61802 217-384-8188 Jay Rank, Transportation Analyst Cindy's Cab Cindy's Cab 1830 Libery Ave., Urbana, IL 61802 217-384-7777 Cindy Lasure, owner Circle of Friends Adult Day Center Circle of Friends Adult Day Center 609 W. Washington St., Champaign, IL, 61820 217-359-7937 Kathy Rhoads, Carol Acord, Directors City of Champaign Township p City of Champaign Township 603 S. Randolph, Champaign, IL, 61820 217-352-4500 Linda Abernathy, Township Supervisor (CSCNCC), Transportation Services CSCNCC 520 E. Wabash Ave., Suite 1, Rantoul, IL, 61866 217-893-1530 Karen Kelly, Service Coordinator Council of Congregations of Champaign-Urbana Council of Congregations of Champaign-Urbana 1808 Barrington Dr., Champaign, IL. 61820 217-356-7750 Jo Erickson, Coordinator Cunningham Township General Assistance Cunningham Township 205 W. Green Street, Urbana, IL, 61801 217-384-4144 Carol Elliott, Supervisor Developmental Services Center Developmental Services Center 1304 West Bradley Avenue, Champaign, IL 61821-2035 217-356-9176 Michael Carlson, Transportation Coordinator Disability Resources and Educational Services University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL, 61820 217-244-4104 Mylinda Granger, Transp.and Accessibility Coord. Family Service, First Call for Help Family Service of Champaign County 405 S. State Street, Champaign, IL, 61820 pg 217-352-6300 Mary Anne Wilson, Program Manager Family Service, Senior Resource Center Family Service of Champaign County 61820pg ( q ) 217-352-5100 Rosanna McLain, Director Senior Resource Center Get Ready Program Champaign Unit 4 Schools Champaign, IL, 61820 217-351-3881 Dr. Patricia Wilson Greyhound/Bluebird/Burlington Trailway Bus Station Illinois Terminal, 45 E. University Avenue, Champaign, IL, 61820 217-352-4234 Rosemary Newby, Station Manager Half-Fare Cab Program Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Illinois Terminal, 45 E. University Ave, Champaign, IL 61820. 217-384-8188 Brenda Banks, Partransit Coordinator Health Alliance Health Alliance 301 S. Vine St., Urbana, IL. 61801 217-337-3425 Patrick Harness, Community Representative Inman Plaza Inman Plaza, A Choice Senior Living Concept 17 E. University Avenue, Champaign, IL, 61820 217-352-7017 Laura Price, Director Lincolnland Express (LEX) Lincolnland Express (LEX) 4400 W. Springfield, Champaign, IL, 61822 217-352-6682 Robert Fraizer, Director Mental Health Center of Champaign County Mental Health Center of Champaign County 1801 Fox Drive, Champaign, IL 61820 Mommy's Cab Inc. Mommy's Cab Inc. P.O. Box 804, Urbana, IL, 61803 217-344-8731 Ken Shorkey, President PACE, Inc. PACE, Inc. 1317 E. Florida Ave., Urbana, IL., 61801 217-344-5433 Sarah Jo Brenner, Independent Living Coord. Paratransit Van Service C-U MTD Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District 801 E. Univeristy Avenue, Urbana,pp IL, 61802 g217-384-8188 Brenda Banks, Paratransit Coordinator Parents Too Soon Provena Behavioral Health at Centerpoint 61820 217-398-8080 Jeanette Eckhardt, M.S.W.PTS Coordinator Pro-Ambulance Service Provena Covenant Medical Center 408 S. Neil, Champaign, IL, 61820 217-337-2911 Jen Bruton, Dispatcher Provena Covenant Hospital Provena Covenant Hospital 1400 W. Park St., Urbana, IL., 61801 217-337-4707 Martha Paap, Senior Programs Coordinator Restoration Urban Ministries Restoration Urban Ministries 1207 N. Mattis, Champaign, IL, 61821 217-355-2662 Ervin Williams, Executive Director Social Services Division Champaign County Regional Planning Commission 1776 E. Washington, Urbana, IL, 61802 217-328-3313 Vic Christensen Salvation Army Transportation Assistance The Salvation Army P.O. Box 618, Champaign, IL, 61820 217-373-7827 Major Windham / Lillian VanVleet, Case Manager Special Care Transport Inc. Special Care Transport Inc. P.O. Box 804, Urbana, IL, 61801 217-344-8731 Ken Shorkey, President The Pavillion Foundation Hospital The Pavillion Foundation Hospital 809 W. Church St., Champaign, IL., 61820 217-373-1700 Christine Bruns, Director of Business Development U of I Safe Rides Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District University of Illinois, Illini Union, Urbana, IL, 61801 217-265-7433 Rob Patton UCAN Project - Life Skills Center Souther Collegiate Common Market Jefferson Building 202 W. Hill, Suite 102, Champaign, IL 61820 217-366-3226 Conrad Hayes, Client Services Specialist Urbana Adult Education Urbana Adult 211 N. Race St., Urbana, IL. 61801 217-384-3530 David Adcock, Director Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 5520 Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 5520 609 Edgebrook Drive, Champaign, IL, 61820 217-356-2984 Bill Anderson, Commander Ways to Work Program Urban League of Champaign County 314 S. Neil, Champaign, IL, 61820 217-356-1364 LaShunda Hambrick, Director Dept. of Transp. Res. Windsor of Savoy Carle Foundation Hospital 401 Burwash Avenue, Savoy, IL, 61874 217-351-1437 Dick Harris, Leasing Consultant Yellow Transport Yellow Transport 106 N. Hagan St., Champaign, IL. 61820 217-355-3553 Redith Ewing, President

April 10, 2007

To: Transportation Providers in the Champaign-Urbana-Savoy-Bondville urbanized area From: Rita Morocoima-Black, CCRPC/CUUATS Transportation Manager

The Champaign Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS), a program of the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) is developing a Human Services Transportation Plan for the urbanized area to meet federal SAFETEA-LU and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements. This plan will be part of the Long Range Transportation Plan 2025 for the urbanized area. Coordination efforts must be documented for areas where transportation providers intend to apply for funding through any of the following FTA Programs: • Job Access Reverse Commute (5316) • New Freedom Initiative (5317) • Elderly Persons and Persons with Disability (5310)

If your agency intends to apply for funding through any of the FTA programs identified above over the next five years, you must participate in this planning effort.

As part of the development of the plan, an assessment of transportation needs for people with disabilities, older adults and persons with limited income is being conducted, along with an inventory of available services, with the objective of identifying any areas of duplication or gaps in service. The enclosed survey was designed to collect this information, which will be used to analyze the current situation and propose recommendations and alternatives for transportation coordination in the Champaign-Urbana-Savoy-Bondville urbanized area.

Your assistance in completing this survey can directly impact the resulting recommendations and alternatives which will ultimately enhance local efforts to better coordinate transportation services between public transit agencies such as CU-MTD and local human service organizations.

If your agency does not provide transportation services, but has clients that could benefit from transportation services in Champaign, Urbana, Savoy or Bondville, please take a few moments to complete the survey and write NA on any question that does not apply to your organization.

Please complete and return the enclosed survey by Friday, April 30, 2007. If you have any questions, you may direct them to me by calling (217) 328-3313 or e-mailing at [email protected].

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Respectfully,

Rita Morocoima-Black CCRPC/CUUATS Transportation Manager

CUUATS HSTP Local Stakeholder Survey

Please complete the attached survey as completely as possible. Write NA after any question that does not apply to your services or clients. If you have any questions please feel free to contact: Rita Black, CCRPC/CUUATS Transportation Manager at (217) 328-3313 or [email protected]

I. ORGANIZATION AND SERVICES PROVIDED Questions 1 - 9 deals with the general characteristics of your organization and the nature of the services provided.

1. Organization Name: ______Address: ______Telephone: ______Fax: ______E-Mail Address: ______Name of person(s) answering questions in the survey: ______Title: ______Agency website address: ______Comments: ______

1 CUUATS HSTP Local Stakeholder Survey

2. Please check the box that best describes your organization (Check only one) Adult Day Care Church/Synagogue Shelter Other Faith Based Organization Hospital Publicly Sponsored Transit Agency Medical Center Private Transportation Company Nursing Home Ambulance Company Head Start Private School Senior Center YMCA/YWCA Nutrition Center Senior Center/County Senior Progr. Taxi Neighborhood Center Social Service Agency – Public Other: ______Social Service Agency – Nonprofit

3. What are the major functions/services of your organization? (Check all that apply) Transportation Diagnosis/Evaluation Health Care Job Placement Social Services Residential Facilities Nutrition Income Assistance Counseling Screening Day Treatment Information/Referral Job Training Recreation/Social Employment Homemaker/Chore Rehabilitation Services Other: ______

4. Under what legal authority does your organization operate? Local government department or unit Private nonprofit organization Transportation authority Other (Specify) ______

5. What is the geographic service area for the organization? If you have a map of the service area, please attach a copy to this survey.

Countywide Only specific Municipalities (Specify):______Other (Specify): ______

6. Does your transportation program restrict service? (Circle all that apply)

Clients Only Yes No Trip Purpose Yes No Number of Rides per Month Yes No Advanced Reservations Yes No Other (Specify) ______

2 CUUATS HSTP Local Stakeholder Survey

7. Why are these services limited (For example funding, federal regulations, state regulations, etc.)?

______

______

8. Is your organization involved in the direct operation of transportation services for clients or the general public? (Circle one)

Yes No

9. Does your organization purchase transportation on behalf of clients or the general public from other service providers? (Circle only one)

Yes No

If the answer to both questions 8 and 9 is “No”, please jump to question 23.

II. MODES OF TRANSPORTATION

Services Providers Only: In this section, please explain the various types of transportation services that your organization directly provides on behalf of clients or for the general public. Exclude meal deliveries or other non-passenger transportation services that may be provided.

10. In what manner does your organization directly provide, purchase, operate, or arrange transportation for seniors or the general public (that may include seniors, disabled, and/or low-income persons)? (Check all that apply)

Services for the Mode of Transportation Client Only Services General Public

Personal vehicles of agency staff

Agency owned fleet vehicles used by agency staff Pre-purchased tickets, tokens, passes for other modes of paratransit/transit Reimbursement of mileage or auto expenses paid to clients, families or friends

Volunteers Information and referral about other community transportation resources Operate own transportation program using agency owned vehicles and staff

3 CUUATS HSTP Local Stakeholder Survey

Please describe any other methods in which your organization delivers transportation services not previously checked in Question 10.

______

______

III. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

The following questions seek information about your organization’s transportation services. 11. Mark the following trip purposes your organization is authorized to provide to clients or members of the general public. (Check all that apply).

