Deep Dive: Hickory NC's Mobility & Walkability: Transformations in Peer Cities

📄 Prefer a fast read? View the 750-word summary version of this report:
👉 Click here for the Executive Summary

📌 Looking for the key takeaways? Access the Cheat Sheet of Major Findings:
👉 Click here for the Bullet Point Summary

Mobility and Walkability Solutions in Cities Comparable to Hickory

Introduction

Cities comparable to Hickory, North Carolina – midsized communities facing suburban sprawl, car-dependency, aging infrastructure, sparse sidewalks, and limited transit – have pioneered a range of strategies to become more walkable and better connected. This report presents detailed case studies of similar cities (primarily in the Southeast U.S.) that successfully tackled these mobility challenges. Each case outlines the city’s initial problems, the comprehensive solutions applied (tactical projects, planning and zoning changes, institutional shifts), funding mechanisms, and the outcomes achieved. We highlight economic impacts such as improved job access, downtown revitalization, and new investment. The aim is to illuminate how strategic interventions in mobility and walkability can unlock broader economic and social benefits.

Greenville, SC – Revitalizing Downtown Through Walkability

Challenges: Greenville (city pop. ~70,000) was once dominated by cars and blight. A four-lane highway bridge cut through downtown, neighborhoods were disinvested, and Main Street had become denuded of activity (smartgrowthamerica.org) (t4america.org). Like many post-WWII cities, sprawl drew development to the suburbs, leaving the core neglected (t4america.org). The city faced traffic congestion, vacant storefronts, and a polluted river running through downtown (t4america.org).

Key Strategies & Interventions:

• Road Diets & Streetscape Improvements: In the 1970s, Mayor Max Heller championed narrowing Main Street from four lanes to two, widening sidewalks, adding street trees, and on-street parking (t4america.org). Slower traffic and pedestrian-friendly design lured people back. As developer Phil Hughes noted, “Narrow streets have driven street life here” – more people on sidewalks created a safer, livelier downtown (smartgrowthamerica.org).

• Reclaiming the Riverfront: The city removed the Camperdown Way highway bridge in 2004 and replaced it with the iconic Liberty pedestrian bridge and Falls Park on the Reedy River (t4america.org). This move restored public access to the waterfall that birthed the city and created a signature downtown park. Falls Park, developed through public-private partnership (city, state, Carolina Foothills Garden Club, etc.), became a major attraction (t4america.org).

• Trail Connectivity: Greenville repurposed a former rail line into the Swamp Rabbit Trail, a 20+ mile greenway linking downtown to nearby towns (smartgrowthamerica.org). This multi-use trail drew cyclists and joggers, sparked bike-oriented businesses (e.g. a bike-themed inn and cafes along the route), and connected residents to parks and a university (smartgrowthamerica.org). Every new development is now required by ordinance to install bike parking, even big-box stores (smartgrowthamerica.org) – a policy to cement bike/pedestrian infrastructure into the city’s growth.

• Planning & Policy: City leaders maintained a long-term vision over four decades (smartgrowthamerica.org). Consistent leadership (Mayor Knox White since 1995) and public-private partnerships drove catalytic projects (smartgrowthamerica.org) (t4america.org). To prevent walkability gains from pricing out locals, Greenville worked with developers on mixed-income projects so that new downtown housing includes affordable units, indistinguishable from market-rate homes (smartgrowthamerica.org). A downtown baseball stadium and performing arts center were strategically placed to anchor revitalization while engaging the community (smartgrowthamerica.org).

Funding Mechanisms: Greenville leveraged a mix of local and external funds. A local hospitality tax helped finance removal of the highway bridge and development of Falls Park (t4america.org). State and federal grants, private donations, and corporate sponsors (for parks and trails) all played roles (masc.sc). The Swamp Rabbit Trail emerged from a public-private effort (county ownership with healthcare system sponsorship) (smartgrowthamerica.org). Long-term commitment from city government and institutions attracted outside investment (e.g. the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation supported learning exchanges (smartgrowthamerica.org)).

Outcomes and Impacts: Downtown Greenville is now celebrated as one of America’s most beautiful and vibrant downtowns (smartgrowthamerica.org). Foot traffic surged as residents and visitors flock to Main Street’s cafes, shops, and events. Falls Park alone generated $100+ million in new private development (hotels, restaurants, offices, housing) in the once-neglected West End (masc.sc). The area transformed from desolate warehouses to a lively mixed-use district, boosting tourism and quality of  life (masc.sc). The Swamp Rabbit Trail attracts nearly a million trips annually and spurred businesses like bike inns and breweries along its route (smartgrowthamerica.org). Greenville’s success has had regional ripple effects – it regularly hosts delegations from cities like Macon, Columbia and Wichita who come to study its walkability-driven economic development (smartgrowthamerica.org). Importantly, the city has pursued inclusive growth alongside placemaking: by integrating affordable housing in revitalized areas (smartgrowthamerica.org), Greenville seeks to ensure that new prosperity and access benefits a broad community. The city’s evolution demonstrates how quality of place is economic strategy – a walkable downtown and trail-connected neighborhoods helped attract talent, young families and investment, repositioning Greenville as a thriving destination rather than a declining mill town.

Chattanooga, TN – Mobility Innovations Fuel Downtown Revival

Challenges: Chattanooga (pop. ~180,000) in the 1980s faced dire pollution (“America’s dirtiest city” at one point), hollowed-out downtown streets, and traffic congestion hemmed in by mountains and river. Car dependency was high, yet the urban core suffered “urban decay and loss of revenue” as people and businesses fled (afdc.energy.gov). The city’s layout – a 2-mile downtown corridor by the Tennessee River – was constrained, and much land was consumed by parking lots for commuters (afdc.energy.gov). In short, Chattanooga needed to reduce car impacts (emissions, gridlock, wasted space) and re-attract people downtown.

