DRAFT – May 2013

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM From: URS Consultant Team To: Ann Arbor Connector Project Team Date: May 13, 2013 Topic: Comparison Communities

1.0 Introduction The development of case studies from similar cities that have implemented new transit service such as that being considered for the Ann Arbor area is instructional when considering the potential benefits and impacts of such an investment. For each of the case study communities selected (Portland, Salt Lake City, Cleveland, Eugene, Lansing, Grand Rapids), there are a number of impacts that have occurred related to local transportation, land use, and economic development. The materials from this memo may also be shared with the community during the outreach process. The discussion in this memorandum is divided into the following topic areas: • • •

Section 2 describes the process for selecting “comparison communities” Section 3 provides overviews for each of the selected comparison communities Section 4 gives an overview of key conclusions

2.0 Comparison Communities Selection Process A survey of comparably-sized cities that had implemented BRT, LRT, Streetcar or Automated Guideway Transit identified a set of nine potential comparison communities with these modes. Additionally, five comparable cities to Ann Arbor were also studied to identify potential lessons learned. Based on a review of basic data about population, employment and transit systems (see attached table) and discussion among the project committee, the following conclusions were noted: • Although smaller in total population and geographical area than many of the comparable communities, Ann Arbor has a high employment-to-population ratio, and also has high levels of population and employment density. These factors are significant when considering the utility of public transportation, and indicate that Ann Arbor can be reasonably compared to cities with larger populations. • Many of the comparable community candidates also have the presence of a major university or other institutions (e.g., hospitals) that drive travel needs and contribute to similar dynamic in their corridor. For example, Cleveland’s BRT corridor connects the downtown to a concentration of hospitals and university research facilities, and the Eugene BRT corridor connects areas of the University of Oregon campuses. • There was a general lack of similarly-sized communities that had implemented automated guideway transit in their communities. At-grade modes such as streetcar, LRT and BRT were most commonly constructed or planned by these communities. Based on the review of information, the following communities with recently-implemented rapid transit were selected for further study: Portland (Streetcar/LRT), Eugene (BRT), Salt Lake City (LRT), and Cleveland (BRT). In addition, the Michigan peer cities of Grand Rapids and Lansing were included, as each is currently in the process of implementing BRT.

DRAFT – May 2013

3.0 Comparison Community Profiles 3.1 Cleveland System Statistics Route length: Number of stations: Ridership:

7.1 miles 59 stations and three platform stops ~11,000 per weekday (47% increase over previous service)

Capital cost:

$197M

System Background The HealthLine is a 7.1-mile BRT route along Euclid Avenue from Public Square in downtown Cleveland to Louis Stokes Station at Windemere in East Cleveland. It began operation in late 2008 and connects Cleveland’s two largest employment centers: downtown and University Circle. The goal of the project was to improve transit service and support increased development along Euclid Avenue through shortened travel times and increased linkages between residents, employment centers, and major medical, educational and cultural centers in Cleveland. It is called the “HealthLine” after the naming rights for Cleveland HealthLine Bus Rapid Transit Station, the line were purchased by a consortium of the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals, two major health care institutions. The line can be split into two segments: the first 4.4 miles beginning at the downtown end of the corridor the BRT (as well as other buses) utilize exclusive lanes operating in the middle of the street. For the remaining 2.7 miles, the BRT service operates in mixed-traffic curb lanes serving sidewalk stations. The 64-foot vehicles feature doors on each side of the vehicle to accommodate boarding and unloading from either side, as well as a distinctive design and color scheme. Transportation Service and Impacts The HealthLine BRT service replaced a local bus route, while four other local bus routes were able to utilize the new exclusive BRT lanes as part of their routes. The Healthline service operated on 5 minute headways during the peak periods, and 10 minutes off-peak. End to end run times for the BRT service averaged 36 minutes as compared to 46 minutes for the previous local service. Although some of the time savings are due to wider station spacing and off-board fare collection, more than 80% of this runtime savings occurs within the exclusive-lane segment. After three years of service, aggregate travel in the corridor has increased 2 percent, while average run times have decreased 21%. Land Use and Development Impacts The HealthLine has been recognized as contributing to dramatic redevelopment activity in the Corridor, which has occurred even as the national and local economy has been weak. Impacts on the Local Community