Organization is

Trip Purpose authorized to provide Percentage (%) of trips this trip purpose Health medical (e.g. single or periodic trips to doctor, clinic, drug store, treatment center, etc.) Health maintenance (e.g., dialysis or other recurring and frequent trips that require regular transportation) Nutrition (e.g., trips to a congregate meal site) Social (e.g., visit to friends/relatives) Recreation (e.g., trips to cultural, athletic events, etc.) Education/training (e.g., trips to schools, adult education centers, continuing education, etc.) Employment (e.g., trips to work, including job interviews, welfare-to-work trips, etc.) Shopping Social Services (e.g., trips to meet with counselors, social workers, and other staff related to the receipt of social services (except nutrition)) Residential (e.g., trips supporting activities of group residences and group home residents) Day Care Adult Day Care Mental Health (Outpatient Treatment) Organization is

Trip Purpose authorized to provide Percentage (%) of trips this trip purpose Bank Sheltered Workshop Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Other (Specify) Total Percent (must equal 100)

4 CUUATS HSTP Local Stakeholder Survey

12. Please provide the following information regarding your agency’s vehicle fleet used in the provision of transportation services. The vehicle type(s) used include the following: Vehicle Type Number Owned Leased Sedans Station wagons Minivans Standard 15 passenger vans Converted 15-passenger vans (e.g., raised roof, wheelchair lift) Light duty bus (body-on-chassis type construction seating between 16-24 passengers) Medium duty bus (body-on-chassis type construction seating over 22 passengers with dual rear wheel axle) Small school bus (yellow school bus seating between 9 and 24 students) Large school bus (yellow school bus seating between 25 and 60 students) Four wheel drive vehicles 12 passenger plain vans 30 foot transit vehicle (27-32 passenger vehicle) 35 foot transit vehicle (34-37 passenger vehicle) Other (Describe)

13. Are your vehicles equipped with two-way radio communications or do your drivers carry any type of communication device? (Circle one).

Yes No

If “Yes”, what type of communications system is used? (Check all that apply) Cellular phones Two-way mobile radios requiring FCC license Pagers Mobile data terminals Other (describe): ______

14. What are the daily hours and days of operation for your transportation services? Check days and list hours of operation in the space provided. Weekdays ______Saturday ______Sunday ______Holidays ______Other (describe): ______

5 CUUATS HSTP Local Stakeholder Survey

15. Define the level of passenger assistance provided for users of your transportation service. (Check all that apply.) Curb-to-curb (i.e., drivers will assist passengers in and out of vehicle only) Door-to-door (i.e., drivers will assist passengers to the entrance of their origin or destination) Drivers are permitted to assist passengers with a limited number of packages. Drivers are permitted to assist passengers with an un limited number of packages. Provide personal care attendants or escorts to those passengers who require such services. Passengers are permitted to travel with personal care attendants or escorts.

16. How do clients /customers access your transportation services? There are no advance reservation requirements. Clients/customers must make an advance reservation (e.g., by telephone, facsimile, internet, arrangement through a third party, etc.).

17. If advance reservations are required, what notice must be provided? We use a real-time reservation policy. Customers/clients must call for a reservation the day before travel. Customers/clients must call for a reservation 24 hours before travel. Customers/clients must call for a reservation two days before travel. Other (describe): ______

IV. RIDERSHIP The following questions have to do with client/patron caseload and/or client ridership.

18. Please provide your organization’s annual passenger statistics. If possible, use data for the most recently completed 12-month period for which data is available.

Client Only Services for the Unduplicated Persons/Passenger Trips Transportation General Public Services Total number of persons provided transportation Total number of passenger trips Estimated number of trips1 for which the riders use a wheelchair

Answer the following questions about figures provided in the table above: Are ridership figures exact? ______Time period for counts or estimates: ______

1 A “trip” equals one person getting on a vehicle one time. Most riders make two or more trips a day since they get on once to go somewhere and then get on again to return.

6 CUUATS HSTP Local Stakeholder Survey

V. ANNUAL EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES

The following questions concern your transportation funding sources and annual revenues and expenditures. 19. Does your organization charge a fare or fee for providing transportation services? (Circle one). Yes No If yes, what is the fare structure? ______

______

20. Does your organization accept any donations from clients to offset the cost of providing transportation services? (Circle one).

Yes No If yes, what is the suggested donation amount? ______

______

21. What are the beginning and ending dates of your organization’s fiscal year?

Beginning: ______Ending: ______

22. What are your transportation expenses and revenues? Please complete the two columns: Actual FY ______(specify year) and Projected or Year-to-Date FY ______. This figure should include costs for salaries and fringe benefits, overhead (rent and other), fuel, lubricants and tires, maintenance, insurance, contract service, administrative and reporting costs, and other transportation related expenses.

Transportation Operating Expenses and Revenues Category Actual, FY 200_ Projected, FY 200_ Transportation Expenses – Total Transportation Revenues Fares collected from passengers through cash or tickets/tokens purchased by passengers (include client fees and/or general public fares) Revenues collected from cash or tickets/tokens purchased by third parties on behalf of passengers Reimbursements for services obtained from third parties (e.g., Medicaid reimbursements) Local government appropriations Grants directly received by the organization Others: Explain ______Total Transportation Revenues

7 CUUATS HSTP Local Stakeholder Survey

VI. PURCHASED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

23. If your agency purchases client transportation services from third parties, please complete the following table. If the third party or parties are private individuals, do not list individuals names; sum all such entries in one line labeled “private individuals.”

Transportation Payments Made to Third Parties for the Purchase of Transportation Services Basis of payment Total number of trips Total amounts paid Name of Third Party (e.g., per mile, per purchased last fiscal year trip, etc.)

24. By source, what percentage of your transportation budget comes from:

a. Federal funds ______% b. State funds ______% c. Local funds ______% 25. Please check all of the funding sources that provide money for your transportation program. Federal CSBG HHS FTA Section 5307 - formerly Section 9 FTA Section 5310 – formerly Section 16 FTA Section 5311 - formerly Section 18 FTA Section 5316 – JARC FTA Section 5317 – New Freedom Initiative Title IIIB Title IIIC Title V Non-Emergency Medicaid ______Title XX Other ______

8 CUUATS HSTP Local Stakeholder Survey

State Bureau of Public Health Bureau of Senior Services Bureau of Human Resources for Children and Families Division of Public Transit Division of Rehabilitation Services Lottery Funds Other ______

Local County Commission Donations Fares Grants for Charity Organizations Levy Other ______

VII. LOCAL COORDINATION EFFORTS

26. Is a governing or advisory board in place in your community that brings together providers, agencies, and consumers? Are there clear guidelines that all embrace? (Circle one). Yes No

27. If the answer to Question 26 was “Yes”, please describe this governing/advisory board. Has your organization actively participated in the planning, development, and implementation of this board?

______

______

______

28. Is there sustained support for coordinated transportation planning among elected officials, agency administrators, and other community leaders? Is there growing interest and commitment to coordinating human services transportation trips and maximizing resources?

______

______

______

9 CUUATS HSTP Local Stakeholder Survey

29. Is there an on-going process for identifying duplication of transportation services, underused assets, and service gaps? If yes, describe this process.

______

______

______

30. In your opinion, are the specific transportation needs of various target populations (e.g., low income, elderly, people with disabilities, etc.) well documented?

______

______

______

31. Do you know if there is a plan to provide coordinated transportation among service providers? Does the plan have a clear mission and goals? Are there any assessment results that might be used to develop a set of realistic actions to improve coordination among service providers?

______

______

______

32. If the answer to Question 31 was “Yes”, do you know if the plan for “Human Services Transportation Coordination” required by the new federal transportation bill (SAFETEA- LU) is supported by any other state and/or local plan?

______

______

______

33. What issues, if any, have your coordination efforts encountered with respect to billing and payment?

10 CUUATS HSTP Local Stakeholder Survey

______

______

______

34. What do you see as the greater barrier to coordination and mobility in your service area?

______

______

______

35. What elements of the existing transportation network provide the most useful mobility options for the public and clients of human service agencies in your service area?

______

______

______

36. In your assessment, what enhancements are most needed to improve the coordination of public and human service transportation in your service area?

______

______

______

37. If there are any other issues, concerns, or information relevant to this topic, please feel free to address them in the space provided below.

______

______

______

11 CUUATS HSTP Local Stakeholder Survey

38. Are your agency’s transportation services coordinated with other transportation providers in your area? (Circle one)

Yes . If Yes, to what extent? (Check all that apply) No Central dispatching Refer clients Provide disabled services Joint driver training Emergency back up (shared vehicles) Provide transportation service for other agencies Other (Explain) ______

39. Who do you coordinate your transportation services with? (Please list specific agencies and refer to the previous question)

______

______

______

40. Based on your experience, what are the barriers to coordination of transportation services? (Check all that apply).

Federal Regulations State Regulations Liability Issues Not enough equipment Incompatible Clients Satisfied with existing transportation program, do not see need to coordinate Reluctance of area transportation providers to coordinate Funding Other (Explain) ______

41. Given the greater emphasis on coordinated services by federal grantors such as the Federal Transit Administration and the Administration on Aging, what would make a coordinated transportation program more attractive to your agency?

______

______

______

Thank you for your cooperation. Please return your completed survey to the address listed on page 1 of this questionnaire. Note: Surveys are due April 23, 2007.