Key Strategies & Interventions:

• Free Electric Shuttle System: A coalition of citizens, business leaders, and officials devised an innovative park-and-ride shuttle plan to improve downtown access (afdc.energy.gov) . Two large parking garages were built at the edges of downtown to intercept drivers, and a fare-free electric shuttle fleet carries people between the garages and downtown destinations (afdc.energy.gov). The shuttle runs along the main 2-mile corridor, with buses arriving every 5 minutes over 16-hour days (afdc.energy.gov). This high-frequency service (operated by CARTA, the transit authority) meant visitors and workers could park once and circulate downtown without a car. Uniquely, the shuttle’s operating funds come from parking revenue – essentially reinvesting parking fees to fund transit (afdc.energy.gov). The shuttle buses themselves are electric, chosen to eliminate tailpipe pollution downtown and to provide a novel, attractive ride (part of making transit an “event” in itself) (afdc.energy.gov). Each bus is small (22–30 feet) and equipped with wheelchair ramps, making them agile and accessible (afdc.energy.gov).

• Downtown Placemaking & Attractions: Complementing the shuttle, Chattanooga invested in major downtown attractions easily reachable on foot or via the shuttle. The Tennessee Aquarium, a riverfront discovery museum, and a revitalized riverfront park all emerged in the 1990s, drawing tourists and locals. By removing the need for massive new parking lots (thanks to the shuttle system), the city freed up land for these developments (afdc.energy.gov). The riverfront was reclaimed with a multi-mile Riverwalk for pedestrians and cyclists, linking parks and cultural sites along the Tennessee River. Together, these efforts addressed both mobility and downtown livability.

• Institutional & Planning Shifts: Chattanooga’s turnaround was guided by strong public-private institutions. Vision 2000, a citizen-led planning initiative, and ongoing non-profit partners (like River City Company for downtown development) ensured broad buy-in. The transportation authority’s willingness to experiment with non-traditional transit (electric vehicles, free fares) was key, as was cooperation from utilities (the Tennessee Valley Authority helped due to air quality goals).

Funding Mechanisms: The electric shuttle and garages were funded through a creative blend: a Federal Transit Administration grant (~$15.7M), matched by the Tennessee DOT (~$2M) and Tennessee Valley Authority (~$2M) for the air-quality benefits (afdc.energy.gov). Local revenue from the parking garages sustains the shuttle operations (afdc.energy.gov), making it financially self-supporting. The Riverwalk and other downtown projects were financed by a mix of city capital budgets, federal redevelopment grants, and substantial private/philanthropic contributions (including foundations and corporate donors eager to revive the city). Chattanooga also leveraged its Electric Power Board (EPB) to support downtown electric transit infrastructure.

Outcomes and Impacts: Chattanooga’s two-pronged strategy (intercept parking + free shuttle) succeeded in reducing congestion and improving air quality downtown. Commuters and visitors embraced the convenience – the shuttles serve over 1 million rides per year, becoming “a model urban transportation system” that moves people efficiently and cuts traffic (chcrpa.org). For many downtown residents, the shuttles became a primary transportation mode, and for tourists they’re part of the Chattanooga experience (afdc.energy.gov). The city was able to remove vast surface parking and instead build attractions like the aquarium and waterfront parks, which in turn spurred private investment (hotels, eateries, housing) around them. The formerly blighted riverfront now teems with pedestrians; even the shuttle buses report surges in ridership during tourist season (afdc.energy.gov). Economically, downtown Chattanooga saw over $1.5 billion in private investment from the late 1980s through 2000s as a direct result of its quality-of-place improvements (the aquarium alone sparked an estimated $500M+ in nearby development). Moreover, the city’s air pollution dropped significantly (ozone and particulates declined) thanks in part to zero-emission shuttles and less car idling. Chattanooga’s approach demonstrates an important institutional shift: treating parking policy as transportation policy. By charging for parking and reinvesting those funds into free transit and by prioritizing people over cars in the core, the city achieved both mobility and revitalization – a virtuous cycle where improved walkability and transit made downtown more attractive, drawing even more investment and activity.

Wilson, NC – Microtransit Replaces Buses to Expand Access

Challenges: Wilson, North Carolina (pop. ~49,000) is a small city with a low-density footprint, typical of rural-urban areas. It long had a fixed-route bus system with only a few buses and hour-long headways (ridewithvia.com). Coverage was limited and many residents lived far from any bus stop. As a result, those with cars drove, while the 12% of households without vehicles faced serious mobility gaps (ridewithvia.com). The transit system was inefficient – routes wound through sprawled areas with minimal riders, and buses often ran empty. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic further depressed ridership, underscoring the need for a more flexible, accessible solution (ridewithvia.com). Wilson also struggled with connecting people to jobs and essential services: many employment centers were outside the old bus routes’ reach, and lower-income residents without cars had difficulty accessing healthcare, groceries, and other needs. Funding for transit was limited, so any new approach had to work within the existing budget.

Key Strategies & Interventions:

• On-Demand Microtransit Service: In September 2020, Wilson made the bold move to completely replace its fixed-route buses with an on-demand microtransit system called RIDE (ridewithvia.com). Partnering with Via (a mobility technology firm), the city deployed a fleet of vans that riders can summon via smartphone app or phone call, similar to Uber/Lyft but public and shared. Microtransit vans have no fixed route – they dynamically pick up and drop off riders anywhere in the city within minutes. This dramatically expanded coverage to virtually the entire city (far beyond the old bus lines) (ridewithvia.com). Wait times dropped from an hour to typically 15 minutes or less. The service runs longer hours (5:30am–7pm on weekdays, expanded from a 7am–6pm bus schedule). Crucially, Wilson kept it affordable ($1.50 per ride, roughly equivalent to the old bus fare).

• Data-Driven Service Zones: Wilson used demographic and ridership data (via the Remix planning tool) to design the microtransit zones and ensure the service reaches those who need it most (ridewithvia.com). Maps showed high concentrations of carless households, and the RIDE service has been heavily used in exactly those areas – confirming it filled a real gap (ridewithvia.com).