DRAFT – May 2013 •

•

•

• •

$3.3 billion in development has been generated within the Euclid 1 Avenue corridor. The vast majority of this is concentrated in University Circle, which is home to the two institutions (the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals) that paid millions of dollars for naming rights to the BRT Cleveland HealthLine in University Circle 2 line. The East Cleveland segment of the Healthline, which includes fewer BRT features and a lower level of investment than other segments of the line, experienced a slight decline in land 3 values in the years immediately before and after BRT operations began. At the end of 2009, two-thirds of all building permits issued in Cleveland were for property 4 within a quarter-mile of the HealthLine. By the time the system opened (2008), over $3.3 billion had been invested or pledged along the route in the form of rehabilitations of old buildings into housing and retail centers, as well 5 as major expansions of nearby educational and health institutions.

Planning and Policy Guidance • Infrastructure Investment. The infrastructure investments made during project construction helped to encourage institutions that were undertaking expansions and redevelopment to incorporate Euclid Avenue into their plans in a way that may not have occurred in the 6 absence of this infrastructure investment. • Neighborhood Master Plans. The GCRTA and City undertook extensive public outreach when planning the HealthLine, and worked with the six neighborhoods development corporations to 7 incorporate the HealthLine into neighborhoods master plans. • Zoning. The City also developed specific zoning requirements to ensure future land uses 8 complemented the infrastructure investments that had been made. • Federal and State Historic Preservation Tax Credits. The Euclid Avenue corridor was historically one of Cleveland’s premiere avenues, known as “Millionaire’s Row” in the early 20th century. Despite the cycle of disinvestment that occurred throughout the corridor during the second half of the century, the high-quality buildings constructed during the corridor’s

1

Josh Ellis, Metropolitan Planning Council, “BRT Case Study: Cleveland, OH” July 21, 2011 United States Government Accountability Office, Bus Rapid Transit: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to Economic Development, July 2012 3 Ibid. 4 Steven Litt, “RTA’s Euclid Avenue HealthLine is faring well in ridership, innovation: Steve Litt,” The Plain Dealer, November 29, 2009 5 Holly LaDue, DC.Streetsblog.com, “Cleveland’s Center-Running BRT Route, the HealthLine, Sparks Development,” July 5, 2011 6 Michelle Jarboe, “Cleveland’s Euclid corridor project has paved the way to economic development,” The Plain Dealer, November 29, 2009 7 Presentation by Joseph A. Calabrese, GCRTA CEO/General Manager 8 Ibid. 2

DRAFT – May 2013 heyday were leveraged to support redevelopment through the use of federal and state 9 historic preservation tax credits.

Figure 1: Land Change Value along Cleveland's Healthline BRT Corridor, 2006 through 2011

Source: United States Government Accountability Office, Bus Rapid Transit: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to Economic Development, July 2012

9

Jarboe

DRAFT – May 2013 3.2 Eugene, Ore. System Statistics Route length:

4 miles

Number of stations:

8 stations

Ridership:

2,700 per weekday

Capital cost:

$25M (initial four-mile segment)

System Background The EmX Green Line began service along a four-mile route between Eugene and Springfield, Oregon in January 2007. Because these two communities serve as regional transportation hubs, fast, efficient, frequent service between them is critical to regional mobility. The EmX route along Franklin Boulevard was selected as the region’s first BRT corridor, being a high-traffic and high-population-density route providing service to the University of Oregon, one of the largest ridership generators in Lane Transit District’s system. This line was seen as the first link in a regional BRT network, and has since been followed by a second BRT line connecting to northern portions of Springfield along Pioneer Parkway. Another expansion of the service (an extension of the Eugene branch further west) is planned in the future. Eugene (Ore.) EmX Bus Rapid Transit Transportation Service and Impacts The goals of the BRT were to improve service levels and travel times, and the system features dedicated exclusive bus travel lanes and stations with off-board fare collection. Implementation of EmX service in the Franklin corridor led to a 28% reduction in transit travel 10 time, and more than an 80% increase in ridership in the corridor. Land Use and Development Impacts Although the goals of the transit project were not development oriented, there has been a significant amount of corresponding development activity along the line and in the station areas. Impacts on the Local Community • As of 2012, $100 million worth of construction projects were underway downtown near the Franklin EmX line, including a boutique hotel, office space renovations, and expansions to a 11 community college. • According to the City, the University of Oregon is looking to lease space downtown and that 12 there has been developer interest in new student housing. • The University of Oregon has supported the EmX by supplying land for the line’s alignment and recently built a $250-million arena near one of the stations.