12 Champaign-Urbana Urban Area Human Services Transportation Plan Survey Respondents

Organization/Program Operating Agency Organization_Address Telephone Contact_Person Champaign County Nursing Home Champaign County Nursing Home 500 S. Art Bartell Rd., Urbana, IL. 61802 217-384-3784 Traci Heiden, Assistant Administrator Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District 801 E. University Avenue, Urbana, IL 61802 217-384-8188 Jay Rank, Transportation Analyst Circle of Friends Adult Day Center Circle of Friends Adult Day Center 609 W. Washington St., Champaign, IL, 61820 217-359-7937 Kathy Rhoads, Carol Acord, Directors Council of Congregations of Champaign-Urbana Council of Congregations of Champaign-Urbana 1808 Barrington Dr., Champaign, IL. 61820 217-356-7750 Jo Erickson, Coordinator Developmental Services Center Developmental Services Center 1304 West Bradley Avenue, Champaign, IL 61821-2035 217-356-9176 Michael Carlson, Transportation Coordinator Disability Resources and Educational Services University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL, 61820 217-244-4104 Mylinda Granger, Transp.and Accessibility Coord. Health Alliance Health Alliance 301 S. Vine St., Urbana, IL. 61801 217-337-3425 Patrick Harness, Community Representative PACE, Inc. PACE, Inc. 1317 E. Florida Ave., Urbana, IL., 61801 217-344-5433 Sarah Jo Brenner, Independent Living Coord. Provena Covenant Hospital Provena Covenant Hospital 1400 W. Park St., Urbana, IL., 61801 217-337-4707 Martha Paap, Senior Programs Coordinator Restoration Urban Ministries Restoration Urban Ministries 1207 N. Mattis, Champaign, IL, 61821 217-355-2662 Ervin Williams, Executive Director Social Services Division CCRPC 1776 E. Washington, Urbana, IL, 61802 217-328-3313 Vic Christensen Family Service, Senior Resource Center Family Service 405 South State Street, Champaign, IL, 61820 217-352-5100 Rosanna McLain, Director Senior Resource Center The Pavilion Foundation Hospital The Pavilion Foundation Hospital 809 W. Church St., Champaign, IL., 61820 217-373-1700 Christine Bruns, Director of Business Development Urbana Adult Education Urbana Adult 211 N. Race St., Urbana, IL. 61801 217-384-3530 David Adcock, Director Ways to Work Program Urban League of Champaign County 314 S. Neil, Champaign, IL, 61820 217-356-1364 LaShunda Hambrick, Director Dept. of Transp. Res. Yellow Transport Yellow Transport 106 N. Hagan St., Champaign, IL. 61820 217-355-3553 Redith Ewing, President I. Organization and Services Provided

1. Organization

2. Please check the box that best describes your organization.

Type of Organization 6% 6% Nursing Home 21% Publicly Sponsored Transit Agency 6% Taxi 6% Private Transportation Company University Transportation Agency 6% Social Service Agency (Public) Adult day care 16% 11% Other Faith Based Organization Social Service Agency (Nonprofit) 11% 11%

3. What are the major functions/services of your organization? Major Functions & Services Transportation Social Services Other Information/Referral Job Traning Counseling Employment Nutrition Homemaker/Chore Screening Income Assistance Residential Facilities Job Placement Health Care Recreation/Social Rehabilitation Services Day Treatment

0123456789 Number of Responses

4. Under what legal authority does your organization operate?

Under what legal Authority? 6% Transportation Authority 6%

Mass Transit District 6%

Other 41% 12% NA

29%

5. What is the geographic service area for the organization?

Geographic Service Area 13% Statewide Specific Municipalities 31% 13% Other Multi-counties Countywide (Champaign)

13%

30%

6. Does your transportation program restrict services?

Service Restrictions

16 s 12

8

4 8 Number of Response 6 5

0 1 Clients Only Trip Purposes Number of Rides Other per Month

Yes No

7. Why are these services limited?

8. Is your organization involved in the direct operation of transportation services for clients or the general public? (In the same figure with No. 9)

9. Does your organization purchase transportation on behalf of clients or the general public from other service providers?

Operation of Transportation Services

No (5 Agencies) No (7 Agencies)

Yes (11 Agencies) Yes (9 Agencies)

Direct operation of transportation services Purchase transportation from other service Directfor operation clients or theof servicesgeneral public? for clients Purchaseproviders? transportation from other or the general public? service providers? Modes of Transportation

Mode of Transportation

Operate own transportation program 4

Information and referral 5

Volunteers 3

Reimbursement of mileage or expenses 3 Client Only Service Only Client Pre-purchased tickets, tokens, passes 6

Agency owned fleet vehicles 5

Personal vehicles of agency staff 2

Operate own transportation program 2

Information and referral 2

Volunteers 0

Reimbursement of mileage or expenses 0

Pre-purchased tickets, tokens, passes 2

Agency owned fleet vehicles 2

Services for General Public Services for General Personal vehicles of agency staff 0 Values on the bar are number of responses on that category

II. Transportation Services

12. Agency’s vehicle fleet used in the provision of transportation services. Agency Name Vehicle Type Number Ownership Restoration Urban Ministries Skip Senior Resource Center at Family Service No response Large School Bus -- 3 Owned bus retrofitted with lift Other: 7 passenger Disability Resources and Educational Services minibus (Midwest 1 Owned transit) Large Prairie Int. Bus 3 Owned

Large Prairie 3 Owned International Bus

Developmental Services Center Converted 15 8 Owned passenger vans Light duty bus 5 Owned Medium duty bus 2 Owned Urbana Adult Education No response sedan 2 Owned CCRPC - Social Service Division Minivans -- 1 with 2* Leased wheelchair lift Yellow Transport Ltd sedan 2 Owned Minivans 14 Owned Standard 15 passenger 4 Owned vans Other -- Pick-up 4 owned Other -- box vans 2 owned Agency Name Vehicle Type Number Ownership Minivans 1 Owned Urban League of Champaign County Other -- Pick-up truck 1 Owned Minivans NR Leased Circle of friends adult day center Standard 15 passenger NR Owned vans

Council of Congregations of Champaign-Urbana skip

Converted 12 Champaign County Nursing Home 4 Owned passenger vans Volunteers-mostly Provena Covenant Medical Center/Faith in Action Sedans, Station Wagons, Minivans PACE, Inc Skip Health Alliance Skip Minivans 7 3 Owned Standard 15 passenger 7 5 Owned CUMTD vans Medium or heavy duty 93 Owned transit bus Minivans 1 Owned The Pavilion Foundation Hospital Standard 15 passenger 2 Owned vans

13. Communication device

Types of Communication 7% Used

27%

Cellular Phones Two Way Radios Land Line Phone

66% 14. Hours and days of operation Other ID Weekdays Saturday Sunday Holiday (Describe): 8:30 AM - Senior Resource Center at Family Service - - - - 5:00 PM Any time on 7:30 AM - Saturdays Disability Resources and Educational Services as needed as needed as needed 9:30 PM and Sundays, arranged 8:00 AM - Developmental Services Center 5:00 PM Monday to Urbana Adult Education - - - - Thursday As arranged CCRPC - Social Service Division Yes - - - for excursions 24 hours a Yellow Transport Ltd - - - - day / 7day a week "special" "special" 8:00 AM - Urban League of Champaign County events events - - 8:00 PM only only 7:30 AM - 9:00AM - Circle of Friends Adult Day Center - - - 5:30 PM 4:00PM 7:00 AM - Champaign County Nursing Home - - - - 5:00 PM Estimate, no set hours, 7:00AM - 7:00AM - 7:00AM - Provena Covenant Medical Center/Faith in Action depends on 6:00PM 6:00PM 6:00PM volunteer availability

PACE, Inc Skip

Health Alliance Skip

6:00AM - 6:00AM - 6:00AM - CUMTD 5:00AM 5:00AM 5:00AM

The Pavilion Foundation Hospital 24/7

15. Define the level of passenger assistance provided for users of your transportation service.

Level of passenger assistance provided for users 10%

Curb-to-curb 10% 32% Door-to-door

Door-through-door 10% Assisted by drivers with a limited number of packages Assisted by drivers with unlimited 5% number of packages Provide personal care attendants 10% Own personal care attendants 23%

16. How do clients/customers access your transportation services?

How to access your transporation services? 10

8

6 6 Agencies 5 Agencies 4

2 Total Number of responses: 11 1 Agency 0 No advance reservation Advance reservations Other requirements

17. If advance reservations are required, what notice must be provided?

Advance Reservations

10%

Real time 20% 24 hours before Travel 40% Two days before Travel Other

30%

III. Ridership

18. Annual passenger statistics. Services for the General Public ID 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 13 15 15 16 17 37 39 Total number of persons provided skip 60 skip NA ? transportation 540,000 NR Skip

Total number of passenger trips 1,000 NA 9,468,647 216,000 NR Estimated number of tripsfor which 100 152 NA NR 563 the riders use a wheelchair Clients Only ID 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 13 15 15 16 17 37 39 Total number of persons provided skip 392 350 50 50 35 skip 60* 200 25 transportation NR 6 - 8 Total number of passenger trips 2,780 80,750 260 100 8,688 21,600 1,006 120 a week NR Estimated number of tripsfor which 0 20,000+ 3,840 0 0 16,200 0 0 the riders use a wheelchair NR ID - 2 - Restoration Urban Ministries ID - 3 - Senior Resource Center at Family Service ID - 4 - Disability Resources and Educational Services ID - 5 - Developmental Services Center ID - 6 - Urbana Adult Education ID - 8 - CCRPC - Social Services Division ID - 9 - Yellow Transport Ltd ID - 10 - Urban League of Champaign County ID - 11- Circle of Friends Adult Day Center ID - 13- Council of Congregations of Champaign-Urbana ID - 15- Champaign County Nursing Home ID - 15- Provena Covenant Medical Center/Faith in Action ID - 16- PACE, Inc ID - 17- Health Alliance ID - 37 - CUMTD ID - 39- The Pavilion Foundation Hospital Time period for counts Agency Time period for counts or estimates Hoopeston Multi-Agency Service Center, Inc. February 2006 - February 2007 Senior Resource Center at Family Service July 2005 - June 2006 Disability Resources and Educational Services January 2006 - December 2006 Developmental Services Center 2006 info Urbana Adult Education September 2006 - May 2007 Community Service Center of Northern Champaign County July 1 2005 - June 30 CCRPC - Social Service Division 1 year Yellow Transport Ltd 1 year Circle of Friends Adult Day Center August 2007 - July 2007 Anabel huling Early Learing Center NR Champaign County Nursing Home July 2006 - July 2007

Annual Expenditures and Revenues 19. Does your organization charge a fare or fee for providing transportation services?

Charge a fare or fee?

Yes 33%

c

No 67%

20. Does your organization accept any donations from clients to offset the cost of providing transportation services?

Accept any donations from clients?

N/A 18% Yes 27%

No 55%

21. What are the beginning and ending dates of your organization’s fiscal year?

Fiscal Year: Fiscal Year: Organization Beginning Ending Restoration Urban Ministries Skip Skip Senior Resource Center at Family Service 1-Jul 30-Jun Disability Resources and Educational Services 1-Jul 30-Jun Developmental Services Center 1-Jul 30-Jun Urbana Adult Education 1-Jul 30-Jun CCRPC - Social Service Division 1-Dec 30-Nov Yellow Transport Ltd 1-Jan 31-Dec Urban League of Champaign County 1-Jul 30-Jun Circle of Friends Adult Day Center 1-Jan 31-Dec Council of Congregations of Champaign-Urbana Skip Skip Champaign County Nursing Home 1-Dec 30-Nov Provena Covenant Medical Center/Faith in Action 1-Jan 31-Dec PACE, Inc Skip Skip Health Alliance Skip Skip CUMTD 1-Jul 30-Jun The Pavilion Foundation Hospital 1-Jan 31-Dec

VII. Local Coordination Efforts

40. What do you see as the greater barrier to coordination and mobility in your service area?

Organization Response

Referrals to other organizations are only as Restoration Urban Ministries effective as the ability to get there. Funder restrictions on types of allowable service Senior Resource Center at Family Service Insurance Costs

Disability Resources and Educational Services NR

Developmental Services Center None

Urbana Adult Education ??