• Institutional Shift: City leadership, including the Chief Planning & Development Officer, championed microtransit as a solution for car-oriented communities (ridewithvia.com). Rather than sticking to a legacy coverage model, Wilson officials were willing to “kill the buses” and reimagine transit, an unconventional move for a rural city. They also took advantage of a Federal Accelerating Innovative Mobility (AIM) grant to pilot this approach and carefully tracked results for accountability.

Funding Mechanisms: Wilson’s microtransit operates roughly on the same annual budget as the previous bus system, but delivers more service. By reallocating the resources (and with technology optimizing routes), the city could cover the whole area without increasing cost (ridewithvia.com). A federal innovation grant provided additional funding to extend hours and support the transition (transit.dot.gov). The partnership with Via is structured as an operating contract (around $0.6–$0.8M/year) within the city’s transit budget. Riders pay a modest fare ($1.50), and the city subsidizes the rest – but because efficiency improved, the cost per trip dropped by 38% compared to the bus era (ridewithvia.com). In short, microtransit allowed Wilson to do more with the same dollars, and the investment is justified by higher ridership.

Outcomes and Impacts: The results in Wilson have been striking. Transit ridership quickly soared to ~140% of the former fixed-route system – in other words, usage is about 40% higher than when buses were running (ridewithvia.com). Even more impressively, this growth occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, when transit use in many cities plummeted (ridewithvia.com). Riders have lauded the convenient, near door-to-door service: a city of 50k now provides transportation from within about two blocks of any location on demand. A survey found that 50% of riders said RIDE helped them gain or maintain employment, by linking them to jobs they previously couldn’t reach (ridewithvia.com). Additionally, 16% of riders have a physical or mental disability, and for them the microtransit is a lifeline to get to medical appointments and daily needs (ridewithvia.com). This illustrates significant equity impacts – populations traditionally underserved by infrequent buses now enjoy mobility freedom. The city also noticed increased transit connectivity to industrial employers on the outskirts, helping businesses fill shifts. Wilson’s microtransit model has drawn national attention (featured on PBS) as a possible “roadmap for small-town transit” after demonstrating that ridership can triple by meeting people where they are (pbs.org). Overall, Wilson overcame the last-mile gaps of a sprawling small city, improving access to jobs, health care, and services without additional taxpayer burden. Its success is inspiring similar on-demand transit pilots in other low-density communities.

Rock Hill, SC – Fare-Free Electric Buses for an Inclusive Network

Challenges: Rock Hill, South Carolina (pop. ~75,000) is a fast-growing city south of Charlotte that, until recently, had no citywide transit system. As the city expanded outward, car ownership became a de facto requirement. Surveys in 2015 revealed a troubling picture: a significant number of Rock Hill residents lived in zero-car households, concentrated in certain neighborhoods (americancityandcounty.com). These areas lacked access to healthcare, grocery stores, and other essentials due to the absence of transit. Community leaders identified transportation as Rock Hill’s greatest unmet need (americancityandcounty.com) – people without vehicles were effectively cut off from opportunities, and even those with cars faced an auto-centric landscape with no alternatives. There was also an economic development motive: the city wanted to attract jobs and students (there is a local university), but modern employers and young talent expect mobility options. Rock Hill’s challenge was to introduce transit from scratch in a city that had never funded it, and to do so in a way that was equitable, modern, and appealing enough to win broad support. Aging infrastructure wasn’t the key issue here so much as absent infrastructure (no buses, few sidewalks in suburbs) and a car-dependent development pattern.

Key Strategies & Interventions:

• Launching “My Ride” – A Citywide Bus System: In 2019 Rock Hill rolled out My Ride, an all-electric, fare-free bus network covering the city’s major corridors (americancityandcounty.com). Starting with 4 fixed routes (later expanded) and a fleet of 7 electric buses, it connects downtown with key destinations including educational institutions, medical centers, shopping areas, and social service hubs (americancityandcounty.com). Buses run daily on loops of roughly one hour, with service from early morning into evening (wfae.org). No fare is charged to ride – the City Council insisted it be free to eliminate cost barriers for riders (students, low-income workers, visitors) (americancityandcounty.com). Each 35-foot bus is battery-electric (zero emissions) and was outfitted with amenities like free WiFi, charging ports, and even “little free libraries” on board to enhance rider experience (americancityandcounty.com). Rock Hill deliberately chose electric buses for lower maintenance costs and as a statement of innovation; they also provide a quieter, cleaner ride through neighborhoods (americancityandcounty.com).

• Focus on Equity and Access: From the outset, My Ride’s planning was driven by equity data. Stops were strategically located near affordable housing complexes, shelters, food pantries, and clinics (americancityandcounty.com) so that those in greatest need would benefit first. The city’s motto “Rock Hill for All” guided the project, aiming to remove transportation as an impediment to opportunity (americancityandcounty.com). Public engagement and a grassroots citizens’ committee helped shape the routes to serve areas that had been historically neglected. The decision to go fare-free was also about inclusion – ensuring that a single mom or a senior on fixed income could hop on/off without worrying about exact change.

• Modern Branding and Tech Integration: Rock Hill branded the system colorfully as “My Ride” to build community buy-in. A custom mobile app with city branding provides real-time bus tracking and trip planning (americancityandcounty.com), making it easy for new riders to use the system. Buses being electric and high-tech also helped overcome stigma (“nobody rides the bus here”) by making transit a source of civic pride. This aligns with the city’s vision to be forward-thinking and sustainable.

Funding Mechanisms: Getting a new transit system off the ground required assembling several funding sources. Rock Hill managed a $7 million initial capital investment, but crucially 80% of bus purchase and infrastructure costs were covered by unused Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds that the state made available (americancityandcounty.com). The federal and state transit dollars dramatically reduced the city’s upfront cost (by about 80%) and also halved the ongoing operating cost burden (americancityandcounty.com). In addition, an infusion of private sector funding (local businesses and institutional partners) helped underwrite the service so that the city’s direct contribution for operations is only about $380,000 per year (americancityandcounty.com) – a modest sum for a city its size, and far less than originally expected. For example, a local university and hospital system sponsor certain routes, and the electric utility had grants for the charging infrastructure. The commitment to fare-free service was solidified when these partners agreed to cover what fare revenue might have been – keeping it free costs the city little thanks to these contributions. The ongoing annual operating budget is around $2 million, drawn from a mix of local funds and federal transit formula funds (which now come to Rock Hill since it operates transit). In short, creative funding (grants + partnerships) made My Ride financially feasible and sustainable.

