BEST: Michigan Avenue Policy and Technical Committees, Wednesday, August 12, 2015

2

Agenda 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Project Update

• Study Status • Project Committee Roles

3. Recap from Last Meetings 4. Overview of Technical Documents 5. Public / Stakeholder Involvement Activities

• Phase 1 Activities • Phase 2 Planning

6. Revised Purpose & Need--Document Review • Comments Received / Resolution • Draft Goals & Evaluation Criteria

7. Revised Universe of Alternatives • Tier 1 Screening Methodology

8. Next Steps / Next Meeting

3 3

Welcome & Introductions

4 4

Project Update

5 5

Study Process and Schedule

→ We are here

6

Project Committee Roles Technical Committee • Community and agency

staff • Meets Frequently

(Monthly/Semi-Monthly) • Offer technical

guidance and data to support team

• Suggest stakeholders and outreach methods

• Report back to colleagues and community

Policy Committee • Community and agency

leadership • Meets occasionally (e.g.,

quarterly) to review key decisions: • Official project goals • Description of detailed

alternatives • Evaluation and selection of

preferred alternative

• Provide support for implementation and funding of preferred alternative

7

Recap from April 30 Combined Meeting Materials covered: • Introduction to RTA • BEST: Michigan Ave Project • Committee Roles • Community Engagement Plan • Initial Corridor Overview • Prioritization Exercise

8

April 30th Committee Prioritization

Committee Priorities #

Regional economic growth and development 8

Ensuring public / community support 7

Local TOD opportunities 5

Transit service to jobs 5

Transit service to airport 5

9

Other Committee Priorities # More reliable transit service 4 Ensuring significant federal funding 4 Faster transit service 4 More frequent transit service 3 Accessibility for bikes and pedestrians 3 Cost effectiveness of transit 2 Implementing improvements quickly 2 Creating park and ride opportunities 2 Improved stations and stops 1 Building new modes distinct from buses 1 Congestion mitigation and traffic impacts 1 Reasonable capital costs 1 Reasonable local funding share 0

April 30th Prioritization (Cont.)

10

Recap from July 8 Technical Committee Meeting • Public / Stakeholder Involvement Activities • Revised Draft Purpose & Need Document • Draft Goals & Objectives • Draft Evaluation Criteria & Methodology • Initial Corridor Alternatives

11 11

Overview of Technical Documents

12

Overview of Technical Documents

Published documents are available online at: http://www.rtamichigan.org/best-projects/michigan-avenue/documents/ These include: Existing Conditions Memoranda (Final) Purpose and Need (Draft Final)

13 13

Existing Conditions Technical Memoranda

1. Review of Previous Plans 2. Transportation Conditions 3. Socioeconomic Conditions

4. Land Use Analysis 5. Environmental

Resources

14 14

Public / Stakeholder Involvement Activities

15

Phase One Community Engagement Plan • Phase One Open Houses

• Five regional events held in May

• Ongoing Outreach Presence at summer community

events Targeted sessions with stakeholders MySidewalk discussion forums

o Discussion questions posted weekly o 8,700 Views (up from 5,300 last month) o 325 Responses (up from 129 last

month) Other social media (Facebook,

Twitter)

16

Phase One Community Engagement • Participants were invited to rank 9 transit topics Equity received the highest rank, followed by

Corridor Connections and Economic Development

Traffic was ranked lowest

17

Continuing Phase One Community Engagement Continuous Summer Outreach • Local Community Events:

Corktown Farmers Market and Business Association

Wayne Farmers Market West Dearborn DDA Ypsilanti Farmers Market, DDA Ann Arbor Townie Festival Canton Farmers Market Westland Farmers Market Dearborn Farmers Market

18

Feedback and Themes (over 60 comment cards)

Connectivity • Interest in commuting via

transit (Detroit, Dearborn, Ann Arbor)

• Better airport access • Dedicated transit lanes

necessary • Additional bike lanes

Safety • Better pedestrian crossings

and access • Reduce drinking and driving • More users would lead to

safer transit stops

Economy • Bring more customers to local

businesses • Save money by leaving the

car behind • More employment options

Quality of Life / Equity • Easier for seniors to stay

active • Helping youth (without access

to a car) get around

19

MySidewalk 8,700 Views (up from 5,300 last month) 325 Responses (up from 129 last month)

“Jessie Fletcher-McAlpine : transit and/or driving combination. Resident of Washtenaw County and do not like driving into Ann Arbor due to the limited parking. Not easy to get around and time consuming to drive everywhere.”