Obtaining vehicles is a small part of a bigger problem with operation support ongoing. Many CCRPC - Social Service Division agencies have a vehicle donated, but struggle with staff and other issues relative to funding ongoing. Yellow Transport Ltd NA

Urban League of Champaign County lack of personal transportation

Circle of Friends Adult Day Center NR

Council of Congregations of Champaign-Urbana NA

There is a lack of funding for providing transportation services in our area as well as a Champaign County Nursing Home lack of transportation services available for our clients/residents. Difficulty in recruiting enough volunteers to Provena Covenant Medical Center/Faith in Action meet the demand for services Provision of access in rural areas on those who PACE, Inc are unable to get to the standard routes Transportation from rural areas for non- Health Alliance emergent health care such as follow up apts. & wellness checks CUMTD Mixing population

The Pavilion Foundation Hospital Ambulance Service

What elements of the existing transportation network provide the most useful mobility options in your service area?

Organization Response

Restoration Urban Ministries MDTA & Taxi Service

Senior Resource Center at Family Service 1:1 rides by volunteers (who are rare)

Lift equipped buses to transport powered Disability Resources and Educational Services wheel chairs. Some of these won't fit on MTD buses. Illinois Department of Transportation is Developmental Services Center wonderful with providing use with vehicles that fits our service population. Urbana Adult Education MTD

MTD - within service area, Senior service rural rider - rural seniors, DSC - for developmentally CCRPC - Social Service Division disabled persons enrolled in this service, School district for school children Yellow Transport Ltd NR

Urban League of Champaign County Champaign-Urbana mass transit district

Circle of Friends Adult Day Center NR

Council of Congregations of Champaign-Urbana NA

Champaign County Nursing Home Pro Medivan & MTD

Provena Covenant Medical Center/Faith in Action NR

PACE, Inc Skip

Health Alliance Skip

CUMTD Accessible Vehicles, Other

The Pavilion Foundation Hospital NA

In your assessment, what enhancements are most needed to improve the coordination of public and human service transportation in your service area?

Organization Response

Accessibility by small agencies of transportation Restoration Urban Ministries resources for their clients

Senior Resource Center at Family Service There are such limitations due to #34

Disability Resources and Educational Services NA

None, All service providers that we have contact with Developmental Services Center do a great job provided the limited needs.

Urbana Adult Education NR

5 day/week service for workers in rural parts of CCRPC - Social Service Division Champaign County

Yellow Transport Ltd NR

Urban League of Champaign County NR

Circle of Friends Adult Day Center NR

Council of Congregations of Champaign-Urbana NA

Developing a committee to network & market their Champaign County Nursing Home services to specific population. In Champaign County, what is most needed is a dependable, reliable, low-cost small-bus or van service for disabled or elderly. We have volunteers who are a Provena Covenant Medical Center/Faith in Action wonderful supplement for those who need extra assistance and socialization. Family service mostly uses cabs but they are unreliable. An increase in service provision to on a need by need basis that meets specific individual needs to increase general access. Training to all public transit and human service transportation volunteers about PACE, Inc disability awareness and anti-discrimination laws. General advertisement of existing services. We do have a lot of great services that are quite honestly under- utilized. Health Alliance Availability and affordability

CUMTD An effort to coordinate and money The Pavilion Foundation Hospital Ambulance Service

CUUATS Roundabout Design Guidelines

Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS)

December 5, 2012

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... 3 List of Figures ...... 4 Executive Summary ...... 5 Foreword ...... 7 Section 1. Introduction to Roundabouts ...... 8 1.1. History – Background ...... 8 1.2. Roundabout presentation and definition ...... 8 1.3. Key parameters and geometric features of a roundabout ...... 9 1.3.1. Key parameters ...... 9 1.3.2. Geometric Features ...... 11 1.4. Roundabout classification ...... 12 1.5. Benefits ...... 13 Section 2. Champaign-Urbana Existing Conditions ...... 16 Section 3. Considerations and Feasibility ...... 17 3.1. Roundabout as an alternative for an existing intersection (Retrofit intersection) ...... 17 3.2. First roundabout in an area ...... 25 3.3. Roundabouts in a new roadway network (new intersection) ...... 25 Section 4: Other considerations ...... 26 4.1. Pedestrians ...... 26 4.2. Pedestrians with disabilities...... 26 4.3. Bicyclists ...... 28 4.4. Pedestrian and bicycle planning considerations ...... 28 Section 5: Recommendations ...... 29 Section 6: References ...... 31 Section 7: CUUATS Roundabout Sample Policy ...... 32 Attachment A ...... 34

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 2

List of Tables

Table 1. NCHRP Report 672 Roundabouts classification

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of roundabouts

Table 3. Factors when considering a roundabout

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 3

List of Figures

Figure 1. Modern Roundabout

Figure 2. Modern Roundabout vs. Old Style Rotary

Figure 3. Key parameters of a roundabout identified by the FHWA

Figure 3a. Key parameters of a roundabout identified by the CTRE

Figure 4. Geometric features of a roundabout identified by the FHWA

Figure 5. Modern Roundabout at the intersection of English Oak Drive/Chestnut Grove Drive

Figure 6. Results and recommendations sheet

Figure 7. Flow chart of the analysis process

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 4

Executive Summary

The objective of this document is to provide the Champaign Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS), the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region, with guidelines for the implementation of roundabouts as an alternative to other intersection traffic controls.

A modern roundabout is a circular intersection where traffic flows around a center island. Modern roundabouts are defined by two basic operational and design principles: yield-at-entry and deflection for entering traffic. Yield-at-entry requires that vehicles in the circulatory roadway have the right-of- way and all entering vehicles on the approaches have to wait for a gap in the circulating flow. Deflection for entering traffic requires that entering traffic points toward the central island, which deflects vehicles to the right, thus causing low entry speeds.

Figure 1. Modern Roundabout1

Modern roundabouts are becoming more popular in the United States and although multilane roundabouts present some challenges for the visually impaired pedestrians, studies have shown that converting single lane approach to roundabout has been effective in crash reduction and speed reduction thus enhancing safety for motorists, pedestrians and bicycle users. As a result, more than 1000 roundabouts have been implemented across the country as of 2012.2

Many Midwestern states like Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa have even issued design guidelines to be used in their jurisdiction. Wisconsin’s design guidance gives strong support for roundabouts:

If an intersection warrants a signal or a four-way stop within the design life of the proposed project, the modern roundabout shall be evaluated as an equal alternative. Where there is an existing four-way stop or signal and there are operational problems with the current control, then the roundabout shall be considered as a viable alternative. As stated above the roundabout may be a viable alternative for a two-way stop control in certain circumstances. In either case, roundabouts are a potential intersection control strategy until such time that the evaluation indicates that the roundabout alternative is not appropriate1.

1 Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Wisconsin Roundabout Guide. P. 1. Posted at http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/docs/guide-wisdotrab.pdf 2 Benekohal, R. F. and Atluri, V., 2009

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 5

Iowa addressed roundabouts in their intersection design guidelines, which are similar to the Illinois Department of Transportation’s “BDE Chapter 36.” Although the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has not published any roundabout design guidelines currently, the Department advocates the use of the Federal Highway Administration’s Roundabout Guidelines3, the NCHRP Report 672 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide (Second Edition)4 and the NCHRP Report 572 Roundabouts in the United States5 for roundabout implementation.

This document has been mainly produced using the Federal Highway Administration document FHWA’s Roundabout: an Informational Guide and the NCHRP Report 672. The planning guidelines provided by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. for the City of Bend in Oregon the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) and the Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE) at Iowa State University are also used as references. The CUUATS Roundabout Design Guidelines will leverage much of the research and recommendations in previously published documents to provide the Champaign-Urbana MPO member agencies with a set of regional guidelines to facilitate the inclusion of roundabouts as an option for intersection design/upgrade in the Champaign-Urbana area.

3 Robinson B. W., et al., 2000 4 NCHRP Report 672 5 NCHRP Report 572

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 6

Foreword

When planning the design or upgrade of an intersection, the intersection control evaluation is an important step that leads to the choice of the appropriate traffic control to be used at the intersection. Such analysis depends on many factors such as crash data and diagrams, user delay or level of service for all traffic movements for the current and/or design year, the appropriate design vehicle, right-of-way impacts and other safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists.1 According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), there are three ways to control traffic at an intersection:

 Stop control

This type of intersection control utilizes stop signs to control traffic at a two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersection. In the TWSC intersection, stop signs are used on the minor road where vehicles must stop and yield to the vehicles on a major road. In the AWSC intersection, all four legs of the intersection have stop signs.

 Signal Control

This type of traffic control is utilized when some traffic warrants are met.

 Roundabout control

Roundabout control is often used as alternative to AWSC or signal control at an intersection with safety and/or geometry issues. Using a roundabout may also be appropriate to improve a TWSC intersection with safety issues.

Roundabouts are becoming more popular across the United States, due in part to their ability to improve safety at intersections. They are often recommended as a safe alternative to traffic signal and stop controls at intersections with safety issues since they process high volumes of left turns better than AWSC intersections and generally simplify traffic movements.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 7

Section 1. Introduction to Roundabouts

1.1. History – Background

The predecessor to modern roundabouts, the rotary, was built in the United States beginning in 1905. In these traffic circles the priority was giving to the entering vehicles because of the “yield-to-the-right” rule. This allowed vehicle entries at speeds often greater than 30 mph and resulted in numerous crashes and congestion inside the circle.3 Such results detracted from the usefulness of traffic circles and their popularity waned in the United States during the 1950s. Figure 2 shows images of a modern roundabout and an old style rotary.

Figure 2. Modern Roundabout vs. Old Style Rotary Source: http://www.azdot.gov/ccpartnerships/roundabouts/history.asp

In 1966, the rule for vehicle flow in traffic circles was altered in the United Kingdom and the modern roundabout was born. The new rule made entering vehicles yield to the circulating traffic inside a circle, which meant that any entering vehicle waited to find a gap in the traffic inside the circle or simply yielded if there was no vehicle blocking their entrance into the circle. This change improved the traffic flow of traffic circles by preventing the circulation of traffic inside the circle from being locked up1, contributing to a reduction of the speed in the circle4 and reducing the number and severity of the crashes.

1.2. Roundabout presentation and definition

A roundabout is one of the three types of circular intersections listed by the FHWA. Rotaries are circular intersections implemented in the United States in the early 1900’s and generally are the largest of the three intersections6. Neighborhood traffic circles are used to calm traffic or for aesthetics purposes. Roundabouts are the final type of circular intersection.