10

United States Government Accountability Office, Bus Rapid Transit: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to Economic Development, July 2012 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.

DRAFT – May 2013 •

•

•

Between 2005 and 2010, assessed land values in downtown Eugene and near the University of Oregon campus have increased at a greater rate than other segments of the Franklin EmX 13 corridor. 14 A 2011 paper by the University of Utah’s Metropolitan Research Center found that: o Between 2004 and 2010, about 42 percent of all new jobs in the Eugene-Springfield urban area located within one-quarter mile of a BRT station. o The BRT station locations attracted about a quarter of all new jobs. o Firms that are especially attracted to BRT locations include administrative and support, educational services, health care and social assistance, arts, entertainment and recreation, and accommodation. Based on the analysis conducted by the University of Utah, the development market has 15 been comparatively fast in responding to BRT construction and operations.

Implementation Tools: Planning and Policy Guidance • Urban Growth Boundary. The State-mandated Urban Growth Boundary facilitates transitsupportive land use patterns by constraining the amount of developable land • Regional Transportation Plan. The 2002 update to the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG)’s Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan identified five transit-supportive 16 land use policies which encouraged nodal, transit-supportive patterns of development o Individual jurisdictions were given flexibility to implement these policies o The region is currently assessing progress and updating their Transportation System Plan • Regional Growth Plan. LCOG’s 2004 update to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan included policies that supported the nodal development patterns outlined in the 17 Transportation System Plan. • Overlay Zones. The City of Eugene has officially adopted mixed-use development and also 18 created a Nodal Development Overlay Zone o Packages zoning regulations and incentives in designated areas to facilitate mixed-use, transit-supportive development patterns o Incentives include tax abatements, tax incentives, land assembly, reduced fees, streamlined permitting, density bonuses, reduced parking requirements, and flexibility with development codes 19 • The City of Springfield has also adopted a Nodal Development Overlay District o Supports pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use development o Specifically designed to work with underlying zoning districts

13

Ibid. Arthur C. Nelson et al., University of Utah Metropolitan Research Center, “Bus Rapid Transit And Economic Development Case Study Of The Eugene-Springfield, Oregon BRT System,” November 13, 2011. 15 Ibid. 16 Lane Council of Governments, “TransPlan: The Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan,” July 2002, http://docs.lcog.org/transplan 17 City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Land County, “Metro Plan: Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, 2004 Update” www.lcog.org/metro 18 City of Eugene, OR, www.eugene-or.gov 19 City of Springfield, OR, www.ci.springfield.or.us 14

DRAFT – May 2013 Figure 2: Land Change Value near Eugene/Springfield, Oregon, EmX, 2005 through 2010

Source: United States Government Accountability Office, Bus Rapid Transit: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to Economic Development, July 2012

DRAFT – May 2013 3.3 Portland, Ore.

System Statistics (Portland Streetcar) Route length:

North-South Line 3.9 miles

Number of stations:

26 stations

Ridership:

11,000 per weekday

Capital cost:

$57M (initial investment, has since been extended/added to)

System Statistics (MAX Light Rail) Route length:

52 miles (four lines)

Number of stations:

87 stations

Ridership:

130,000 per weekday

Capital cost:

$214 million (initial 15-mile segment)

System Background Portland has become a national model for investment in rail transit through its implementation of both a downtown streetcar network as well as a regional LRT network. Each of these systems are relatively recent in nature, with the opening link of the LRT network (the east side branch of what is now the Blue Line) beginning operation in 1986, and the opening segment of the streetcar (now called the North South Line) opening in 2001. These two Portland Streetcar systems, which have since been expanded significantly, are both operated and maintained by the regional TriMet transit agency, but have different ownership and funding sources, and essentially function as two separate but interconnected systems. The City of Portland has also been very proactive from the beginning regarding the use of these transit investments as economic development tools. In particular, the Streetcar service has been developed to correspond with planned growth nodes in and around the downtown area, with extensions of the service (e.g., the short extension to RiverPlace) undertaken to access redevelopment zones. A 3.3-mile expansion of the streetcar network to the east side of the River downtown was completed in 2012. Transportation and Service Impacts The Streetcar provides circulation and access within the downtown district, and primarily operates with vehicular traffic on in street rights-of-way with curb side stations and no traffic-signal priority. Service is provided every 12 minutes through the majority of the day, and stations have “next bus” signage that shows the wait until the next train. Ridership on the North-South Line had reached an average weekday total of 11,000 as of 2010, and has remained relatively the same since then. The LRT service operates on four separate lines that all intersect in downtown Portland. Outside of downtown, these trains typically run in their own exclusive right-of-way. In the Transit Mall downtown, the trains operate at street-level along with TriMet buses and have priority at traffic signals. Ridership on the network has steadily increased over the past 25 years, with average weekday boardings on the Max

