AATA University Transit Study

8/8/2019 AATA University Transit Study

1/33

November 10, 2010

Presentations at 4:00, 7:00

Please Sign In

Take a Comment SheetReview the Boards

Ask Questions of Staff and Consultant

Leave Comment Sheet at Sign In Table

Thanks for Coming!!


2/33

November 10, 2010

Welcome to the Meeting!

1. Find out about the Connector study

2. Find out about alternative transittechnologies

3. Hear preliminary study findings

4. Give us your comments to help guide

our study process

Our Program Tonight:


3/33

November 10, 2010

City ofAnn Arbor

City ofAnn Arbor

University

of Michigan

University

of Michigan

Ann ArborTransportation

Authority

Ann ArborTransportation

Authority

Downtown

DevelopmentAuthority

Downtown

DevelopmentAuthority

Study Purpose - To determine thefeasibility of advanced transit options forthe city to meet growing transportationdemands.

Supplement multi-modaltransportation system

More travel options

Convenience

Sustainability

Improve safety

Economic stability and growth

Improve overall quality of life

What is the Ann ArborConnector Feasibility Study?

Project Sponsors:

Study OverviewStudy Overview


4/33


5/33


6/33

November 10, 2010

Congestion Travel Reliability Regional Policies / Goals

FindingsRecommend-

ations

FindingsRecommend-

ations

Ridership Engineering / Environmental

Challenges Costs and Funding

Is There aNeed?

Is There aNeed? Define the

MarketDefine the

Market

Trip Demand Geographic

LocationDevelop

AlternativesDevelop

Alternatives

FeasibilityAnalysis /Screening

FeasibilityAnalysis /Screening

Study OverviewStudy Overview

Project Approach


7/33


8/33

November 10, 2010

Defining the Need Corridor Congestion

Key Corridorsare Congested:

PlymouthRoad

State Street

DevelopmentExpected to

Occurin Corridor


9/33

November 10, 2010

Defining the Need Corridor Congestion

Key Corridors areCongested:

Plymouth Road

State Street

Development Expected to

Occur in Corridor

Volume Forecasted toIncrease:

Plymouth Road: +10% Fuller Road: +11%

State Street: +10%

LRTP: Widening KeyRoutes is Not In Plan


10/33

N b 10 2010


11/33

November 10, 2010

Defining the Need Transit Utilization

Key corridors for existingAATA Service

2,7717 MinuteState Street

2,28615 MinutePlymouthRoad

Riders perWeekday

ServiceFrequency

Primary Destinations

UM Medical Center

Downtown

UM Central Campus

Standing loads occur frequently

Extra buses added to accommodate peak ridership

November 10 2010


12/33

November 10, 2010


Bus Performance: Negatively

Impacted by RoadwayCongestion

Currently: 25-30% of Time isWaiting for Signals!!

More Volume More Delay:

Congested Conditions:

Delay Increases by 2-3Times Volume Increase

Bus Times Will Become LessReliable

November 10 2010


13/33

November 10, 2010


UM Inter-Campus Bus SystemOperates at Critical Capacity:

Buses run every 2 3Minutes during peakperiods

Peak periods last from

9:00 am to 4:00 pm

Buses in peak periods arestanding room only

Ridership:

North to CentralCampus: 30,700 / Day

Peak: 3,500 Riders inPeak Hour

Peak Buses betweenCampuses: 60 Per Hour

Total Number of Northbound and Southbound Bus Trips per Hour

Between CC Little and Pierpont Commons

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6:00A

M 7 8 9 10 11

12:00

PM(noon) 1 2 3 4 5

6:00P

M 7 8 9 10 11

12:00

AM(m

idnigh

t) 1 2

Time of Day

NumberofB

uses

November 10 2010


14/33

November 10, 2010

Defining the Need Community Vitality

Better transit makes Ann

Arbor a more desirableplace to live and work

Maintain jobs

Accessible work force

Stabilize tax base

Affordable housing

Transit is an alternative tobuilding more parking

November 10, 2010


15/33

November 10, 2010

Defining the Alternatives

Intermodal Connectivity

Locations

Amenities

Hours of the Day

Frequency / Time BetweenVehicles

Fare Collection Methods

New Route(s):

Uses Existing Street?

Separate Corridor /Guideway

Changes to Existing Routes?