20

MySidewalk Poll Results • How likely would you be to use transit to

DTW?… 89 Very Likely 2 very unlikely

• How important is environmental sustainability to your commute: Very important / somewhat important

• How important is saving time and money on your commute? Very important / somewhat important

21

Phase Two Community Outreach Dates: October 8-14 Style: Open house Locations: TBD Information to cover:

• Purpose and Need, Goals & Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria

• Universe of Alternatives • Tier 1 Analysis Results • Tier 2 – Detailed Definition of Alternatives • Ideas?

Additional targeted community outreach

22 22

Revised Purpose & Need

Document

23 23

Project Purpose & Need

• ~30-page framework document for the project

• Defines purpose of the project and data-supported need for transit investment

• Defines goals and objectives • Identifies evaluation criteria • Edits received from RTA committees

and Technical Committee; revised by Policy Committee

Purpose

Needs

Goals

Evaluation Criteria

24 24

Draft Purpose & Need Need #1 Current BEST: Michigan Avenue corridor transit service does not efficiently, effectively, or competitively connect corridor residents, employees, and visitors with their destinations.

25 25

Draft Purpose & Need Need #2 The BEST: Michigan Avenue corridor includes many population groups that are likely to be dependent on transit

The BEST: Michigan Avenue corridor includes many population groups that are likely to be dependent on transit

26 26

Draft Purpose & Need Need #3 Study area population and employment densities are higher than regional densities, and growth is forecast to more evenly distribute throughout the corridor.

27 27

Draft Purpose & Need Need #4 The communities in the study area have demonstrated a commitment to sustainable growth strategies in their adopted plans and policies.

28 28

Draft Goals and Evaluation Criteria

29 29

Project Goals *Consistent with FTA

New/Small Starts criteria

Tier 1: Pass/Fail Analysis

(Qualitative)

Tier 2: Detailed Evaluation (Qualitative and Quantitative)

Tier 3: Refine the LPA

(Quantitative and Qualitative)

Increase the efficiency, attractiveness and utilization of corridor and regional transit for all users

Ridership capacity

Ridership

Number of passengers / service-hour

Estimated vehicle hours travelled (VHT)

Ability to provide appropriate transit capacity

Mobility improvements

Improve multi-modal connectivity between the activity centers at the eastern and western ends of the study area with intermediate communities

Multi-modal connectivity Connections between activity centers

Community mobility improvements

Mobility improvements Congestion relief

Enhance connectivity of the corridor to the regional transportation network

Regional connectivity

Potential right-of-way impacts

Bicycle and pedestrian safety

Parking and traffic impacts

Congestion relief

Support land use and development patterns that reflect the vision for growth contained in local and regional plans and policies

Economic development

Compatibility with local and regional plans

Compatibility with local and regional plans

Land use and economic development opportunities

Economic development Land use

Contribute to regional equity, sustainability and quality of life Environmental impacts

Consistent with existing or planned community character

Environmental impacts/benefits

Environmental benefits

Develop and select an implementable and community-supported project

Capital cost

Capital and operating and maintenance costs

Cost effectiveness

Community support

Financial capacity analysis

Cost effectiveness

30 30

Revised Universe of Alternatives

31

Revised Universe of Alternatives

32 32

Universe of Alternatives • Commuter rail on existing MDOT rail right-of-way between Ann

Arbor and Detroit, with alternate routing options: • Ann Arbor Rail Station to Detroit Amtrak Station • Ann Arbor Rail Station to downtown Detroit

• Bus Rapid Transit, Streetcar or LRT along Washtenaw and Michigan Avenues between Ann Arbor, Detroit Metro Airport (along Merriman Road) and Detroit, with alternate routing options: • Deviate from Michigan Avenue along Greenfield Road, Hubbard

Drive and Evergreen Road in the vicinity of the Fairlane Town Center

• Deviate from Michigan Avenue along Telegraph Road and I-94 to Detroit Metro Airport