DRAFT – May 2013 system doubling from 65,000 in 2000 to 130,000 in 2012 (during the same period average daily bus ridership, and service levels, have remained relatively flat). Land Use and Development Impacts Land use and development impacts are a major part of the story of the Portland rail systems. The streetcar in particular has been credited with jump starting development along its route, which is funded in part through a special property tax assessment on the district surrounding the line. The new phase of the streetcar was also funded through the use of a Local Improvement District (LID) taxing district. Impacts on the Local Community •

•

•

•

•

20

20

More than $10 billion in development has occurred along MAX lines since 1978: o Eastside MAX Blue Line: $4.7 billion in development and revitalization, particularly in Portland City Center and the Lloyd District. o Westside MAX Blue Line: $825 million in residential and commercial development, including 8,500 housing units within walking distance of the line, and The Round, a mixed-use office space and residential development on land once occupied by a sewage treatment plant. o Interstate MAX Yellow Line: 50 new businesses opened along the line during construction, including two major grocery stores. Nearby neighborhoods have seen an increase in home sales. o Airport MAX Red Line: Cascade Station, a 120-acre parcel near the airport scheduled for build out in 2015, will be the site of two light rail stations, 10,000 jobs, and $400 million worth of hotels, conference facilities, restaurants, retail, entertainment, and office space. Between 1997 and 2008, the Portland Streetcar attracted over $3.5 billion in investment within three blocks of the line, translating to over 10,000 housing units and 5.4 million square 21 feet of commercial space. o More than half of all new development over the past decade in Downtown Portland has occurred within one block of the Portland Streetcar; this area previously 22 accounted for less than 20 percent of total development. o Development along the streetcar line has also been denser than development that has occurred elsewhere: development within one block of the Portland Streetcar has utilized nearly 90 percent of its allowable floor area ratio (FAR), compared with an average of under 30 percent pre-streetcar and 40 percent for non-streetcar-oriented 23 development in Downtown Portland. A study of MAX Blue Line light rail station areas found that development occurring after light rail investment has an average FAR of 0.65, which is more than the average FAR for 24 development outside of station areas. While TOD station planning programs were initiated after the planning process had begun for the first light rail line, the City has since successfully incorporated the principles of TOD into their development policy framework at both a local and regional scale. In the seven years following the opening of the streetcar, the number of retail shops in the Pearl District increased from 10 to more than 400. 90% of these shops were independent 25 and locally owned.

TriMet City of Portland and Portland Streetcar Inc., “Portland Streetcar Development Oriented Transit,” April 2008 22 E. D. Hovee & Company, “Streetcar-Development Linkage: The Portland Streetcar Loop,” February 2008 23 Ibid. 24 TriMet, Livable Portland: Land Use and Transportation Initiatives,” November 2010 25 Portland Streetcar Inc. 21

DRAFT – May 2013 Implementation Tools: Planning and Policy Guidance Portland has one of the most aggressive TOD programs in the country, and has been developed, 26 refined and expanded over the past 25 years. • Urban Growth Boundary. The active management of growth is especially crucial in Portland because of an urban growth boundary, an urban planning tool that restricts development outside of urbanized areas. While this tool prevents the type of sprawl development that other municipalities work to minimize, it can also create pent-up market pressures as developers struggle with the regulatory and financial obstacles common to infill development. 27 • Station Area Planning. Legally binding station area plans that outlined minimum densities, parking maximums, design requirements, and interim zoning overlays were adopted before service began along the Blue Line extension. 28 • TOD Tax Exemption (statewide). In 1995 the Oregon State Legislature amended legislation on the Core Area Tax Exemption to include TODs. The purpose of this local option program is to promote higher-density residential and mixed-use development near major public transit facilities. 29 The TOD Implementation Program assists in • TOD Implementation Program (regional). TOD construction throughout the Portland region through site control, financial participation and other joint development tools. The program operates through a series of cooperative agreements between the region’s elected regional government and local jurisdictions or private developers. It is funded with federal and local transportation funds. • Joint Development (local).30 In compliance with FTA’s policy on joint development, Portland has leveraged the transit generated by planned developments to provide transit agency property at a discount to developers.