Outcomes and Impacts: My Ride has been a game-changer for Rock Hill. Ridership ramped up quickly – the system set a goal of 4,100 passenger trips per week and met it just 6 weeks after launch (americancityandcounty.com), far exceeding projections. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, usage remained around 3,000 trips per week (americancityandcounty.com), showing the deep demand for transit access. This translates to tens of thousands of rides per month that simply did not exist before 2019. The community impacts are evident: according to Mayor John Gettys, fresh food, medical appointments, and jobs are “now a real possibility for more people than ever before since transportation is no longer an impediment” (americancityandcounty.com). In practical terms, low-income residents can take My Ride to reach grocery stores and employment centers that were previously unreachable without a car. Winthrop University students and local youth have embraced the free buses to get around town. There are also environmental benefits – the city estimates 337 metric tons of CO₂ are avoided annually by using electric buses instead of diesel (americancityandcounty.com). Economically, the presence of transit has started to revitalize key corridors: new mixed-use development and higher-density housing are being planned around the bus routes, now that mobility is an asset. The community’s response has been very positive; in surveys a large majority supports the transit system, seeing it as a point of pride and a necessary service. In sum, Rock Hill’s comprehensive approach – data-driven planning, equity focus, innovative funding, and free high-quality service – turned a mobility desert into a connected community. It highlights that even in a smaller city, transit can be deployed as a tool for social and economic uplift, linking people to opportunities and signaling to investors that the city is progressive and accessible.

Birmingham, AL – Blending Bus Rapid Transit and Microtransit to Modernize Mobility

Challenges: Birmingham (city pop. ~200,000; metro >1 million) is a larger city that nonetheless shares many “Southern sprawl” issues: decades of car-centric development, limited public transit usage, and a legacy of disjointed infrastructure. The Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority (BJCTA) historically ran an inefficient bus network with long waits and routes that didn’t reach emerging job centers in the suburbs. Sidewalks and pedestrian safety in many neighborhoods were lacking, and the city’s fragmented municipal geography (dozens of small cities in Jefferson County) complicated transit service across boundaries (birminghamwatch.org). Additionally, Alabama provides no state funding for transit (due to a constitutional restriction on gas tax use) (birminghamwatch.org), so Birmingham’s transit had long been under-resourced. By the 2010s, the city recognized that to spur downtown and neighborhood revitalization, it needed to improve mobility options, but simply expanding traditional bus coverage citywide was financially impossible. Key challenges included: aging buses, minimal evening/Sunday service, few last-mile options in low-density areas, and high road traffic with no rail transit alternative. Birmingham’s task was to modernize transit and walkability within tight budget limits and to reconnect communities that had been isolated (physically and economically) by both sprawl and historic urban disinvestment.

Key Strategies & Interventions:

• “70/30” Integrated Transit Plan: In 2022, BJCTA adopted a bold 70/30 plan, deciding to cover the city’s needs with 70% fixed-route buses and 30% on-demand microtransit instead of 100% buses (birminghamwatch.org). They trimmed low-ridership bus routes (two peripheral routes were cut entirely) (birminghamwatch.org) and reallocated resources to microtransit zones serving those areas on-demand (birminghamwatch.org). This hybrid model lets regular buses focus on core high-density corridors, while smaller vehicles handle the lower-density neighborhoods. It acknowledges that one size doesn’t fit all: some Birmingham communities are better served by flexible shuttles than by big buses. As part of this shift, the transit agency also improved bus frequency on key lines from hourly to every 30–45 minutes (birminghamwatch.org), making the remaining bus network more viable for daily use.

• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): Birmingham pursued a major capital project – the “Birmingham Xpress” BRT line, which opened in late 2022. This east–west BRT connects 25 stations between underserved neighborhoods (Woodlawn in the east and Five Points West/Crossplex in the west) through downtown, with fast limited-stop service and dedicated lanes in sections (birminghamwatch.org). The BRT was designed to cut travel times across the city, linking historically Black neighborhoods and areas of persistent poverty to downtown opportunities. Features include traffic signal priority, modern buses, and enhanced stations. Already the BRT has seen strong ridership (around 20,000 rides per month by mid-2023) and rising (abc3340.com) (birminghamwatch.org). This has begun to re-knit the city’s east-west axis, long separated by socio-economic divides.

• Pedestrian-Friendly Policy & Complete Streets: At the city level, Birmingham’s leadership recognized the importance of walkable corridors. The City Council even issued a moratorium on new drive-through car-centric developments (like stand-alone car washes) along key corridors to preserve them for more pedestrian-friendly uses (birminghamwatch.org). The city has been adding bike lanes downtown and implementing “road diets” on overwide streets to calm traffic. It is also establishing Mobility Hubs in impoverished neighborhoods – points where BRT, local bus, microtransit, and even bike/scooter-share can interconnect (birminghamwatch.org). These hubs will feature amenities like safe crossings, shelters, and possibly co-located services (e.g. workforce training centers), acknowledging that transport and community revitalization go hand in hand.

• Institutional Changes: BJCTA underwent a management overhaul with a new executive director and strategic plan. The agency improved reliability by aggressive maintenance (addressing aging bus fleet issues) and by using real-time tracking to ensure buses stay on schedule. Partnerships with surrounding municipalities are being discussed to allow microtransit to cross city limits (a current pain point (birminghamwatch.org). While regional integration is a challenge, there’s a growing recognition that transit must transcend city borders to be truly useful in a metro area of over 1 million.

