Master Plan - Regional Transit Authority

Regional Master Transit Plan DRAFT PLAN MAY 2016

rapid. reliable. regional.

Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan Michael Ford CEO Tiffany Gunter Deputy CEO, COO Virginia Lickliter Office Manager, Staff Accountant, Executive Administrative Assistant Ben Stupka Planning & Financial Analysis Manager Travis Gonyou Communications Outreach & Communications Manager Lucas Reigstad Transportation Planner

RMTP Project Team HNTB Corporation Berg Muirhead and Associates E. Austell Associates, Inc. Hamilton Anderson Associates Nelson\Nygaard Social Coop Digital Media Textizen

RTA Board of Directors State of Michigan Paul Hillegonds, Chair City of Detroit Freman Hendrix Mary Lisa Franklin* Macomb County Donald Morandini Roy Rose Julie Gatti* Oakland County Chuck Moss Timothy J. Soave Jean Chamberlain* Steve Potter* Matthew Wirgau*

Washtenaw County Elisabeth (Liz) Gerber Alma Wheeler Smith Richard Murphy* Wayne County Mark Gaffney Sonya Mays Dr. Curtis L. Ivery* * Former Board Member

Regional Master Transit Plan DRAFT PLAN

iv

DRAFT REGIONAL MASTER TRANSIT PLAN for SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN

Acknowledgments Southeast Michigan’s Transit Providers

Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority Matt Carpenter, CEO

Detroit Department of Transportation Dan Dirks, CEO

Detroit Transportation Company Barbara Hansen, General Manager

M-1 RAIL Matt Cullen, CEO

Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation John C. Hertel, General Manager

Stakeholder Advisory Committee

Citizen Advisory Committee

Financial Task Force

Larry Alexander Michael Benham Fred Barbret Paul Bridgewater Rod Brown Steve Brown Alex Bourgeau Liz Callin Matt Carpenter Paul Childs Eli Cooper Dennis Cowan Maurice Cox Krista Clowes Robert Cramer Tom Crawford Andy Didorosi Dan Dirks Deanna Donahoo John Foster Carolyn Grawi Neil Greenberg Roberta Habowski Barabra Hansen Cornelius Henry John Hertel John Hieftje Melissa Hightower Tanise Hill Rudy Hobbs Jed Howbert

Susan Pollay, Chair Megan Owens, Vice Chair Tina Abbate Marzolf, Secretary Arthur Divers, Parlimentarian Kathleen Alessandro Moe Ayoub Lauren Baker Linda Busch Cheryl Calimazzo Andrew Charles Frank Cunningham Karen DeShields David Dillingham Stephanie Donaldson Patricia Fedewa Daniel Grey Prashanth Gururaja John Harris Gerald Hasspacher

John Blanchard Mike Brownfield Mary Jo Callan Dennis Cowan Charles Griffith Joe Heffernan George Jacobsen Ronia Kruse

Craig Hupy George Jacobsen Angelica Jones Adrianna Jordan Chris Kolb Larry Krieg Brett Lenart Kari Martin Tina Abbate Marzolf Casey McNeill Andy Meisner Mike O’Callaghan Gerald Poisson Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz Julia Roberts John Paul Rea Triette Reeves Melissa Roy Jim Schultz Wayne Sieloff Doug Simpson Andrew Thorner Laura Trudeau Jordan Twardy Madonna Van Fossen Joe Valenti, Jr. Steve Wasko Brad Williams Tom Woiwode

Frank Kalinski Cindy Mathys Jelani McGadney James Minnick Charles Momon Renard Monczunski Richard Murphy Lisa Nuszkowski Michael O’Meara Marie Pacini Melanie Piana Robert Polk Carlo Santia Micki Solonika Lissa Spitz Jeri Stroupe Brian Urquhart JoAnn Wardell John Waterman Patricia White Helaine Zack

Providers Advisory Committee

Paul Childs M-1 RAIL Robert Cramer SMART Matt Cullen M-1 RAIL Neil Greenberg DDOT Cornelius Henry DTC Casey McNeill DDOT

Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz AAATA Julia Roberts AAATA Mary Stasiak AAATA Andrew Thorner SMART

Michael Maher John Naglick Faye Nelson Susan Pollay Roy Rose Melissa Roy Conan Smith Ned Staebler

Woodward Avenue Project Team Parsons Brinckerhoff Archive DS E. Austell Associates, Inc. Hamilton Anderson Associates HNTB Corporation LSL Planning Steering Committee Steve Baker John Baran Andrea Bibby Alex Bourgeau Robin Boyle Jim Breuckman Maurice Cox Jay Cravens Robert Cramer Robert Davis Deanna Donahoo Michael Dul Jana Ecker Jim Ellison Neil Greenberg Mark Hackshaw Jean Paul Harang Cornelius Henry

Jed Howbert Casey McNeill Karen Mejia Tim Miles Khalil Mogassabi Mark Nickita Lisa Nuszkowski Ann Perry Melanie Piana James Sabo Jim Schultz Amy Sullivan Andrew Thorner Tim Thwing Amy Vansen Patti Voelker Phil Wojtowicz


Gratiot Avenue

Michigan Avenue

Project Team Parsons Brinckerhoff E. Austell Associates, Inc. LSL Planning

Project Team AECOM Cambridge Systematics CDM Smith Connetics Transportation Group Lovio George LSL Planning

Policy Committee Scott Adkins Councilman Scott Benson Drew Buckner Tammy Carnrike Bob Cannon Paul Childs Maurice Cox Robert Cramer Cardi DeMonaco Barb Dempsey Dan Dirks Mary Van Haaren Mark Hackel Barbara Hansen Rudy Hobbs Bob Hoepfner

Jed Howbert Tony Kratofil Councilwoman Raquel CastanedaLopez Tiombe Nakenge Carmine Palombo Suzanne Pixley John Paul Rea Melissa Roy Rita Screws Councilwoman Mary Sheffield Councilman André Spivey Marcell Todd

Technical Committee John Abraham Casey McNeill Fred Barbret Adam Merchant Alex Bourgeau Joseph Merucci Steve Brown Prasad Nannapaneni Steve Cassin Jennifer Neal John Culcasi Ashok Patel Arthur Divers Carlo Santia Steve Duchane Jim Schultz Ryan Epstein Brian Tingley Jean Paul Harang Elizabeth Vogel Gerald Hasspacker Sommer Woods Cornelius Henry Natalie Youakim Brandon Jonas

Policy Committee LeRoy Burcroff Matt Carpenter Paul Childs Linda Combs Ken Dobson Amanda Edmonds Luke Forrest Sue Gott Mandy Grewal Barbara Hansen John Hertel Jed Howbert Stanley Jensen Andy Kandrevas Tony Kratofil Paul Krutko Phil LaJoy

Verna McDaniel George Anton Moroz Byron Nolen Dara O’Byrne John O’Reilly Dan Paletko Carminie Palombo Susan Pollay Triette Reeves Susan Rowe Wayne Sieloff Brenda Stumbo Chris Taylor Kathleen Wendler Fred Westbrook William Wild

v

Technical Committee Ron Amen Paul Lippens Tim Attalla Richard Marsh Jr Michael Benham Kari Martin Alex Bourgeau Casey McNeill Matthew Bourke Joe Meyers Ryan Buck John Paul Minear Eli Cooper Khalil Mogassabi Robert Cramer Barry Murray Beth Ernat June Nickleberry Darrell Fecho Randa Saghir Lori Fodale Jim Schultz Prashanth Gururaja Lisa Solomon Cornelius Henry Kristen Thomas Greg Hohenberger Bruce Thompson Tim Keyes Nathan Voght Dan Kinkead Sommer Woods Joe Lawson

The Regional Transit Coordinating Council John Hertel, Director A special note of appreciation to the RTA’s predecessor, the Regional Transit Coordinating Council, and its Director John Hertel. The RTCC paved the way for the RTA and brought a wealth of transit planning, managing, and funding experience to Southeast Michigan. Without the tremendous contributions of the RTCC and Mr. Hertel, the Regional Master Transit Plan would not be possible.