26

Cervero, Robert, et al. (2004), Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects, TCRP Report 102, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board 27 Ibid. 28 TriMet “Community Building Sourcebook: Land use and transportation initiatives in Portland, Oregon,” December 2007 29 Ibid 30 Ibid.

DRAFT – May 2013 3.4 Salt Lake City System Statistics Route length:

41.3 miles (three lines)

Number of stations:

50 stations

Ridership:

60,600 per weekday

Capital cost:

$312M (initial 15 mile segment)

System Background The three-line Trax system serves Salt Lake City and its surrounding suburbs, and the initial segment of the line (from Salt Lake City to Sandy) opened for service in 1999. The system has been expanded upon in stages, boosted by a local sales tax for transit that was approved by regional voters in 2006. The system generally operates in exclusive guideway, utilizing a mixture of existing roadway corridors as well as rail rights-of-way. The corridors within Salt Lake City generally operate in the center of the roadway with passenger stations located in the medians. TRAX University Line in downtown SLC Transportation and Service Impacts The initial 15-mile segment was projected to have a daily ridership of 15,000, but by the beginning of 2008 the initial line (which now included a 2.5-mile extension to the University of Utah and the University Medical Center) had a daily ridership of 40,000 per day. This initial line remains as the primary corridor for the system. Land Use and Development Impacts Although Salt Lake City and UTA were not aggressive in linking economic development to transit investments, TOD has made a strong impact in many of the Trax station areas. Impacts on the Local Community •

31

Examples of recently completed or proposed development projects related to the LRT system and its station areas includes: 31 o $1.5 billion, 23-acre City Creek Center project. o “Farmington's 800,000-square-foot, mixed-use development Station Park … will have a Harmons grocery store, as well as a 15-screen Cinemark theater and a variety of restaurants. Other TODs are in various stages of planning or development in Salt Lake City, Provo, Orem, Ogden, Clearfield, Layton, Sandy, Draper, Midvale, South 32 Salt Lake and West Jordan — among others.” o “UTA has entered into agreements to partner in two TODs — a shopping center/office development on 31 acres near the future TRAX stop at 3200 W. 8650 South, West Jordan; and a 4-acre development at 3900 S. West Temple, where plans call for construction of a 60,000-square-foot Salt Lake Community College 33 office and classroom building.” o “The transit authority also plans to partner in three other TODs — a massive 60-plus acre project in Clearfield featuring 3,500 residential units, 143,000 square feet of

Jared Page, Desert News, “Can transit-oriented development work along Wasatch Front?” April 10, 2011 Page 33 Page 32

DRAFT – May 2013

•

retail space and 107,000 square feet for office use; a 48-acre mixed-use development near the Sandy Civic Center TRAX station; and residential and retail 34 projects adjacent to the planned Sugar House streetcar line.” Indications are that some communities along the Wasatch Front were slow to recognize the 35 benefits of TOD, but are now supporting it as a growth template.