Funding Mechanisms: Birmingham’s transit renaissance has been financed through a mix of local and federal funds. The BRT project was supported by a $20 million Federal Transit “Small Starts” grant, matched by local funds – a significant infusion that made the capital project possible. The city also tapped federal grants for pedestrian safety and connectivity (e.g. a recent $4M grant for safer crosswalks and greenway links) (mayor.chattanooga.gov). Day-to-day operations rely on city and county appropriations as Alabama’s state funding is zero (birminghamwatch.org). To afford the microtransit expansion, BJCTA reallocated existing budget from the eliminated bus routes and negotiated a contract (with Via) that provided service in zones at a fixed cost. Microtransit rides are subsidized, costing riders only $1.50 – an intentionally low fare mirrored on the bus fare to encourage use (birminghamal.gov). Federal COVID relief funds (CARES Act) also helped bridge operating shortfalls and even allowed free fares on the BRT during initial months. Importantly, Birmingham’s ability to innovate has depended on political support for shifting funds – e.g. persuading stakeholders that spending on on-demand vans in some areas would yield better results than maintaining nearly empty bus runs. The early successes in ridership helped justify continuing the funding for these pilots.

Outcomes and Impacts: In just one year under the new model, ridership has surged. The transit authority reports a 61% increase in microtransit rides (June 2024 vs. June 2025) as residents embrace the on-demand shuttles (birminghamwatch.org). Likewise, the BRT corridors saw a 31% uptick in ridership over the same period (birminghamwatch.org) – more people are using the faster, reliable buses. These are major gains in a city that has struggled to get people on transit. Early indications show that the combined approach improves access to employment: for example, a worker in a far-flung neighborhood can hail a microtransit van to a BRT station, then take speedy BRT to downtown or cross-town, effectively cutting travel times to job centers in half. Areas like Ensley and East Lake (with planned mobility hubs) are seeing renewed interest from developers, anticipating improved connectivity. The city’s drive to improve walkability is also showing results: downtown Birmingham has added miles of sidewalks and buffered bike lanes, and the council’s stance against auto-oriented blight (e.g. halting a glut of car washes) sends a pro-pedestrian signal to investors (birminghamwatch.org). There are still challenges – the patchwork of municipal jurisdictions means riders can’t yet take microtransit across city lines, limiting some job commutes (birminghamwatch.org). However, the transit agency is actively educating leaders that “public transportation isn’t useful if you can’t cross municipal lines” (birminghamwatch.org), spurring talks of regional solutions. Despite funding constraints, Birmingham has shown that reallocating resources into high-ridership corridors and flexible services can dramatically increase mobility outcomes. Over time, the expected economic impacts include better job access for low-income residents (breaking the transport barrier to employment), revitalization along the BRT corridor (already new transit-oriented mixed-use projects are in planning near some BRT stations), and potentially reduced traffic congestion as more people opt for these alternatives. In summary, Birmingham’s case illustrates a balanced approach: strategic transit investments (BRT + microtransit) coupled with complete streets policies to ensure that once people step off the bus, they find safe, walkable environments. This is gradually stitching together a fragmented, car-dominated region into a more connected, transit-friendly metro – an essential foundation for long-term economic growth and equity.

Arlington, TX – On-Demand Transit in a Suburban City (National Example)

Challenges: Arlington, Texas (pop. ~400,000) was long known as the largest American city with virtually no traditional public transit. This fast-growing city in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro built entirely around highways and automobiles, resulting in severe car dependency. Spread over 99 square miles of low-density development, Arlington lacked bus or rail service (voters had repeatedly rejected funding transit). The consequences were limited mobility for non-drivers and traffic congestion around key hubs (like the entertainment district with stadiums). For years, the city ran only a tiny experimental commuter shuttle which saw dismal ridership. By 2017, Arlington leaders faced mounting pressure as both younger residents and employers demanded some transit option. However, a referendum to levy a sales tax for a bus system failed, forcing the city to seek an alternative path.

Key Strategies & Interventions:

• Citywide Rideshare-Based Transit: Arlington pivoted to a partnership with Via to launch an on-demand public rideshare service in 2017. Starting in a limited zone and later expanding citywide (by 2021), the service allows residents to summon a shuttle van through an app for trips anywhere in Arlington (govtech.com). No fixed routes or schedules – instead, algorithms group passengers traveling in the same direction into a shared vehicle. By 2021 the service utilized ~70 vans covering the full 99 sq mi city, effectively acting as “Transit on demand” for all communities (govtech.com). The city set fares at $3-$5 per ride (distance-based) to keep it affordable (govtech.com). This model directly tackled first-mile/last-mile issues typical in sprawling suburbs. It also dramatically improved coverage: the majority of Arlington residents, who previously had no access to transit, could now reach a ride within a short walk.

• Incremental Scaling & Tech: Arlington scaled up the service after a successful pilot in a core zone. The user-friendly app, cashless payment, and short wait times (usually 10-15 minutes) made it attractive. The service is designed to pick up riders within ~2 blocks of their origin, addressing the lack of sidewalks by minimizing walking distance (govtech.com). The city also ensured accessibility by including wheelchair-accessible vans. By not having fixed stops or big buses, Arlington avoided the political battles over bus routes and instead marketed Via as “Uber for everyone” – a pragmatic sell in a car-centric culture.

• Traffic Demand Management: The on-demand shuttles also serve to reduce congestion in key areas. For instance, during large events at stadiums or the university, people can park remotely or travel without a car and get dropped close to the venue. This supports Arlington’s economic engines (sports, theme parks) while easing traffic choke points.

Funding Mechanisms: After the 2017 transit tax failed, Arlington’s city council redirected general funds to pay for the Via contract. The city spends about $9 million per year on this on-demand transit – a sum that is far less than a full bus network would require (govtech.com). By avoiding large capital costs (buses, stations) and maintenance of fixed infrastructure, the city contained expenses. Federal grants also helped: Arlington received some federal mobility grants and CARES Act funding that offset costs in early years. Riders’ fares cover only a portion, but Arlington’s deal with Via caps costs and lets the service be adjusted in scale as needed. The city’s rationale was that $9M/year was a reasonable investment compared to, say, the tens of millions that would be needed for even one light-rail line. Notably, Arlington’s willingness to innovate also attracted private sector support – local businesses and the university contributed funds during the pilot phase, seeing value in providing employee/student transportation.