The People of Southeast Michigan The Regional Master Transit Plan would not be possible without support, participation, and feedback from the people of Southeast Michigan. The passion for better transit fueled the planning process and helped us create a plan for Southeast Michigan, by Southeast Michigan.

vi


vii

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Transit Terminology TERM

DEFINITION

TERM

DEFINITION

AAA1b

Area Agency on Aging 1-B, providing services, advocacy, and information for persons age 60 and over within Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, and Washtenaw Counties. This includes mobility management services and resources.

DDOT

Detroit Department of Transportation, providing bus and paratransit service in Detroit. DDOT is one of four transit service providers in Southeast Michigan.

DTC

Detroit Transportation Corporation (People Mover), providing circulation service in downtown Detroit with automated vehicles on an elevated track. The DTC is one of four transit service providers in Southeast Michigan.

AAATA

Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (The Ride), providing bus and paratransit service in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and parts of Washtenaw county. AAATA is one of four transit providers in Southeast Michigan.

DRT

Demand-Responsive Transportation

ADA

Americans with Disabilities Act

DTW

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

Alternatives Analysis

A transit study considering various modes, destinations, travel patterns, and station locations to best serve an area or corridor. An alternatives analysis culminates in a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).

Express Routes

Faster bus service with fewer stops, typically operating on freeways and limited-access arterial roads.

Farebox

APTA

American Public Transportation Association

Used to collect fares for riding on transit. Typically located on a bus, transit platform or station.

Bike Share

A service allowing participants to rent and return bikes at stations throughout a dedicated service area.

Fixed Route

Transit service that operates on regular routes at scheduled times.

BRT

Bus Rapid Transit, a high capacity transit service that is faster and more frequent than typical local bus. BRT is often characterized by level boarding, premium stations, prepayment, bus only lanes, transit signal priority, limited stops, on-board amenities, next bus information, and unique branding. Stations are typically one mile apart. BRT provides the same benefits as light rail (LRT) at a lower cost per mile.

Flex Routes

Flex routes combine the features of fixed-route transit services and dial-a-ride services by operating in a regular pattern but deviating on request to serve nearby residences or destinations.

Frequency

How often a bus or train will come (and therefore how long you will wait for transit). A frequency of 30 minutes means a maximum wait of 30 minutes for a bus or train. A high frequency means you will wait less, while a low frequency means you will wait longer. Frequency is typically lower on evenings and weekends.

Commuter Express

Commuter-oriented bus service providing weekday rush-hour service to commuters traveling to and from employment centers. Routes are fitted for longer distances with fewer stops.

DAAA

Detroit Area Agency on Aging, providing community access, wellness, and healthy aging and nutrition services for persons age 60 and over within Detroit and surrounding communities. This includes mobility management services and resources.

Higher frequencies make transit convenient. Generally people are able to use transit without checking a schedule when vehicles arrive every 15 minutes or less. OPPOSITE PAGE Rosa Parks Transit Center in downtown Detroit seen from the People Mover.

viii


TERM

DEFINITION

TERM

DEFINITION

FTA

Federal Transit Administration, a federal agency that regulates public transit systems and assists with funding and technical needs.

M-1 RAIL

Greenway

Corridors intended for non-motorized modes of travel, such as walking and bicycling.

Streetcar running approximately 3.3 miles along Woodward Ave in downtown Detroit. It is expected to open in 2017 and will be know as the QLINE. It will then become one of the transit service providers in Southeast Michigan. (See Streetcar and QLINE)

Heavy Rail

Type of transit used in large urban regions, where it provides high-capacity service and a strong development catalyst. The use of track structures that separate trains from traffic surface streets contributes to a very high capital cost per mile compared to regional rail, LRT, and BRT. Stations are typically 0.75 to 1.5 miles apart.

MDOT

Michigan Department of Transportation

Millage

A type of property tax. The millage rate is expressed as the amount owed per $1,000 of taxable property value.