Implementation Tools: Planning and Policy Guidance •

•

• •

•

•

34

Regional Organization. A coalition of public and private leaders, called Envision Utah, was “given the task of developing a long-term growth plan for the ten-county Greater Wasatch Area, which encompasses Salt Lake City and is home to four of every five Utahns. After three years of public involvement, preference research, and the preparation of growth scenarios that helped illuminate the cost implications of continuing on a sprawling and automobile36 dependent growth path, Envision Utah finalized its Quality Growth Strategy in 1999.” Regional Plans. “The Quality Growth Strategy capitalized on the momentum provided by the opening of Salt Lake City’s first transit line by providing a blueprint for development of the region that provided for a major expansion of the fledgling transit system and favored dense, 37 mixed-use, and transit-oriented development over continued auto-oriented sprawl.” Statewide Legislation. “In 1999, the strategy was adopted by Utah’s state legislature, which 38 passed complementary legislation to promote smarter land use and preserve open space.” Local Plans. “After completing the regionwide Quality Growth Strategy, Envision Utah shifted its focus to implementation of the strategy and creation of plans for specific geographic areas. One of its largest studies to date is an update to Salt Lake City’s long-term downtown plan, commissioned by the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce. Downtown Rising, released in March 39 2007, was the outcome of this process.” o “The plan supported the expansion of the TRAX light-rail system, and capitalized on that investment by designating several streets as transit corridors, targeting them for dense, mixed-use development. Other land use interventions include limiting surface parking, reducing building setbacks, adding new ground-floor retail space, and implementing other strategies to encourage new residential and mixed-use 40 development downtown.” Local Regulations. “Local governments have modified zoning codes and design guidelines to work in harmony with the plan, and mixed-use developments are springing up around new 41 transit stations.” Development Agreements. “Action by the Utah Legislature in 2010 authorized UTA to enter into agreements with developers as a limited partner on up to five projects. Under SB272, the transit authority can contribute portions of land it owns around transit stations to a developer's 42 project in exchange for a say in how to develop the land and a share of the profits.”

Page Kelly Lux, Utah Facilities: Solutions for Building Owners and Managers, “The Transit Oriented Development Boom” October 25, 2011 36 Rachel MacCleery and Jonathan Tarr, Urbanland, “Utah Business Embrace Light Rail,” December 13, 2011 37 MacCleery 38 MacCleery 39 MacCleery 40 MacCleery 41 MacCleery 42 Page 35

DRAFT – May 2013 3.5 Lansing, Mich. System Statistics (proposed/estimated) Route length:

7 miles

Number of stations:

28

Ridership:

8,000+ per weekday (estimate)

Capital cost:

$194M

System Background In 2009, CATA began studying the potential for rapid transit service in its highest-ridership corridor: the Michigan Avenue / Grand River Avenue corridor from Lansing to East Lansing/MSU and out to Meridian Township. Through a two-year alternatives analysis process, the region chose BRT as its locally preferred alternative, and is working to advance the project through the FTA Small Starts program. The proposed BRT project would operate in exclusive guideways with full BRT treatments including raised stations, off-board fare collection and traffic-signal priority for transit vehicles. The preferred design concept is for center-running buses with median stations. Transportation and Service Impacts The proposed Michigan-Grand River BRT project travels essentially the same route as that currently utilized by Route 1. This service currently has a ridership of more than 6,600 weekday passengers, and a primary goal of the project is to reduce travel times in the corridor for transit customers. It is estimated that the project would reduce end-to-end travel time by 17% (7.5 minutes) as well as increase the reliability and congestion-related delays on the system. Land Use and Development Impacts Although the BRT service is not yet under construction, the Michigan-Grand River corridor has recently experienced a number of transit-supportive developments, particularly along Michigan Avenue in the City of Lansing. In addition, local planners are currently adopting related planning guidance that will continue to support TOD in the future: Implementation Tools: Planning and Policy Guidance • Focused Planning and Redevelopment. The City of East Lansing has focused the majority of its planning and redevelopment efforts along Michigan and Grand River Avenues. For example, the East Village Plan involves the redevelopment of 35 acres of land on the south side of Grand River Avenue east of Bogue Street, upgrading the area with a mix of housing, offices, shopping and dining in a university-oriented area for students as well as young professionals and empty-nesters. • Comprehensive Plans. Lansing’s current Comprehensive Plan draft identifies major redevelopment opportunities along the Michigan Avenue corridor, including the downtown and downtown-adjacent areas (a growing entertainment and residential district) as well as the Frandor Shopping Center (a potential retail and residential mixed-use area). • Master Plans. The current Master Plan for Meridian Township designates the Grand River corridor as a mixture of commercial and residential uses, with commercial developments most prevalent along the frontage property and largely single-family housing behind. The planning is generally supportive of efforts to accommodate improved connections to transit and a mix of residential with other uses, but does not identify major changes to the existing mix of uses and development types in the corridor. • Regional Plans. Regional planning efforts, led by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, identify the reinvestment and redevelopment of existing urban corridors, including Michigan/Grand River, as a major goal.

DRAFT – May 2013 •

•

Overlay Zoning. The City of Lansing and Lansing Township are both in the process of developing overlay zoning districts that would facilitate transit-oriented development along the Michigan Avenue corridor. Base Zoning Changes. Zoning changes in the Delta Triangle district encourage reinvestment at higher densities with more mixed uses In addition, all of commercial parcels along Grand River are a portion of the Downtown Development Authority jurisdiction, which has worked in recent years to offer incentives to additional high-density residential and mixed use projects in the downtown.