Outcomes and Impacts: Arlington’s on-demand transit has shattered expectations. According to the Mayor, since switching to Via, ridership increased tenfold compared to the prior minimal bus service (govtech.com). In raw numbers, the service delivered over 1.2 million rides in its first few years, and monthly ridership hit nearly 60,000 by mid-2023 – record highs for Arlington (keranews.org). This demonstrated a latent demand for transit even in a textbook sprawling city (govtech.com). Customer satisfaction has been “super” high, with residents appreciating not having to worry about driving or parking (govtech.com). The convenience of point-to-point trips has won over not just captive riders but also choice riders for certain trips. There is anecdotal evidence of reduced traffic congestion as well – the city notes slight declines in car volumes on some corridors, expecting more impact as ridership grows (govtech.com). Economically, providing transit has made Arlington more attractive for employers and tourism. For example, the University of Texas at Arlington sees Via as a boon for students to get around without cars; and businesses report easier employee commutes. The city also likes to highlight environmental benefits (fewer single-occupancy car trips = lower emissions) and safety (offering late-night rides can reduce impaired driving incidents). Arlington’s experience suggests that on-demand microtransit can be a viable substitute for fixed routes in low-density cities, achieving ridership gains and rider approval while staying within limited budgets. It provides a cautionary note, however: scaling purely on-demand service to larger cities can become costly if demand grows too high, but in Arlington’s case the controlled expansion and continuous monitoring have kept it on track. Overall, this case underscores that even places without a transit tradition can leapfrog to new models – embracing technology and public-private collaboration to address mobility gaps. Arlington went from a transit non-entity to an innovator that other suburbs now study, illustrating that with the right approach, car dependence is not an inevitable fate for growing cities.

Northwest Arkansas – Trail Connectivity and Biking Culture as Economic Drivers

Challenges: The Northwest Arkansas region (Benton and Washington counties, combined pop. ~560,000) historically consisted of small cities (Fayetteville, Springdale, Rogers, Bentonville) separated by rural land – an area of rapid growth due to companies like Walmart and Tyson Foods, but one that developed with classic sprawl patterns. By the 2000s, this meant traffic congestion on arterial roads, virtually no transit, and limited options for walking or cycling between communities. Each city had isolated parks or short greenways, but there was no regional active transportation network. Car dependency was nearly absolute for inter-city travel. The region also has many low-income residents and a growing Hispanic population often living in car-light households. Furthermore, local leaders realized that to attract and retain talent (especially young professionals), the region needed to offer better quality of life – including outdoor recreation, vibrant town centers, and alternative transportation. The challenge was to tie together multiple jurisdictions to overcome sprawl and create a more connected, healthier region without waiting decades for expensive transit investments.

Key Strategies & Interventions:

• Razorback Regional Greenway (Trail System): Northwest Arkansas made a landmark investment in a regional trail system – a 36-mile paved multi-use trail (the Razorback Greenway) now links the major towns from Bella Vista down to Fayetteville (waltonfamilyfoundation.org). Opened in 2015, it connects dozens of parks, schools, workplaces (including the Walmart headquarters in Bentonville), and downtown districts. This spine trail, plus dozens of side trails, effectively created a bicycle highway network across the region. The trail is accessible for walking, biking, running, and is separated from car traffic, improving safety. Trailheads are provided in many neighborhoods, and the system is 100% free to use. In addition, the region built dedicated mountain biking trails and celebrated cycling events, positioning itself as a destination for outdoor enthusiasts.

• Philanthropy and Public Partnership: A unique aspect here was the heavy involvement of the Walton Family Foundation (funded by the Walmart heirs). The Waltons saw trail infrastructure as a catalyst for community development and poured tens of millions of dollars into planning and constructing trails in NWA (waltonfamilyfoundation.org). Local governments matched some funds and took ownership of maintenance. This public-private partnership fast-tracked the buildout of an extensive network that otherwise might not have happened. The Foundation also sponsored studies and promotions to engrain a biking culture – for example, Safe Routes to School programs and bike safety education accompanied the infrastructure. City councils across the region adopted more bike-friendly policies (e.g., requiring bike parking in new developments, adding protected bike lanes connecting to the Greenway, etc.).

• Trail-Oriented Development & Placemaking: The existence of a continuous greenway opened opportunities for trail-oriented developments. Towns began to revitalize their downtown squares and connect them to the trail to capture cyclist and pedestrian traffic. Breweries, cafes, and shops popped up adjacent to trail sections (e.g., the popular “Swamp Rabbit Café” equivalent in NWA is Bentonville’s trail-side coffee shops). In essence, the trail network became the connective tissue for a regional sense of place – encouraging people to bike between towns, visit farmers’ markets, or commute by e-bike instead of by car. Festivals and races held on the trails further boosted inter-city tourism.

Funding Mechanisms: The Walton Family Foundation committed over $70 million to NWA trail development over the past decade, covering planning and construction costs for key segments (waltonfamilyfoundation.org). Municipalities also allocated capital improvement funds and secured federal transportation grants (e.g. TIGER grants) for some trail projects. The Razorback Greenway itself was jump-started by a federal TIGER grant of $15 million in 2010, matched by regional cities and Walton funds, to build the initial 36-mile corridor. Operating costs for the trails (maintenance, lighting, rangers) are relatively low and are shared by the cities and counties. In effect, a blended funding model – local sales taxes, federal grants, and private philanthropy – financed a world-class active transport system at a fraction of what a highway or rail project of similar length would cost. Local advocacy groups and cycling organizations also raised money for amenities like benches, signage, and bike repair stations along the routes.