The FWHA defines roundabouts as “circular intersections with specific design and traffic control features. These features include yield control of all entering traffic, channelized approaches, and appropriate geometric curvature to ensure that travel speeds on the circulatory roadway are typically less than 50 km/h (30 mph). Thus, roundabouts are a subset of a wide range of circular intersection forms.”3

6 Isebrands, H. N. and Hallmark, S., 2008

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 8

Roundabouts are considered superior to their predecessors (e.g. traffic circles and rotaries) and generally are a more efficient alternative to traffic lights or stop signs for an intersection7. Studies have shown indeed a reduction in injury crashes at intersection where a roundabout has replaced traffic signals or two way stop signs. Roundabouts are also known to result in vehicular emission and energy consumption reduction in Europe7.

1.3. Key parameters and geometric features of a roundabout

A roundabout is characterized by two types of elements: its key parameters and geometric features.

1.3.1. Key parameters

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has listed the following key parameters:

 Central Island: The raised area in the center of a roundabout around which traffic circulates.

 Splitter Island: The raised or painted area on an approach used to separate entering from exiting traffic, deflect and slow entering traffic, and provide storage space for pedestrians crossing the road in two stages.

 Circulatory roadway: The curved path used by vehicles to travel in a counterclockwise fashion around the central island.

 Apron (also refer to as truck apron6): The mountable portion of the central island adjacent to the circulatory roadway when required on smaller roundabouts to accommodate the wheel tracking of large vehicles.

 Yield line: The pavement marking that shows the point of entry from an approach into the circulatory roadway. This mark is generally painted along the inscribed circle. Entering vehicles must yield to any circulating traffic coming from the left before crossing this line into the circulatory roadway.

 Accessible pedestrian crossings (sidewalk): The crossing location is set back from the yield line, and the splitter island is cut to allow pedestrians, wheelchairs, strollers, and bicycles to pass through. Accessible pedestrian crossings should be provided at all roundabouts.

 Bicycle treatments (bike ramp): This ramp provides bicyclists the option of traveling through the roundabout either as a vehicle or as a pedestrian, depending on the bicyclist’s level of comfort.

 Landscaping buffer: This buffer separates vehicular and pedestrian traffic and encourages pedestrians to cross only at the designated crossing locations.

7 O’Laughlin, R. and Murtha, T., 2009

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 9

Landscaping buffers can also significantly improve the aesthetics of the intersection.

Two more key features can also be considered6:

 Outside curbing: A mountable or non-mountable curb defining the outside edge of the pavement on each approach, around the circulatory roadway, and continuing outside the adjacent exit. It ideally begins at the deceleration point on each approach.

 Lighting: This provides illumination for all potential conflict areas, including the beginning of the splitter island, all crosswalks, and entries and exits to the circulatory roadway.

The following figures show the key parameters, as listed by the FHWA3 and the CTRE6 respectively.

Figure 3. The key parameters of a roundabout listed by the FHWA 3

Figure 3a. The key parameters of a roundabout listed by the CTRE6

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 10

1.3.2. Geometric Features

Roundabouts can be described by the following geometric features6:

 Inscribed circle diameter (ICD): Defines the size of the roundabout, measured between the outer edges of the circulatory roadway. Typically 100 to 130 ft. for single-lane roundabouts and 150 to 180 ft. for double-lane roundabouts, but varies based on the design vehicle turning radius and intersection layout.

 Circulating or circulatory roadway width: The width of the circulatory roadway between the outer edge of the curbed roadway and the curbed center island or truck apron. It does not include the width of the truck apron and is typically between 1.0 and 1.2 times the maximum entry width.

 Approach width: Roadway width used by the approaching traffic. Typically 12 ft. per lane. Shoulders and wide lanes can lead to undesirably high speeds.

 Entry width: Width at the entry to the circulating roadway (where the approach meets the inscribed circle), measured perpendicularly from the right face of the curb to the left face of the curb. Typically 14 to 18 ft. for a single-lane entry, but varies on the design vehicle turning radius.

 Entry flare: The widening of an approach lane from the standard lane width to a wider entry width. Flare can increase capacity and accommodate off-tracking of large trucks, but decreases path definition and increases speed variance.

 Entry deflection: Entry deflection helps control vehicle speeds and prevents wrong- way movements on the circulatory roadway.

 Design speed, entry: The recommended maximum entry design speed is 25 mph (rural) and 20 mph (urban) for single-lane roundabouts and 25 mph for multi-lane roundabouts.

 Vehicle path radii: The roundabout design speed is based on the fastest movement through the roundabout. However, speed consistency is important for all the movements. R1, the minimum radius on the fastest through path prior to the yield line, and R5, the minimum radius on the fastest path of a right-turning vehicle, are typically the most critical radii for design speed.

 Fastest path: Determines the speed of the roundabout. The fastest path of a single vehicle, excluding all other traffic and lane markings, traversing from the entry, around the circulating roadway, and through the exit. This is usually associated with through movement but can also be right-turn movement.

 Natural path: The path that an approaching vehicle will take through a multi-lane roundabout, assuming traffic in all lanes. The speed and orientation of the vehicle at the yield line determines the natural path.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 11

 Vehicle path overlap: Path overlap occurs on multi-lane roundabouts when the natural path through the roundabout of one vehicle overlaps that of another vehicle. Occurs most commonly on the approach when a vehicle in the right lane cuts off a vehicle in the left lane as the vehicle enters the circulating lane.

Also listed as geometric features of a roundabout by the FHWA3:

 Departure width: The departure width is the width of the roadway used by departing traffic downstream of any changes in width associated with the roundabout. The departure width is typically less than or equal to half of the total width of the roadway.

 Exit width: The exit width defines the width of the exit where it meets the inscribed circle. It is measured perpendicularly from the right edge of the exit to the intersection point of the left edge line and the inscribed circle.

 Entry radius: The entry radius is the minimum radius of curvature of the outside curb at the entry.

 Exit radius: The exit radius is the minimum radius of curvature of the outside curb at the exit.

Figure 4. Some of the Roundabouts geometric features listed by the FHWA3

1.4. Roundabout classification

There are different ways to classify the roundabouts. The key parameters described above are the components of a basic roundabout and can be modified or adjusted to the type to be used.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 12

In the NHCRP report 672, the size and the number of lanes are used to classify three types of roundabouts: the mini-roundabouts, the single-lane roundabouts and the multilane roundabouts. The values of the key parameters are shown in the following table:

Table 1. NCHRP Report 672 Roundabouts classification4 Design Element Mini Roundabout Single-Lane Roundabout Multilane Roundabout Desirable maximum entry 25 to 30 km/h 30 – 40 km/h 40 – 50 km/h design speed (15 – 20 mph) (20 – 25 mph) (25 – 30 mph) Maximum number of entering lanes per 1 1 2+ approach Typical inscribed circle 13 – 27m 27 – 55m 46 – 91 m diameter (45 – 90 ft.) (90 – 180 ft.) (150 – 300 ft.) Raised (may have Raised (may have Central Island Treatment Fully traversable traversable apron) traversable apron) Typical daily service volumes on 4-leg roundabout below which Up to approximately Up to approximately Up to approximately may be expected to 45,000 for two-lane 15,000 25,000 operate without requiring roundabout a detailed capacity analysis (veh/day) *Operational analysis needed to verify upper limit for specific applications or for roundabouts with more than two lanes or four legs.

For the purpose of this document, the three types of roundabouts presented in the table above will be considered: the mini-roundabout, the single-lane roundabout and the multi-lane roundabout. The environment of the intersection whether it is rural, suburban or urban, will also be taken in consideration to present the existing conditions of the intersection to be analyzed.

1.5. Benefits

Roundabouts are often referred to as a safer intersection control than signalized and stop- controlled intersections.7 Such safety directly results from their design since all vehicles are traveling in one direction in the circle, which reduces the number of conflicts due to right or left turns. Its geometric features decrease the entry speed of vehicles to a value generally between 10 and 25 mph.6 For that reason, roundabouts are considered a speed control design.4 According to the NCHRP Report 672, the benefits of the implementation of a well- designed roundabout implementation are as follows:

 Entering vehicles have more time to allow safer mergers  The size of sight triangles for users to see one another are reduced  An increase in motorists yielding to pedestrians  A reduction in the frequency of crashes  Safer intersections for novice users

However, the roundabouts also have some limitations. In the table below, the NCHRP 672 lists the advantages and disadvantages associated with roundabouts.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 13

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of roundabouts4 Advantages Disadvantages Non-Motorized Users  Pedestrians consider only one direction of  Pedestrians with vision impairments may have conflicting traffic at a time. trouble finding crosswalks and determining  Bicyclists have options for negotiating when/if vehicles have yielded at crosswalks. roundabouts, depending on their skill and comfort  Bicycle ramps at roundabouts have the potential to level. be confused with pedestrian ramps. Safety  Reduce crash severity for all users, allow safer  Increase in single-vehicle and fixed-object merges into circulating traffic, and provide crashes compared to other intersection more time for all users to detect and correct treatments. for their mistakes or the mistakes of others due  Multi-lane roundabouts present more difficulties to lower vehicle speeds. for individuals with blindness or low vision due to  Fewer overall conflict points and no left-turn challenges in detecting gaps and determining that conflicts. vehicles have yielded at crosswalks. Operations  May have lower delays and queues than  Equal priority for all approaches can reduce other forms of intersection control. the progression for high volume approaches.  Can reduce lane requirements between  Cannot provide explicit priority to specific users intersections, including bridges between (e.g. trains, emergency vehicles, transit, interchange ramp terminals. pedestrians) unless supplemental traffic control  Create possibility for adjacent signals to devices are provided. operate with more efficient cycle lengths where the roundabout replaces a signal that is setting the controlling cycle length. Access Management  Facilitate U-turns that can substitute for more  May reduce the number of available gaps for mid- difficult midblock left turns. block unsignalized intersections and driveways. Environmental Factors  Noise, air quality impacts, and fuel  Possible impacts to natural and cultural resources consumption may be reduced. due to greater spatial requirements at  Little stopping during off-peak periods. intersections. Traffic Calming  Reduce vehicular speeds.  More expensive than other traffic calming  Beneficial in transition areas by reinforcing the treatments. notion of a significant change in the driving environment. Space  Often require less queue storage space on  Often requires more space at the intersection itself intersection approaches—can allow for than other intersection treatments. closer intersection and access spacing.  Reduce the need for additional right-of-way between links of intersections.  More feasibility to accommodate parking, wider sidewalks, planter strips, wider outside lanes, and/or bicycle lanes on the approaches. Operations and maintenance  No signal hardware or equipment maintenance.  May require landscape maintenance.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 14

Aesthetics  Provide attractive entries or centerpieces to  May create a safety hazard if hard objects are communities. placed in the central island directly facing the  Used in tourist or shopping areas to entries. separate commercial uses from residential areas.  Provide opportunity for landscaping and/or gateway feature to enhance the community.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 15

Section 2. Champaign-Urbana Existing Conditions

Roundabouts are considered an alternative to other traffic controls that help reduce crashes and improve safety at intersections. Thus far, there are five roundabouts in the Champaign-Urbana-Savoy- Bondville urbanized area:

 Three located in the City of Champaign at the intersections of: English Oak Drive/Chestnut Grove Drive, English Oak Drive/Abbey Fields Drive, and Crabapple Lane/Sandcherry Drive;

 One in the City of Urbana at the intersection of Stebbins Drive/Division Avenue

Figure 5. Modern Roundabout at the intersection of English Oak Drive/Chestnut Grove Drive Source http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl)

Three other locations have been considered for the installation of roundabouts in the City of Urbana: Florida Avenue/Philo Road intersection, Windsor Road/Race Street intersection and Olympian Drive/Lincoln Avenue intersection. All three intersections have been studied to assess the feasibility of installing roundabouts; however, none was considered appropriate for such implementation.