DRAFT – May 2013 3.6 Grand Rapids, Mich. System Statistics (proposed/estimated) Route length:

9.6 miles

Number of stations:

33

Ridership:

5,000+ per weekday (estimate)

Capital cost:

$40M

System Background Currently under construction, the Silver Line BRT is scheduled to begin operation in the summer of 2014. This service, the first of its kind in the State of Michigan, will connect downtown Grand Rapids to its southern suburbs of Kentwood and Wyoming via Division Avenue. The service also provides a north-south connection through downtown Grand Rapids between the Central Station bus transfer facility and the high-growth “Medical Mile” district on the northeast side of the central business district. The BRT service will operate in both exclusive A rendering of the under-construction Silver Line BRT lanes and mixed-flow environments, with some of the exclusive lanes being in place only during the peak periods. The service will feature pre-paid fares at ticket vending machines; raised stations with level boarding; traffic-signal priority at key intersections; and service at 10 minute intervals during peak periods (20-30 minutes during other portions of the day). Transportation and Service Impacts The project is expected to improve end-to-end travel times for customers between 10% and 20%. The corridor itself has a total of more than 7,000 daily riders, of which many are expected to utilize the BRT service in the future.

Land Use and Development Impacts The BRT service has not been operational yet, but there are indications of growing development demand in the BRT corridor, particularly through the portions near and within downtown Grand Rapids. Local planners are currently working to support increased development through a number of initiatives. Implementation Tools: Planning and Policy Guidance 43 • Master Plans. The City of Grand Rapids created a TOD plan that encourages dense development along transit routes in the corridor, and Kentwood revised their master plan to include transit-oriented development (TOD) in several corridors including Division. Wyoming is attempting to create a less auto-oriented area centered on Michael and 28th, west of Clyde Park, US-131, and Division Avenue, and is also amending its master plan to include TOD. • Updated Zoning. Gaines Township is primarily auto-oriented, concerned about traffic volumes and rapid growth, but updated their zoning to facilitate transit-friendly design.

43

The Rapid, Great Transit Grand Tomorrows Study – Alternatives Analysis Report, May 2007

DRAFT – May 2013 4.0 Key Conclusions Through the process of selecting and evaluating comparison communities, the following key conclusions should be considered for the evaluation and selection of alternatives for the Ann Arbor Connector corridor. •

•

•

• •

•

•

The City of Ann Arbor is generally smaller in terms of total population or employment than most of the cities that have successfully implemented rapid transit projects in recent years. However, the City features higher residential and employment densities than many of these same cities, and in particular the clustering of activity in the Connector corridor compares favorably to that of transit corridors implemented in these other communities. In addition, the level of travel demand understood to exist between key areas of the Connector corridor (30,000+ transit trips per day) are already as many or significantly more than is carried on new rail and bus corridors when first implemented. Communities are considering and implementing different modal options that best correspond to their travel needs as well as their financial capacity. Although most regions that first implemented rail options in the 90’s are continuing to expand upon these networks, many of the cities that are starting their initial segment of rapid transit have identified bus rapid transit as a viable mode. For most corridors, the rapid transit service replaced existing local service and reduced travel times by up to 20% over the previous conditions. Transit investments do not automatically lead to the benefits of economic development and revitalization. The cities that have successfully utilized transit investments in this way have generally been proactive about engendering these benefits and incorporated it into the design of the transit system and the set of policies and incentives that govern development in the transit corridor. Although examples from Portland and elsewhere have demonstrated the potency of rail-based transit for spurring economic development, examples such as the one from Cleveland appear to indicate that a full-scale BRT installation (exclusive lanes, dedicated stations, branded vehicles) can achieve similar impacts on surrounding land uses. Other cities in the State of Michigan are considering or will soon be implementing rapid-transit in the form of BRT in their primary travel corridors. These communities do not experience the level of existing transit ridership or employment density that is present in downtown Ann Arbor and the campus areas of the University of Michigan.