Outcomes and Impacts: The impact of NWA’s trail-centric strategy has been profound. A 2017 study found that bicycling generated $137 million in economic benefits for the region that year (waltonfamilyfoundation.org). By 2022, as the network and cycling culture matured, the annual economic impact grew to $159 million (through bike industry jobs, tourism, and health benefits) (talkbusiness.net). The trail system attracts about 90,000 to 150,000 out-of-state visitors annually, injecting spending on hotels, restaurants, and retail (headwaterseconomics.org). Major cycling events like the 2022 UCI Cyclo-Cross World Championship have put NWA on the map, drawing international crowds (that single event brought nearly $10 million in activity) (talkbusiness.net). Home values near trails have risen – homes within 1/4 mile of a trail sell for about $6,300 more on average, reflecting how desirable trail access has become (headwaterseconomics.org). More intangible but equally important, the trails have improved public health: an estimated $59 million in health cost savings is attributed to increased physical activity from biking (talkbusiness.net). Many residents now commute or do errands by bike, at least some days – in surveys, one-third of adults in the region rode a bike in the past year (talkbusiness.net). This shift reduces local traffic and pollution and fosters a sense of community as people meet on the trails. Downtowns in the small cities are seeing new life – for instance, Bentonville’s once-sleepy center is now bustling with cyclists and pedestrians, supporting new shops and eateries. The trails have effectively knit the separate cities into one metro area with shared amenities, helping to attract talent (young professionals often cite the outdoor recreation options as a reason to move to the area). Companies like Walmart and Tyson tout the quality of life to recruit employees, something that was harder to do when the area lacked cultural and recreational infrastructure. In summary, NWA’s experience illustrates that even without traditional transit, improving mobility via walk/bike infrastructure can yield huge economic and social dividends. By connecting communities with trails and embracing cycling, a region known for sprawl and car dominance has cultivated a healthier, more connected identity – and in doing so, boosted its economy and national profile.

Comparative Strategies and Outcomes

Although each city’s story is unique, several common threads emerge from these case studies of mobility and walkability transformations:

• Multimodal Solutions: All cities combined physical infrastructure changes (trails, sidewalks, street redesigns) with transportation services (shuttles, buses, microtransit). The integration of modes is key – e.g. Birmingham’s buses + vans, Greenville’s trails + narrow streets, Chattanooga’s parking + shuttles. No single tactic solves car-dependency; success comes from a suite of interventions working together.

• Planning and Zoning Reforms: Each city employed forward-looking planning. Greenville and Spartanburg instituted road diets and zoning that favor pedestrians (Greenville even mandates bike parking in new developments)(smartgrowthamerica.org). Arlington and Wilson embraced new transit tech in their plans instead of clinging to outdated bus routes. Northwest Arkansas municipalities rewrote their playbook to treat trails as transportation, not just recreation. Land use changes – like focusing development around transit/trail corridors and curbing sprawl – underpin these mobility improvements by bringing destinations closer and supporting higher usage.

• Institutional Leadership: Strong local leadership and inter-sector partnerships fueled these initiatives. Examples include Mayor Knox White in Greenville guiding decades of downtown investment (smartgrowthamerica.org), Chattanooga’s public-private coalition (CARTA, TVA, civic groups) jumpstarting the shuttle, and the Walton Foundation’s outsized role in NWA. In many cases, a city’s willingness to innovate (often driven by a champion or a clear community vision) was the turning point – whether killing a legacy bus system in favor of on-demand vans or tearing down a highway to build a park. An institutional shift toward seeing mobility as central to economic development is evident in all these cases.

• Funding Creativity: These cities tapped diverse funding streams – federal grants (for BRT, trails, buses), state funds where available, local bonds or taxes, and crucially private and philanthropic investments. Public-private partnerships are a recurring theme: e.g. Falls Park’s endowment and sponsorships in Greenville (masc.sc), Rock Hill securing private funding to cover free fares (americancityandcounty.com), and Walton Foundation funding trails in Arkansas (waltonfamilyfoundation.org). By leveraging external resources, cities multiplied the impact of limited public dollars. Several also reinvested their own revenues smartly: Chattanooga uses parking fees to fund shuttles (afdc.energy.gov), and Arlington redirected general funds from roads to transit. These funding mechanisms show that mobility projects can often pay for themselves over time through economic growth and usage, but up-front political and financial capital is needed – which these cities marshaled through creativity and coalition-building.

• Economic and Social Impacts: Across the board, mobility improvements unlocked significant economic benefits. A more walkable, accessible environment attracts businesses, jobs, and residents – for instance, Hickory’s own investment in City Walk and Riverwalk is already drawing new businesses and foot traffic downtown (file-1f9ev6srvprc7nxqwwgafu). 

  Table 1 summarizes some key outcomes from the case study cities:

  