• Deviate from Michigan Avenue along Middlebelt Road to Detroit Metro Airport

33 33

Universe of Alternatives • Express Bus between Ann Arbor and Detroit, with alternate routing

options: • I-94 • M-14 to I-96 • Southfield Freeway to I-94

• Express bus between Detroit and Detroit Metro Airport, with two routing options through Detroit: • I-94 to I-96 • I-94 to I-75 south to Detroit’s Rosa Parks Transit Center

• AirRide service between Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport along I-94

34 34

Tier 1 Screening Methodology

35 35

Tier 1 Evaluation • High-level, pass/fail analysis

• Qualitative analysis (quantitative where possible) • Order-of-magnitude estimates based on industry standards

• Identifies alternatives that are not feasible for implementation • Relative benefits of the alternatives will be measured in Tiers 2

and 3

Tier 2: Detailed

Evaluation of Alternatives

Tier 3: Locally Preferred

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative Alternative

Alternative

Tier 1: Universe of Alternatives

36 36

Tier 1 Screening Criteria

Criterion Screening Output Data Sources and References

Ridership Capacity

Compares ridership on existing fixed route transit service within the corridor to the typical average weekday ridership of the modes under evaluation

DDOT, AAATA, People Mover, SMART

Multimodal Connectivity

Analysis of proximity to regional trails, bikeways and sidewalks

SEMCOG and Google maps

Regional Connectivity

Ability to maximize regional connections through proximity and connectivity to stops along high-ridership routes, transit centers, intercity bus stops, Amtrak rail station, and Detroit Metro airport

SEMCOG and Google maps

37 37

Criterion Screening Output Data Sources and References

Economic Development

Comparison of each mode’s typical development context with the existing and projected development context of the BEST: Michigan Avenue corridor.

Case study research, local plans and policies

Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans

Review of local and regional transportation and land use plans to determine consistency with their objectives.

Local and regional plans (see Tier 1 Methodology document)

Environmental Impacts

Analysis of potential impacts of construction and operations on surrounding neighborhoods and existing transit customers.

Industry experience, SEMCOG

Capital Costs

Qualitative assessment of each alternative’s financial viability based on typical per-mile capital costs applied to the estimated length of each alternative.

FTA (commuter rail – low end of FTA range)

38 38

Tier 1 Screening Thresholds

39 39

Screening Threshold Pass Not Pass

Ridership Capacity

Alternatives whose typical ridership is between 175 and 300 percent of the No Build (10,500 – 18,000 average weekday riders)

Alternatives whose typical ridership in less than 175 percent (<10,500) of the No Build

Multimodal Connectivity

Alternatives that score in the top 80 percent of alternatives for regional trail and bikeway mileage and received a 2 or 3 for the sidewalk analysis

Alternatives that score in the bottom 20 percent of alternatives for this criterion for regional trail and bikeway mileage and received a 1 in the sidewalk analysis

Regional Connectivity

Alternatives that “connect” to three or more of the transportation network elements

Alternatives that “connect” to two or fewer of the transportation network elements

40 40

Screening Threshold Pass Not Pass

Economic Development

Alternatives that score a “medium” or higher for demonstrated development impact and are typically found in suburban/urban development contexts

Alternatives that score a “low-medium” or lower or are typically found in development contexts other than suburban/urban

Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans

Alternative is included in one or more local or regional plans and/or is consistent with one or more local or regional plans

Alternative is not included in one or more local or regional plans and/or is not consistent with one or more local or regional plans

Environmental Impacts

No or minimal environmental impacts are anticipated

Potentially significant environmental impacts are anticipated

Capital Costs Alternative’s capital costs at or below $500,000,000

Alternative’s capital costs are above $500,000,000

41

Next Steps / Next Meeting

Next Steps • Complete the Tier 1

Analysis (Pass / Fail) • Detailed Definition of

Alternatives • Technical

Methodologies • Public Open Houses

(October 8-14)—Locations to be Determined

Next Technical Committee Meeting • September 9, 2 pm – 3:30

PM, Dearborn Council Chambers

Next Combined Committees Meeting • November 11, 2 pm –

3:30 PM, Dearborn Council Chambers

Thank You! www.rtamichigan.org