Millennials

Term used to describe the generation of people born between the 1982 and 2004. Millennials have recently surpassed Baby Boomers as the largest generation in the United States.

Mobility Management

Mobility management helps people understand their travel options and matches users to the most appropriate travel choice, regardless of transportation provider.

Mode

A measure of the quality of service based on traffic flow (congested vs. free flow).

Specific type of transit–such as bus, regional rail, heavy rail, LRT, and BRT–or transportation, such as bike and automobile.

NEPA

Locally Preferred Alternative, describes the selected mode, route and station locations to provide the best transit option for the location under study in an alternatives analysis.

National Environmental Policy Act, requires documentation to determine the impacts a project has on both the human and natural environment.

Non-Public Transit

Transit provided by a private source.

Opt-in/Opt-out

Communities that do or do not choose to fund and participate in transit.

Paratransit

Specialized door-to-door transportation service for seniors and people with disabilities unable to utilize fixed-route public transit.

Peak Hours

The peak traffic period caused by higher volumes of traffic on the road.

IGA

Intergovernmental Agreements

LBO Funding

Local Bus Operating Funding, a category of state transit funding.

Level Boarding

No step up or down between the platform and transit vehicle. Allows for faster and easier boarding. Level boarding is especially beneficial to persons with disabilities, the elderly, and parents using strollers.

Level of Service LPA

LRT

Light Rail Transit, connects downtowns with suburban job centers. The use of tracks at the same level as cross streets makes LRT less expensive than heavy rail. Stations are typically 0.75 to 1.5 miles apart.

ix


TERM

DEFINITION

TERM

DEFINITION

Provider

Transit service provider such as AAATA, DTC, DDOT, M-1 RAIL, or SMART.

Streetcar

Regional Master Transit Plan

A plan to analyze existing transit service, recommend improvements, and provide an implementation strategy for rapid, reliable regional transit.

Street-running rail transit in congested urban areas that serves stations spaced every few blocks (typically 1/4 to 1/2 mile). Streetcars can be a strong development catalyst for urban neighborhoods. (See M-1 RAIL)

Regional Rail

Connects suburban areas with dense employment centers, such as Ann Arbor and Detroit. Regional rail travels on track shared with freight, typically during peak hours. Stations are typically 3 to 5 miles apart and the route extends between 20 and 50 miles.

TheRide

See AAATA

TIGER

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, a competitive federal grant program for road, rail, transit, and port projects that will significantly impact a region.

Ride-Hailing Services

Services, such as Uber or Lyft, allowing riders to request a ride, often through a smartphone app.

TDM

Ridership

The number of rides taken on public transit during a given time period (year, day, rush hour).

RTA

Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan, created to plan for and coordinate public transportation in Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties, and to deliver rapid regional transit in a region where none exists.

Transportation Demand Management, a range of strategies to reduce or redistribute travel demand within a region. This may include encouraging more efficient travel modes, such as transit, over single-occupancy vehicles.

TOD

Transit Oriented Development, a type of community development that combines residential, retail, and office to maximize nearness to a transit station. TOD is used to increase ridership.

Scenarios

A set of transit options for Southeast Michigan that combine different modes, service levels, and coverage opportunities based on what funding may be available.

TSP

SMART

Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation, provides service to Macomb County, and parts of Oakland County and Wayne County. SMART is one of four transit service providers in Southeast Michigan.

Traffic Signal Priority, a system which detects oncoming transit vehicles and extends the green light phase or decreases the red light phase to allow buses to stay on schedule.

TVM

Ticket Vending Machine for purchasing transit fares.