For the three intersection control studies, the City of Urbana sought the expertise of Roundabout consultants since the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) does not provided roundabout guidelines. States like Iowa have addressed roundabouts in their intersection design guidelines, similar to the Illinois Department of Transportation’s “BDE Chapter 36.” Illinois has not issued any guidelines on roundabouts but recommends the use of the FHWA Roundabout Guidelines and the NCHRP 672 report as references whenever the feasibility of a roundabout is questioned. These guidelines provide general information for roundabout design, but need to be adapted to the Champaign-Urbana local transportation conditions to better fit the existing conditions of the community. This document proposes guidelines for roundabouts that can be used in Champaign-Urbana when an intersection is being evaluated for installation of traffic control devices.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 16

Section 3. Considerations and Feasibility

“Planning determines whether a roundabout is even feasible, before expending the effort required for more detailed analysis and design.”4 It is about addressing whether the choice of a roundabout is appropriate for the location, the size or number of lanes of the roundabout to be designed, the impact of the implementation of the roundabout and the appropriate public education approach. In these guidelines, the main focus will be on deciding when a roundabout is appropriate for an intersection.

The NHCRP 672 identifies three environmental situations where a roundabout might appear as an opportunity: a retrofit of an existing intersection, the first roundabout in the area and roundabouts in a new roadway network. Although, only the case where the roundabout is proposed as a retrofit of an existing intersection will be considered in the following, further considerations will be made for the other cases as well.

3.1. Roundabout as an alternative for an existing intersection (Retrofit intersection)

When an intersection is subject to a retrofit, the alternative analysis is generally based on improving the safety or capacity of the existing intersection. In either case, the existing conditions and future demands should be well documented to be used in the alternative analysis. Therefore, considering the roundabout as an alternative will be based on criteria such as safety and geometric factors along with the intersection operation.8 Such factors may include but are not limited to: the existing morning and afternoon peak-hour turning- movement counts; major traffic generators with shift changes that occur during off-peak hours; approved design-year morning and afternoon peak-hour turning-movement projections; design vehicle to be accommodated; base mapping, either aerial photograph, aerial mapping, or survey; right-of-way mapping; crash data for the most recent three-year to five-years period available; location of nearby intersections and signal timing information, if applicable; location of major constraints near the intersection, i.e., right of way, major utilities, structures, railroad crossings, bodies of water; existing and future planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities; truck percentages; and accommodation of disabled persons.8

8 Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2010

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 17

Table 3. Factors when considering a roundabout6 Safety factors Poor crash historya (with injury Right-angle crashes Roundabout is a viable crashes) at two-way stop- alternative controlled or signalized Left-turn crashes Roundabout is a viable intersections with high proportion alternative of these crash types: Red light or Stop sign running Roundabout is a viable alternative Non-motorized usersb High volume of pedestrians and high Additional investigation volume of vehicles needed Sight-impaired pedestrians Additional investigation needed Notes a Four-way stop intersections and roundabouts have similar crash histories, whereas two-way stop-controlled and signalized intersections have much higher crash rates than roundabouts. b Roundabouts provide an intersection environment for pedestrians where speeds are low and pedestrians only cross one direction of vehicular traffic at a time and find refuge in the splitter island. Active research, NCHRP 3-78/3-78A, is investigating the need to provide additional guidance for pedestrians at multi-lane roundabouts, specifically blind and sight-impaired pedestrians. The recommendation by the U.S. Access Board suggests that all multi-lane roundabout pedestrian crossings be equipped with a pedestrian-activated signal to stop traffic (e.g., a high-intensity activated crosswalk [HAWK] signal).

Geometric factors Intersection geometryc More than four legs Roundabout is a viable alternative Skewed Roundabout is a viable alternative Close to another intersection Additional investigation needed Within 100 ft. of a drivewayd Roundabout can be a viable alternative depending on the roadway classification Sight distancee Inadequate stopping sight distance Roundabout not recommended Minimal intersection sight distance with Roundabout is a viable adequate sight lines alternative Notes c Roundabouts provide flexibility at intersections where other intersections are in close proximity. An adjacent side road approach may be realigned such that it can be added as a leg to the roundabout. d Driveways can be difficult to accommodate near any intersection, both geometrically and operationally. Roundabouts can provide more flexibility when driveways are within 100 ft. to 500 ft. of the intersection. Right-in- right-out turning restrictions can be implemented at driveways near roundabouts while still minimizing traffic impacts, as roundabouts allow for convenient U-turns. e Stopping sight distance for a roundabout is critical at the entrance approach, within the circulatory roadway, and on the exit approach (crosswalk). Intersection sight distance is essentially the sight “triangle” (which may be on a curve) needed for a driver who does not have the right of way to perceive and react to a conflicting pedestrian, vehicle, or bicyclist. Roundabouts have an advantage over standard intersections in that there are fewer conflicts to check for sight distance requirements. The minimum required sight distance is actually preferred in order to keep speeds low at the intersection.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 18

Operation factors Near traffic signalsf Where queuing may extend into other Additional investigation intersections needed Within a coordinated signal system Additional investigation needed Where modifications to traffic via signal Additional investigation timing is desired needed Two way stop delay Major movement - peak hours Additional investigation needed Minor movement - peak hours Roundabout is a viable alternative Major movement - off-peak hours Additional investigation needed Minor movement - off-peak hours Roundabout is a viable alternative Four way stop delay Peak hours Roundabout is a viable alternative Off-peak hours Roundabout is a viable alternative Signal delay Major movement – peak hours Roundabout is a viable alternative Minor movement – peak hours Roundabout is a viable alternative Major movement – off-peak hours Roundabout is a viable alternative Minor movement – off-peak hours Roundabout is a viable alternative No left-turn lane Roundabout is a viable alternative No protected left-turn phase Roundabout is a viable alternative Turning movements High percentage of vehicles turning left Roundabout is a viable alternative Major traffic movement changes direction Roundabout is a viable alternative In lieu of right turn on red Roundabout is a viable alternative Access managementg Need for U-turns Roundabout is a viable alternative Right-in-right-out restrictions Roundabout is a viable alternative Interchange ramps Exit ramps with a high number of left Roundabout is a viable turns alternative Limited storage on ramp Roundabout is a viable alternative Where headway between vehicles is Roundabout is a viable

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 19

important as vehicles enter a alternative freeway/expressway Notes f Traffic signals and roundabouts can and do exist on the same corridor. Intersections on corridors need to be considered as part of a system and not on an individual or isolated basis. With proper signal timing, coordination, and an operations analysis to account for queuing between intersections, roundabouts and signalized intersections can be compatible. g Access management principles align with how roundabouts function and operate. Corridors that are hampered with numerous accesses, especially those to businesses, can benefit from roundabouts. Roundabouts facilitate the use of U- turns at intersections and allow for right turns into driveways and parking lots rather than left turns across traffic. The impacts of right-in-right-out restrictions and closed medians become reduced when roundabouts provide a natural U-turn at an adjacent intersection.

The table above identified the factors that can be used to make a preliminary recommendation when considering a roundabout.6 Those are general and preliminary recommendations based on non-specific numerical data. They may be used whenever preliminary analysis is required and in this case, the recommendation criteria limits are left at the discretion of the planner/designer.

There are many different approaches that can be used when the feasibility of a roundabout is being questioned. For the Champaign-Urbana area, the following process is recommended:

 Step 1: Identify the context of the intersection; whether it is an urban, sub-urban, rural or University District intersection.

 Step 2: Identify the reasons the roundabout alternative is being considered.

The consideration of a roundabout for a retrofit intersection is generally for capacity or safety improvements. The factors described in the table above can help clarify the reason a roundabout is being recommended. The end goal for a roundabout is supported by its purpose as a safety or capacity enhancer, therefore these reasons should be identified in the planning stages of a roundabout.

 Step 3: Gather the relevant crash data and traffic data for the existing intersection being considered.

Data such as2 volume to capacity ratio, average delay, Level of Service (LOS), queue lengths, crash data, peak hour volume and others may be useful. The exact data to be gathered should be determined by the reason for roundabout consideration as explained in Step 2.

 Step 4: Future projection of existing data and conditions (20-30 years).

Projecting the existing data and conditions into the future is important to evaluate the approximate growth of those factors and assess the capacity of the proposed alternatives to handle the volumes and conditions over the roadway design life.

 Step 5: Proposition of the appropriate type of roundabout.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 20

Choosing the type of roundabout (mini, single or multi-lane) is based on projected traffic volumes and design speed (See Table 2 or NCHRP 672 Exhibit 3-12).

 Step 6: Compute delay, LOS and queue lengths for all alternatives considered.

Whether the intersection being studied is a signalized, an AWSC or a TWSC intersection, refer to the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 for the formulas to compute the delay, LOS and queue Length.

For example, the NCHRP Report 672 and Kittelson & Associates, Inc. recommended the following formulas to assist the implementation of a roundabout in the City of Bend, (OR):

 For the entry capacity at single-lane roundabouts5:

c =1130⋅exp (− 0.0010⋅vc) (1) With c = entry capacity (passenger car units [pcu]/h)

vc = conflicting flow (pcu/h)

 For the critical lane of a multilane entry into a two-lane circulatory roadway5:

ccrit =1130*exp(-0.0007vc ) (2) With

ccrit = entry capacity of critical lane (pcu/h)

vc = conflicting flow (pcu/h)

 To compute the delay for each lane5:

(3)

With d = average control delay (s/veh) c = capacity of subject lane (veh/h) T = time period (h: T = 1 for 1-h analysis, T = 0.25 for 15-min analysis) v = flow in subject lane (veh/h)

And for the intersection8:

(4) With

Dintersection = intersection control delay (s/veh)

Di = control delay on approach i (s/veh)

Vi = volume on approach i (veh/hr)

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 21

 Step 7: Assess pedestrians and/or bicycles impacts

Existing and projected pedestrians and bicycles volumes need to be assessed to evaluate their impacts on the capacity and safety of all traffic alternatives being analyzed. Section 4 of this document provides more information about considerations for pedestrians and bicycles in roundabouts.