Table 1. Selected Outcomes from Mobility & Walkability Interventions

City (Population)	Key Mobility Interventions	Notable Outcomes (Economic & Social Impact)
Greenville, SC (70k)	Downtown road diet; Main St streetscape; Falls Park & Liberty pedestrian bridge; 20-mile Swamp Rabbit Trail; mandatory bike parking ordinance; long-term downtown master plan.	• ~$100 million in new West End development around Falls Park (masc.sc). • Downtown recognized nationally, increased tourism and conventions. • New businesses (cafes, inns) opened along trail, supporting jobs (smartgrowthamerica.org). • Affordable housing units integrated downtown to reduce displacementsmartgrowthamerica.org.
Chattanooga, TN (180k)	Free electric shuttle system (5-min frequency) + parking garages; Riverwalk greenway; downtown revitalization projects (Aquarium, etc.).	• Transit ridership >3 million/year (shuttle became primary mode for many) (chcrpa.org). • Millions of $$ in development on former parking lots (downtown attractions, hotels, housing). • Marked improvement in air quality (zero-emission transit, less congestion). • Downtown foot traffic and tourism dramatically increased (Aquarium area).
Wilson, NC (49k)	Replaced fixed-route buses with on-demand microtransit covering entire city (Via-powered app); extended service hours.	• Transit ridership +40% (now 140% of former bus ridership) (ridewithvia.com), despite pandemic. • 50% of riders gained or kept jobs due to service (ridewithvia.com); improved access to industry parks. • ~38% reduction in cost per trip (ridewithvia.com), making transit more efficient. • Model being replicated by other small cities (national recognition).
Rock Hill, SC (75k)	Launched My Ride citywide bus system – fare-free & all-electric; 4 routes with 1-hour loops; placed stops at social services and low-income areas.	• Met weekly ridership goal (4,100 rides) in 6 weeks (americancityandcounty.com); ~3k–4k rides/week sustained even through COVID (americancityandcounty.com). • Improved access to fresh food, healthcare, education – “opportunities for ALL” achieved (americancityandcounty.com). • $7M initial outlay offset 80% by grants (americancityandcounty.com); city annual cost <$400k due to partnerships (americancityandcounty.com). • Positive civic response – transit seen as new city asset attracting families and employers.
Birmingham, AL (200k)	Implemented BRT line (15-mile corridor) connecting East-West neighborhoods; introduced on-demand microtransit for low-density 30% of city; improved bus frequencies on main routes; pedestrian corridor revitalization (e.g. moratorium on auto-centric uses).	• Microtransit ridership +61% in one year (birminghamwatch.org); BRT/bus ridership +31% (birminghamwatch.org) – more people using transit due to improved service. • Early economic development along BRT route (transit-adjacent investments in progress). • Greater mobility for West and East Birmingham residents (connecting them to jobs, reducing travel times). • Ongoing challenges crossing city limits being addressed via regional cooperation talks.
Arlington, TX (400k)	Phased rollout of citywide on-demand rideshare transit (Via) with flat fares; no fixed routes; ~70 vehicles covering 99 sq mi; app-based booking.	• Public transit ridership 10× increase after Via launch (govtech.com) (from a few thousand to tens of thousands monthly). • ~1.2 million rides provided in first few years; 60k rides in June 2023 (record) (keranews.org). • High rider satisfaction, improved access to University and Entertainment District without cars (govtech.com). • City avoided costly bus system startup; $9M/yr contract leveraged in lieu of tax-funded transit agency (govtech.com).
NW Arkansas (560k region)	Built 36-mile Razorback Regional Greenway linking 4 cities; hundreds of miles of paved and mountain bike trails; bike-friendly policies and events.	• Cycling industry ~$159 million annual economic impact (2022) (talkbusiness.net); ~1,300 jobs supported in bike shops, tours, etc. • ~90-150k out-of-state visitors/year for trails (headwaterseconomics.org); major events generated ~$10M in 3 days (talkbusiness.net). • Health savings of ~$59M from active lifestyle (talkbusiness.net). • Increased property values and downtown revitalization in trail towns (Bentonville, etc.).

Table 1: Summary of strategies and their impacts in case study cities.

These examples underscore that improving mobility and walkability is not just a transportation endeavor – it is a holistic economic development and quality-of-life strategy. Improved job access was a clear outcome in multiple cases (Wilson, Rock Hill, Birmingham), as transit or trail connectivity brought more people within reach of employment opportunities. Neighborhood revitalization often followed infrastructure upgrades – for instance, Greenville’s West End blossomed after Falls Park, and Birmingham’s Ensley community is slated for a mobility hub to spark reinvestment (birminghamwatch.org). Perhaps most tangibly, these cities saw investment attraction and confidence: companies, developers, and new residents chose to invest in places that demonstrated a commitment to infrastructure and livability. Hickory’s peers have shown that by stitching their urban fabric back together (be it via a trail, a bus route, or a pedestrian plaza) and ensuring those investments are inclusive, a city can redefine its trajectory.

Conclusion

Mid-sized cities like Hickory stand at an inflection point: they can either remain mired in car-dependent sprawl, or they can proactively design a more connected, walkable future. The case studies in this report provide a blueprint for the latter. Greenville proved that decades of consistent vision and street/historic preservation can turn a blighted downtown into a booming “place to be.” Chattanooga showed how innovative transit (free electric shuttles) and reclaiming public space can revive a city’s core and identity. Wilson and Arlington demonstrated that even without big-city density, one can deploy technology (microtransit) to vastly improve mobility for all and even save money. Rock Hill taught us that starting transit from zero is possible when it’s done with community buy-in, equity, and smart financing. Birmingham is in the midst of proving that a mix of high-capacity BRT and nimble on-demand service can reconnect a fragmented metropolis. And in Northwest Arkansas, we see that trail networks and active transportation can be as economically potent as highways, if not more so, in a region looking to attract talent and tourism.

For Hickory and similar communities, these examples highlight several actionable takeaways. A “both/and” approach to mobility – improving roads and transit and sidewalks and trails – yields compounding benefits. Small wins (like adding a crosswalk or a microtransit pilot) can build toward bigger transformations (a culture that values walkability and funds it). Public-private partnerships are often the secret sauce, tapping local pride and external funding that traditional budgets can’t supply. It’s also clear that mobility projects should be tied to land use planning: zoning for mixed-use, encouraging infill development in walkable nodes, and curbing unfettered sprawl will make any transport investment more effective by putting origins and destinations closer together. The economic impacts outlined – higher downtown revenues, improved health, new jobs, rising property values – make a compelling case that money spent on sidewalks, trails, and transit is not a sunk cost but an investment with ROI in the form of human and financial capital. As one Greenville leader put it, “quality of place is economic strategy”, and mobility is a foundational element of quality of place.

In conclusion, cities that faced circumstances akin to Hickory’s have reinvented themselves by confronting car dependency and connectivity gaps head-on. They did so with bold experiments, careful planning, and inclusive vision. The results – more vibrant economies, accessible communities, and sustainable growth – speak for themselves. Hickory can draw on these lessons to craft its own comprehensive mobility strategy, one that knits together City Walks and greenways with transit links and forward-thinking policies. The experience of peer cities shows that overcoming mobility challenges is absolutely achievable – and often marks the start of a broader urban renaissance that benefits all residents. With a commitment to see plans through to execution and to secure the needed resources, Hickory could very well become the next success story in equitable mobility and walkable revitalization. The path has been paved (or in some cases, trail-blazed) by those who went before – now it’s Hickory’s turn to take the next bold steps.