UZA

Urbanized Area

QLINE

See M-1 RAIL

Span of Service

How long transit operates each day. A long span of service, from early morning to late evening or overnight, provides mobility for the widest range of work schedules and other activities. Spans are typically shorter on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays than on weekdays.

x


xi

Table of Contents

About the RTA

xiii

1 Introduction

15

2 Engaging Southeast Michigan

21

3 State of the System

33

4 Demand for Transit

57

5 The Challenges of Our Current System

71

6 Building Blocks for Better Transit

79

Draft RMTP

101

7 Building the System

103

8 Financial Analysis

119

9 Making It Real

137

10 Benefits of Regional Transit

155

Endnotes

163

OPPOSITE PAGE An AAATA Bus in downtown Ann Arbor. Image courtesy of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

xii


xiii

About the RTA We aim to improve the quality of life and economic vitality of Southeast Michigan by increasing mobility options for all. Until 2012 Southeast Michigan lacked a central agency to coordinate transit throughout the region. The Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan (RTA) was created to act as this missing central coordinating agency. We are responsible for planning and coordinating transit within Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties and delivering rapid transit to a region where none exists. The RTA was established by the Michigan Legislature in 2012 through Public Act No. 387. Among the powers and responsibilities granted by the Michigan Legislature, the RTA is… ■■ Responsible for allocating state and federal funds to the transit providers of Southeast Michigan. The providers must apply for these funds through the RTA. ■■ Responsible for creating, implementing, and maintaining a regional transit plan. ■■ Empowered to raise public funds for regional transit through a public referendum. ■■ Empowered to identify and implement coordination directives with the goal of maximizing efficiencies and improving regional travel in Southeast Michigan.

The RTA is governed by a 10-member Board of Directors. Members are appointed by the County Executives of Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne counties, the Chair of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, the Mayor of Detroit, and the Governor of Michigan. The Governor’s appointee serves as Chair, without a vote. Members serve three-year terms.

RTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Paul Hillegonds Chair

Donald Morandini Macomb County

Mark Gaffney Wayne County

Chuck Moss Oakland County

Elisabeth (Liz) Gerber Washtenaw County

Roy Rose Macomb County

Freman Hendrix City of Detroit

Alma Wheeler Smith Washtenaw County

Sonya Mays Wayne County

Timothy J. Soave Oakland County

We envision a region with sufficient and secure funding to support enhanced public transportation options that will ensure accessibility, satisfy the integrated mobility needs of the community, and promote livable, healthy, and sustainable growth.

OPPOSITE PAGE The RTA’s kickoff rally at Campus Martius Park in downtown Detroit.

14

1

15

Introduction In this chapter...

18

Southeast Michigan lacks something all other major metropolitan areas have—a rapid, reliable, regional transit system.

18

The Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan was created to better connect our region with transit.

19

The Regional Master Transit Plan is a transit vision for how we expand and improve transit in Southeast Michigan.

16


Introduction

Introduction When we invest in transit, we grow as a community. Investment in transit yields real and measurable results. Studies have shown investments in public transit yield positive economic returns1. Transit creates: ■■ More prosperous regions by getting people to work and attracting new business; ■■ More competitive regions by attracting and retaining talent; ■■ Healthier regions by providing access to healthcare, access to senior care, mobility options for people with disabilities, access to healthy food and better nutrition, and more active lifestyle choices; and ■■ More vibrant regions by allowing people to get wherever they would like to go, whether that is work, medical appointments, entertainment destinations, or shopping, whenever they need to get there.

Many people have no way to get to their jobs, medical appointments, or other services because there is no public transportation available. As the population ages, more people are going to need public transportation. The economy cannot grow if transportation doesn’t either. Oakland County Open House May 21, 2015

OPPOSITE PAGE DDOT buses at Rosa Parks Transit Center in downtown Detroit.

17

18


Introduction

A Region Without Regional Transit REGIONAL TRANSIT? Regional transit is a coordinated network of public transportation connecting people to the places they want and need to go. It includes north-south connections, east-west connections, and everything in between. This means being able to quickly and seamlessly move across county boundaries. Whether you need to travel from the city to the suburbs, the suburbs to the city, or between suburbs, regional transit can get you there. The RTA is charged with creating a regional transit system to make better connections within and between Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties. These counties are working together with the RTA to make a system that will benefit everyone.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS? A transit study which considers various modes, destinations, travel patterns, and station locations to best serve an area or corridor. An alternatives analysis culminates in a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).