 Step 8: Benefit/Cost Analysis

When a roundabout is being considered as a solution, a benefit/cost analysis should also be used as an important decision guidance tool. Such analysis can be performed by comparing the benefits/cost ratio for both intersection control types. The existing intersection should be observed for at least three (3) years before the analysis period9 to evaluate the benefits, the frequency, patterns, severity and types of crashes.

Three types of benefits should be evaluated: safety benefits (crashes analysis), operational benefits (reduction of delay) and environmental benefits (reduction of fuel consumption and improvement of air quality).

The cost of maintenance and construction are two cost components to be evaluated for both the existing intersection and the roundabout. For example, a roundabout does not require costs associated with traffic signals, such as energy and maintenance. However, the footprint surface needed for the roundabout is larger than the one needed for a signalized intersection.3

To find the footprint or space requirement of the roundabout, the ADT data should be used with Table 1 to choose the type of roundabout to be constructed. The space required for the type of roundabout should be compared to the actual size of the existing intersection to ensure it is a viable option.

If more than two alternatives are being compared, the benefits/Costs for all alternatives should be compared to a no-build alternative using the following equation4: → (5)

With i: Alternative i nb: no-built alternative

Once the not viable alternative eliminated (B/C <1), the B/C ratios of the viable alternatives are to be compared by pair4.

 Step 9: Results and recommendations sheet

9 Indiana Department of Transportation, Indiana Design Manual (IDM) Chapter 51.12, 2011

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 22

Draw up a result and recommendation sheet containing all the considerations made for the alternatives considered, final comments, interpretations and recommendations. This sheet may be similar to the figure below:

Intersection Location: Existing Intersection Alternative Factors Control Intersection Comments Recommendation Control Safety Operational

Analysis Construction

Cost Right-of-way

… Figure 6: Results and recommendations sheet1

Figure 7 illustrates the steps to be followed in the roundabout analysis.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 23

Step 1: Identify the location

Step 2: Identify the reasons the roundabout alternative is being considered

Step 3: Get the relevant crash data and traffic data for the existing intersection

Step 4: Future projection of existing data and conditions

Step 5: Proposition of the appropriate type of roundabout

Step 6: Compute delay, LOS and Queue lengths for all

Step 7: Assess Pedestrians and/or bicycles impacts

Step 8: Benefit/Cost Analysis

Step 9: Draw up an analysis and

recommendation sheet

Conclusion: Which alternative is feasible and/or recommended?

Figure 7. Flow Chart of the Analysis Process

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 24

3.2. First roundabout in an area

When a roundabout introduced as a retrofit for the first time, the process outlined above should be used to decide whether or not the roundabout is the appropriate intersection control. However, an education campaign is needed to promote awareness of the benefits of the roundabout for current and future users. The education campaign should focus on the safety improvement and advantages of the use of roundabouts and educate users on traffic operation in roundabouts.

Multi-lane roundabouts have been successfully constructed as the first roundabout in many communities across the U.S., although single-lane roundabouts are usually more easily understood by users without roundabout experience.4

3.3. Roundabouts in a new roadway network (new intersection)

Fewer considerations need to be made for a roundabout as part of a new roadway project when compared to a retrofit project. There are usually no field observations of site-specific problems to be addressed and it is easier to get right-of-way. In this case, a roundabout should be presented as one alternative among many others4.

Once a location is determined, the design year traffic should be chosen to help decide what type of roundabout is necessary. Other factors like the environmental conditions and future development at the site should also be taken into consideration.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 25

Section 4: Other considerations

Aside from drivers, there are three important users to consider when determining the feasibility of roundabouts as an alternative to an existing intersection control: pedestrians, persons with disabilities and cyclists. Each group is subject to high risks when interacting with cars while crossing or cycling across or within the roundabout. Therefore, taking into account their volumes and interaction with the vehicles at the intersection under study should be an important factor of the decision-making process.

4.1. Pedestrians

Pedestrians are particularly at risk at intersections since their paths often include crossing the streets at signals where they are subject to unprotected right and left turn conflicts or at stop control intersections where they must consider two traffic lanes simultaneously. Therefore, their movements are usually insured with crosswalks at intersections. While pedestrians usually look both ways when there is no median in traditional intersections, in roundabouts, the splitter island allows them to pause between the two ways. Such a layout and the reduced speeds of traffic within roundabouts considerably simplify crossing movements for pedestrians since they only have to consider one traffic direction at a time. Motorists can also stop more readily for pedestrians because of their reduced speed.4

While the characteristics described above apply to both the mini and single-lane roundabouts, it is more difficult for pedestrians to cross in multi-lane roundabouts because of the longer crossing distance. The NCHRP Report 672 states that two to three times as many vehicles do not yield to pedestrians in multi-lane roundabouts as compared to single-lane roundabouts.

4.2. Pedestrians with disabilities

Accommodating pedestrians with disabilities at roundabouts represents a challenge for transportation entities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specifically requires that “Any new or modified intersection in the United States that has pedestrian facilities must be accessible to and usable by all pedestrians. “ In other words, pedestrians with disabilities should be able to use or cross a roundabout intersection without any special training. Accommodations for these roundabout users are important and below are a few of the most common difficulties for pedestrians with disabilities4:

 Wayfinding

Wayfinding in a roundabout is difficult for pedestrians with visual impairment because the roundabout intersection design is circular and the crosswalks are outside the projection of approaching sidewalks.

 Alignment

The blind pedestrians need audible and tactile clues to align themselves with the crosswalks and the roundabout are not generally equipped with these.

 Gap and yield detection

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 26

This is the most difficult issue that blind pedestrians face in a roundabout. Pedestrians with vision impairment rely on audible clues to cross an intersection, which may be masked by the circulating traffic inside the traffic circle. Since there may always be traffic movement in a roundabout, it is difficult for these pedestrians to distinguish a vehicle that has totally stopped from one that intends to stop or a vehicle inside the circle from one that that is exiting the circle. In multi-lane roundabouts, the issue is amplified due to the increased number of lanes.

Accommodating blind pedestrians is a challenge in roundabouts. Some solutions like the use of detectable edge treatment or a landscape strip to lead those pedestrians to the crosswalks have been used. The NCHRP Report 674 also listed some other treatments that may be applicable to accommodate pedestrians with visual disabilities10:

 Flashing Beacon

The installation of a continuous flashing beacon along with a static sign to make it more visible which can become ineffective if the existing pedestrian traffic cannot indicate how frequent the crosswalk is used.

 Distal Crosswalk

Placing a crosswalk 100 ft. away from the roundabout circulation lane will have the benefit to orient the pedestrians away from the noise generated by traffic inside the roundabout circulating lane. Although this solution would facilitate the pedestrians with visual disabilities in their crossing travel, it can be less beneficial for the sighted pedestrians who can just ignore the crosswalk because of the longer crossing distance and cross in a location in between the crosswalk and the circulation lane. Having a raised distal crosswalk or combining the distal crosswalk with speed lowering measure can also be a solution to accommodate visually impaired pedestrians.

 Offset exit crossing

Assuming that it is more difficult for a visually impaired pedestrians to cross an exit lane comparing to an entry lane, this solution would facilitate the selection of gap if the crosswalk is offset enough from the in circle traffic. The zigzag geometry obtained will also provide additional queue storage for the exit lane.

 Pedestrian-actuated additional signal – one or two stage

This solution would be particularly beneficial for blind pedestrians since audio is also provided along with the red-yellow-green traditional which, in this case, would be used for the pedestrians. However, slow driver reaction, delay and queue spillback at roundabouts with high pedestrians and vehicular traffic might be an issue.

 Pedestrian hybrid beacon or HAWK

10 NCHRP Report 674

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 27

This solution would be more efficient than the conventional pedestrian traffic signal because vehicles would be allowed to move after stopping when the “Don’t walk” is flashing if there is no pedestrians crossing.

The solutions above are among many to be explored when pedestrians with disabilities are being considered in designing a roundabout. However, only few of them have been tested. While testing the HAWK on double-lane roundabouts have revealed a reduction in the vehicles delay and a lower level of risks in the roundabout10, those solutions remained experimental at the moment and the subject of many on-going researches.

4.3. Bicyclists

The speed inside a roundabout circle (10 to 15 mph) is very comparable to a cyclist’s speed in traffic (12 to 20 mph). Single-lane roundabouts are safer and simpler for bicyclists due to the low speed of circulating traffic compared to multi-lanes roundabouts. Moreover, cyclists do not have to change lanes, select an appropriate circulating lane or cross a vehicle path while exiting the circle. It is for these reasons that a single-lane roundabout is more desirable for cyclists than a multi-lane roundabout, even when long-term predictions suggest that a multi-lane roundabout may be desirable.4

When bicycle lanes are painted on the side of a roadway and next to vehicles traffic lanes, they should terminate before entering the circle. Bicycle lanes at the edge of a roundabout circle create conflicts between the bikes and the exiting vehicles, which can result in high crashes inside the circle. At the approach of the circle, the bike lane may be continued with bike ramps allowing the bikes to access the sidewalks. However, such measure may not be necessary in urban single lane roundabouts since the low-speed and lower-volume environment will typically facilitate comfortable navigation for the cyclists11.

4.4. Pedestrian and bicycle planning considerations

The NCHRP Reports 672 and 674 provides further information for considerations to be made for pedestrians and bicyclists. For the CUUATS Roundabout Guidelines, the existing pedestrians and bicycles volumes and facilities should be carefully considered. A planner/designer should assess their impact on capacity and safety reduction by identifying and analyzing the crashes dues to their interaction with the vehicles, any signal timing available for their process, and any other relevant data.

11 FHWA Safety Program, FHWA SA-10-006,2010

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 28

Section 5: Recommendations

This set of guidelines is the result of a careful synthesis of planning guidelines published and adopted by numerous states and cities across the United States. They should not be used as standards for roundabouts but can be used as guidelines for the Champaign-Urbana MPO member agencies to lead preliminary intersection analyses that include roundabout feasibility. Adequate considerations should be made to comply with all requirements of the conditions of each intersection being analyzed since each case is different.