November 10, 2010


16/33

,

Light Rail Transit

Bus Rapid

Transit

ElevatedAGT

Streetcar


November 10, 2010


17/33

Portland, OR

Tacoma, WA

Little Rock, AR


Streetcars

Tacoma, WA

November 10, 2010


18/33

Minneapolis, MN Charlotte, NC

Dallas, TX Denver, CO


Light RailTransit (LRT)

Dallas, TX

November 10, 2010

D fi i th Alt ti


19/33

Kansas City, MO Cleveland, OH

Eugene, OR


Bus RapidTransit (BRT)

November 10, 2010

D fi i th Alt ti


20/33

Las Vegas, NV

Detroit, MI


AutomatedGuideway

TransitElevated AGT


21/33

November 10, 2010

St d Fi di


22/33

Two Area Types:

High Demand Core

Moderate Demand

Shoulders

Because there is traveldemand between all

Activity Centers, it makessense to connect them

Study Findings

23

November 10, 2010

Study Findings


23/33

Core :

High Capacity

High Frequency End-to-End:

Moderate Capacity

Moderate Frequency

Dual Service in Core

Study Findings

Connector Service Concept

23

November 10, 2010

Study Findings


24/33

Light RailTransit

Bus RapidTransit

ElevatedAGT

Study Findings

Recommended CoreTechnologies

23

November 10, 2010

Study Findings


25/33

Streetcar

Bus RapidTransit

Bus

Study Findings

Recommended End-to-EndTechnologies

23

November 10, 2010

Study Findings


26/33

Engineering andEnvironmental Challenges

Huron River Crossing

Topography

Railroad Crossings

Roadway Crossings

Right of way

Historic districts

Floodplains

These challenges are not barriers

but will be considerations in thecost and design of a new transit

system.

Study Findings

November 10, 2010

Study Findings


27/33

Capital Costs depend ontechnology and alignment

BRT $15-20M per mile

LRT $50-60M per mile

Elevated $200M+ per mile

Operating Costs

Net new costs of operatingand maintaining an advancedtransit system would rangefrom $0.5 to $1.5 M/mileannually, depending on

technology and alignment

Study Findings

Capital and Operating Costs

November 10, 2010

Study Findings


28/33

Funding for major transit investments typically comesfrom multiple sources

Project could qualify for federal funding of up to 50%

Federal

MnDOTFederal Grant forCongestion Mitigation

and Air Quality

Metropolitan AirportsCommission

Hennepin CountyRegional Rail Authority

State of Minnesota

Federal

MnDOTFederal Grant forCongestion Mitigation

and Air Quality

Metropolitan AirportsCommission

Hennepin CountyRegional Rail Authority

State of Minnesota

Parking Fund

(Cash)

Tax

Increment

HUD Grant

Parking Fund

(Bonds)

Local ImprovementDistrict PrivateSector Funds

Federal Transportation

Funds Agreement withTri-Met Reallocated as

Local Funds

Portland

Transportation

Resources

Parking Fund

(Cash)

Tax

Increment

HUD Grant

Parking Fund

(Bonds)

Local ImprovementDistrict PrivateSector Funds

Federal Transportation

Funds Agreement withTri-Met Reallocated as

Local Funds

Portland

Transportation

Resources

Hiawatha Light Rail Portland Streetcar

Study Findings

Funding

November 10, 2010

Study Findings


29/33

There are two distinct areasof travel demand:

High Demand Core

warrants high capacityservice

Moderate Demand

Shoulders warrantend-to-end connection

Study Findings

Summary

23

November 10, 2010

Study Findings


30/33

End-to-end service should be integrated with the core

service. Appropriate end-to-end technologies are:StreetcarBus Rapid

TransitBus

Bus RapidTransit

Light RailTransit

ElevatedAGT

Study Findings

Summary

Within the High Demand Core, appropriatetechnologies are:

November 10, 2010

Study Findings


31/33

The engineering and

environmental challengesare not barriers but will beconsiderations in the costand design of a new transitsystem.

Funding for major transitinvestments typically comesfrom multiple sources

Project could qualify for federal funding of up to 50%

Implementing an advanced transit system would help moveAnn Arbor to achieving long term transportation goals

SustainableTransportation

SustainableTransportation

MinimizeRoad

Expansion

Minimize

RoadExpansion

Support Non-motorized

Travel

Support Non-motorized

Travel IncreasedUse ofTransit

IncreasedUse ofTransit



Study Findings

Summary

November 10, 2010

Next Steps


32/33

AlternativesAnalysis

PreliminaryEngineering

Construction

EnvironmentalReview

Final Design

If Community SupportsNext Steps

This feasibility study is thefirst of a number of stepsrequired to implement anadvanced transit system.

If feasible, more detaileddesign studies andadditional communityworking sessions will be

required.

Identification of fundingsources is a critical step

to implementation.

Feasibility

Study

CurrentProject

FutureActivities

These futuresteps cantake 5 to 20years tocompletedependingon thetechnology,alignmentand funding

Develop

mentandrefinem

entof

capitalandoperatingfinan

cialplan

Next Steps

November 10, 2010

Discussion


33/33

1. From the information that we presented, have we made thecase for why some kind of new alternative transit technology

in the Plymouth Road / downtown / State Street corridorswould be advantageous to the community?

2. If further study occurs what issues are important to beaddressed?

3. Would you be interested in seeing a new form of transittechnology used in the Plymouth Road / downtown / StateStreet corridors and if so, why?

4. Do you have any other comments or questions for usregarding this Connector Study?

5. Should the community continue with the next steps to

implement an alternative transit technology?

Discussion

Documents

AATA University Transit Study