Appendix C - Connector

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