Although each case study differs from one another, roundabout implementation across the world has revealed some trends across cases. According to NCHRP Report 672:

 A roundabout will always provide a higher capacity and lower delays than all-way stop-control (AWSC) operating with the same traffic volumes.  A roundabout is unlikely to offer better performance in terms of lower overall delays than TWSC at intersections with minor movements (including cross-street entry and major-street left turns) that are not experiencing, nor predicted to experience, operational problems under TWSC.  A single-lane roundabout may be assumed to operate within its capacity at any intersection that does not exceed the peak-hour volume warrant for signals.  A roundabout that operates within its capacity will generally produce lower delays than a signalized intersection operating with the same traffic volumes.

Some cases were also reported by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation at locations where roundabouts may be ideal to other alternatives:

 Intersections with a high-crash rate or a higher severity of crashes.  Where an existing intersection is failing, for any reason.  Where other alternatives are expensive.  Where aesthetics are an objective.  Transitions in functional class or desired speed change (including rural to urban transitions).  Where a random/continuous arrival pattern exists.  Where a random/continuous traffic pattern is desired or platoons are especially expensive and inefficient (on-ramps, bridges).  Freeway ramp terminals.  High-speed rural intersections.  Intersections of dissimilar functional class (arterial-arterial, arterial-collector, arterial- local, collector-collector, collector-access).  4-leg intersections with entering volumes less than 8,000 vph or approximately 80,000 ADT.  3-leg intersections of any volume.  2-way stop control intersections with a high-crash rate or a higher severity of crashes.  Intersection of two signalized progressive corridors where turn proportions are heavy (random arrival is better than off-cycle arrival).  Closely spaced intersections where signal progression cannot be achieved.  Locations where future access will be added to the intersection.  Replacement of 4-way stops.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 29

 Intersections near schools.  Other intersections where safety is a major concern.

These considerations should be taken into account and utilized as references during the planning process.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 30

Section 6: References

Benekohal, R. F. and Atluri, V., Roundabout Evaluation and Design: A Site Selection Procedure, Illinois Center for Transportation, University Of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2009, 67p.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Safety Program. Roundabouts, FHWA-SA-10-006, Washington, D.C., February 2010.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc., City of Bend: Roundabout Evaluation and Design Guidelines, City of Bend, April 2010.

Indiana Department of Transportation, Indiana Roundabout Design Guide, Indiana Design Manual (IDM) Chapter 51.12, 2011.

Isebrands, H. N. and Hallmark, S., Planning-Level Guidelines for Modern Roundabouts, CTRE Project 06-255, Iowa 2008, 30p.

O’Laughlin, R. and Murtha, T., Arterials and Streets: Infrastructure and Operations for Mobility, Access, and Community In Metropolitan Chicago.- Part IIIa: Roundabouts, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, January 2009.

Ourston Roundabout Engineering, Inc., Intersection Control Study Windsor Road and Race Street, Urbana, IL, June, 2011.

Robinson B. W., Rodegerdts, L., Scarbrough, W., Kittelson, W., Troutbeck, R., Brilon, W., Bondzio, L., Courage, K., Kyte, M., Mason, J., Flannery, A., Myers, E., Bunker, J. and Jacquemart, G., Roundabout: An informational Guide, Report FHWA-RD-00-67, Department of Transportation, June 2000.

Transportation Research Board of the National Academy, Roundabouts in the United States, NCHRP Report 572, Washington D.C, 2007.

Transportation Research Board of the National Academy, Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2nd edition, NCHRP Report 672, Washington D.C, 2010

Transportation Research Board of the National Academy, Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities, NCHRP Report 674, Washington D.C, 2011

United States Access Board, Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, Federal Register, July 2004 and amended August 2005.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Roundabout Guide, February 2011.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 31

Section 7: CUUATS Roundabout Sample Policy

WHEREAS, the Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS) addresses transportation problems within a defined study area; and

WHEREAS, the CUUATS adopted mission is “to coordinate metropolitan transportation planning with the Illinois Department of Transportation, Champaign County, the Cities of Champaign and Urbana, Village of Savoy, University of Illinois, the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District, and the general public, and to coordinate the use of federal transportation funds within the Champaign-Urbana urbanized area”; and

WHEREAS, the CUUATS Long Range Transportation Plan: Choices 2035 adopted the following goals:  Goal 1: Non-single occupancy vehicle travel will be a principal consideration of the transportation planning process to make the urbanized area more sustainable, efficient, and provide a higher quality of life for residents.  Goal 2: Compact development and mixed-use forms should be principal considerations for new development and redevelopment in the urbanized area to create a more walkable, sustainable, and efficient development pattern.  Goal 3: Transportation modes and facilities in the urbanized area will be safe for all users.  Goal 4: The urbanized area transportation system will be secure from human and natural hazards.  Goal 5: All transportation system users will have convenient, multi-modal access to all parts of the urbanized area and will travel with increased mobility during peak traffic hours.  Goal 6: To provide facilities for non-auto modes of transportation in order to improve mobility and decrease the number of vehicles on our roadways.  Goal 7: Utilize a sustainable approach to transportation planning and engineering which promotes environmental stewardship and energy conservation.  Goal 8: Provide a user-friendly, integrated regional transportation system that supports accessibility and promotes desirable social impacts.  Goal 9: All transportation system users in the urbanized area will have access to a network of transportation modes and infrastructure that maximizes connectivity between origins and destinations and promotes the use of both motorized and non-motorized modes to travel between them.  Goal 10: To the greatest extent possible, the existing capacity of the urbanized area transportation system will be maximized through innovative transportation system management approaches.  Goal 11: Interagency coordination will be emphasized in all phases of the transportation planning and implementation process.  Goal 12: To the greatest extent possible, improvements will be made to the existing roadway network to preserve or improve upon its current condition and add pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities where needed.

WHEREAS, in certain circumstances, roundabouts are considered a viable alternative to other intersection traffic controls and help support CUUATS’ mission; and

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 32

WHEREAS, roundabouts are a useful intersection control structure designed and constructed to support safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motor vehicles, transit riders, regardless of age, physical abilities, income or ethnicity; and

WHEREAS, the CUUATS Technical Advisory Committee has recommended establishing roundabout policy guidelines for the Champaign-Urbana urbanized area to promote the construction of roundabouts within the regional transportation network when feasible and appropriate; and

WHEREAS, the Champaign-Urbana urbanized area includes streets and facilities falling under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation, Champaign County, the Cities of Urbana and Champaign, the Villages of Savoy, Tolono and Bondville, and the University of Illinois, and CUUATS members strive to coordinate transportation policies and improvements of its constituent organizations;

WHEREAS, CUUATS wishes to promote best management practices in building and maintaining transportation facilities; and

WHEREAS, CUUATS has determined it is in the best interest of its members and the population the members represent to adopt Roundabout Design Guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CHAMPAIGN-URBANA URBANIZED AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY (CUUATS) POLICY COMMITTEE, as follows:

Section 1. That the Roundabout Design Guidelines attached hereto as “Attachment A” are adopted.

Section 2. That the Roundabout Design Guidelines are in conformance with the current and anticipated needs of the Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 33

Attachment A

Purposes The purpose of the CUUATS Roundabout Design Guidelines is to promote the construction of roundabouts in the Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area whenever feasible and appropriate, whether by the Illinois Department of Transportation, Champaign County, the Cities of Urbana and Champaign, the Villages of Savoy, Tolono and Bondville, or the University of Illinois.

Roundabout Principles Roundabouts are a useful intersection control structure designed and constructed to support safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motor vehicles, transit riders, regardless of age, physical abilities, income or ethnicity.

Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area. The Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Boundary is determined by the US Census Bureau in conjunction with the Decennial Census and is defined as an area of 50,000 or more population that is considered currently urban in character. The Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area currently includes the transportation jurisdictions of the Illinois Department of Transportation, Champaign County, the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District, the Cities of Urbana and Champaign, and the Villages of Savoy, Bondville and Tolono.

Values The values to incorporate within the CUUATS Roundabout Design Guidelines not only include safety, mobility, and fiscal responsibility, but also community values and qualities including: environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic and natural resources, and social equity values. This approach demands careful analysis of the feasibility and appropriateness of roundabouts within the construction and reconstruction of intersections. The public should be consulted, when appropriate, as a factor in the transportation infrastructure decision-making process.

Adaptability The CUUATS Roundabout Design Guidelines provides flexibility to accommodate various roadway users in roundabouts when appropriate at intersections to enhance the safety and convenience of users and the capacity of the roadway in a way that fits the context(s) of the community.

Applicability If an intersection warrants a signal or a four-way stop within the design life of the proposed project, the modern roundabout shall be evaluated as an equal alternative. Where there is an existing four- way stop or signal and there are operational problems with the current control, then the roundabout shall be considered as a viable alternative. As stated above the roundabout may be a viable alternative for a two-way stop control in certain circumstances. In either case, roundabouts are a potential intersection control strategy until such time that the evaluation indicates that the roundabout alternative is not appropriate.

Appropriate roundabout accommodation(s) should be considered a part of all appropriate transportation intersection projects, including:  Project identification  Scoping procedures and design approvals, including design manuals and performance measures

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 34

 Construction  Reconstruction

Roundabout Design Guidelines should:  Apply to both existing and future intersections  Apply to transportation infrastructure projects where intersections are considered, regardless of funding source(s), and  Not apply to streets ultimately to be privately owned and maintained, where specified users are prohibited by law, or the cost of providing accommodation are excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use.

Existing Policies and Regulations To support the CUUATS Roundabout Design Guidelines, existing policies and regulations of member jurisdictions may be reviewed and modified by those jurisdictions in consultation with CUUATS where appropriate. Such policies and regulations may include:

 Comprehensive plans  University District master plans  Transportation plans  Subdivision codes  Manuals of practice  Grant-writing practices  Impact assessments  Level of Service assessments  Departmental policies and procedures  Any other applicable procedures and standards

Latest Standards In furthering the CUUATS Roundabout Design Guidelines, transportation projects should make use of the latest and best design standards, policies, and guidelines. Performance measures should also be utilized to measure the effectiveness of roundabout practices that align with concurrent transportation planning efforts, particularly the Champaign-Urbana Long Range Transportation Plan.

Roundabout Design Guidelines, CUUATS 35

CUUATS CHAMPAIGN URBANA URBANIZED AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY 1776 East Washington Street Urbana, IL 61802

Phone 217.328.3313 Fax 217.328.2426

ww.ccrpc.org

Champaign‐Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study CUUATS Policy Committee Meeting Schedule for 2013

Unless otherwise indicated Meetings will be held at 10:30 a.m. John Dimit Meeting Room, Brookens Administrative Center 1776 E. Washington Street Urbana, Illinois

ANY OTHER CHANGES WILL BE ANNOUNCED.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Wednesday, December 11, 2013