Communities Similar to Ann Arbor with Advanced Transit Systems

Transit Systems Currently In Service

Transit Systems in Planning/Construction

Ann Arbor, MI

Cleveland, OH

Eugene, OR

Little Rock, AR

New Orleans, LA

Norfolk, VA

Portland, OR

Salt Lake City, UT

Tacoma, WA

Jacksonville, FL

Lansing, MI

Grand Rapids, MI

Boulder, CO

Fort Collins, CO

Madison, WI

Land Area (sq. mi.)

27.8

77.7

43.7

116.2

350.2

53.7

145.4

109.1

49.7

747

36.7

45.3

24.7

46.5

76.8

City Population

114,925

393,806

156,929

195,314

360,740

242,628

593,820

189,899

200,678

827,908

114,605

189,815

98,889

146,762

236,901

Population per sq. mi.

4,098

5,068

3,591

1,681

1,030

4,521

4,084

1,741

3,992

1,100

3123

4190

4004

3,156

3085

Employment

105,857

254,178

77,775

164,276

152,251

123,191

360,161

209,521

94,200

461,238

101,336

111,777

74,438

63,498

178,540

Employment per sq. mi.

3,808

3,271

1,780

1,414

435

2,294

2,477

1,920

1,895

617

2,761

2,467

3,014

1,366

2,325

N/A

University of Colorado, fall 2012 total enrollment of 29,278

BRT - 9.6 mile system with 18 stations; 65% of alignment in exclusive ROW

BRT - 18 mile system with 7 stations currently under study

University

University of Michigan, fall 2012 total enrollment of 43,426

BRT

LRT

University of Arkansas at Little Cleveland State Rock, fall 2011 total University, fall 2010 enrollment of 13,068 total enrollment of & University of University of Oregon, 17,386 & Case Arkansas for Medical fall 2012 total Western Reserve enrollment of 24,591 Sciences, total fall University, total fall 2012 enrollment of 2012 enrollment of 2,809. Neither 10,026 campus is served by the streetcar line.

BRT - 6.8 miles system with 59 stations; daily ridership of 14,400

Tulane University; fall 2012 total enrollment of 13,486 & Loyola University New Orleans; fall 2010 total enrollment of 927. University of New Orleans (approx. enrollment of 12,000) is not served by the streetcar.

BRT - 11.4 mile system with 33 stations (ridership unknown)

AGT

Ann Arbor Connector

University of North Florida, total fall 2012 enrollment of Michigan State 16,357 & University, fall 2012 Jacksonville total enrollment of Univeristy, fall 2012 48,906. enrollment of 3,200. Neither are served by AGT or Streetcar.

BRT - currently under study

LRT - 7.4 mile system with 11 stations; daily ridership of 4,900

LRT - 18 mile system with 35 stations; 8,900 daily boardings

Transit System Stats

Streetcar

Norfolk State University, fall 2012 total enrollment of 7,100. Old Dominion University, fall 2012 total enrollment of 24,700, is not served by the LRT.

Portland State University, fall 2011 University of total enrollment of Washington 29,703 & Oregon Tacoma, fall 2012 Health & Science University of Utah, total enrollment of University, fall 2012 fall 2012 total 4,015. University of total enrollment enrollment of 27,164 Puget Sound, fall 2,849. University of 2012 total enrollment Portland, fall 2012 of 2,800, is not total enrollment of served by LRT. 3,911, is not served by LRT or Streetcar.

Streetcar - 3.4 mile Streetcar - 13 mile system with 14 system; 13,100 daily stations; 340 daily riders. Uses heritage riders. Uses heritage vehicles. vehicles.

LRT - 1.6 mile system with 5 LRT - 35 miles LRT - 53 mile system stations; daily system with 41 with 87 stations; ridership unknown. stations; 55,500 daily 130,000 daily riders Connects commuter riders parking lots to downtown core. Streetcar - 3.9 mile system with 45 Streetcar - currently stops, 11,000 daily under study riders. Uses modern vehicles.

BRT - 8.5 mile system with 28 stations; operation mostly in exclusvie ROW

Colorado State University of WisconsinUniversity, total fall Madison, fall 2012 total 2012 enrollment of enrollment of 42,595 29,500.

BRT - 5 mile system with 14 stations; > 50% of guideway in exclusive exclusive ROW

Hybrid commuter railLRT system currently under study

Streetcar - approx. 5 mile system with 8 stops; daily ridership unknown. Provides circulation in downtown core. AGT - 2.5 mile system with 8 stations; daily ridership of 5,400

March 1, 2013