With 4.2 million people calling Southeast Michigan home, it is the largest major American metropolitan area in the country without true regional transit. While we have four transit providers—TheRide (AAATA) in Ann Arbor, DDOT and the People Mover (DTC) in Detroit, and SMART—serving Southeast Michigan, each serves its own geographical area, faces unique challenges, and must cater to the needs of different kinds of riders. With their own service areas and rider markets, it’s difficult for each provider to meet the needs of their core customer base while also considering the needs of our entire region. Further, large gaps exist between their service areas. This limits transit access for many employers and residents. Many major cities are served by multiple transit providers. But unlike our peers, until 2012 Southeast Michigan lacked a central agency to coordinate transit throughout the region—a Regional Transit Authority. And while we have seen our share of transit studies laying out plans for better transit, we have never had a comprehensive transit vision with a realistic funding and implementation strategy to make regional transit a reality.

The Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan (RTA) was created to coordinate transit throughout the region. The Regional Master Transit Plan is our comprehensive vision for rapid, reliable, regional transit in Southeast Michigan.

On May 12, 2015 the RTA officially launched a series of studies to build equitable and sustainable transit throughout Southeast Michigan. These projects include studying rapid transit on Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward avenues and the Regional Master Transit Plan – a long-term regional transit vision for Southeast Michigan. The Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward avenue Corridor Studies are important pieces of the Regional Master Transit Plan. Each study underwent a separate alternatives analysis process and extensive public outreach. This included independent Technical and Policy Committees, public open houses, online engagement, and social media outreach. The studies will culminate in Locally Preferred Alternatives adopted by the RTA Board. These projects are included in the Regional Master Transit Plan.

We should not need a car to travel around our region. We need some agency to advocate on the importance of REGION. Washtenaw County Open House May 18, 2015


Introduction

The Regional Master Transit Plan (RMTP) The Regional Master Transit Plan is a transit vision for all of us. It will guide how we expand and improve transit in Southeast Michigan over the next twenty years. The Regional Master Transit Plan is a market-based plan— supported by past and present data, future projections, input from communities across the region and a thorough understanding of our existing transit system and the region’s needs. It offers realistic solutions to our unique regional mobility problems. It is a pragmatic and fiscally responsible plan which provides the blueprint for a regional transit system Southeast Michigan will support. The plan will create a future transit system which is: Rapid to get you where you need to go quickly and efficiently, with higher frequencies, less waiting, and without timely transfers from one transit provider to another. Reliable to get you where you need to go on time, without wondering when or if a bus will come. Regional to get you to the places you want and need to go— whether its work, home, school, or shopping—when you need to get there, throughout Southeast Michigan with a seamless and coordinated system.

Throughout the RMTP process: 1 You told us what you want and need in a transit system and how the current system does and does not work for you. 2 We conducted an extensive study of the existing transit system and a detailed market analysis. This data-driven process showed us the challenges facing our current system and where demand for transit is not being met. Only after understanding your needs and identifying the problems of our system were we able to begin building a system that truly meets the needs of Southeast Michigan. 3 We identified building blocks to address your concerns and meet the challenges of our current system. With these building blocks, we developed a transit network tailored to Southeast Michigan. Together with your help, we developed a rapid, reliable, and regional transit system.

HOW IS THE RMTP DIFFERENT FROM PAST PLANS? Unlike past studies, the RMTP considers the financial implications of transit, including future operating and capital costs and the funding needed to make it a reality. The financial analysis used in the RMTP was endorsed by business, non-profit, education, and transit leaders from throughout Southeast Michigan. Learn more about the Financial Analysis in Chapter 8. In addition to a financial plan, the RMTP includes a detailed Implementation Strategy which provides a clear and realistic path to make this plan a reality both in the near- and long-term. Learn more about Implementation in Chapter 9.

19

20

2

21

Engaging Southeast Michigan The Public Engagement Process

In this chapter...

23

25

The RTA engaged community members throughout Southeast Michigan in a community conversation about regional transit. This multi-faceted engagement approach allowed us to engage a wide range of people in a time, place, and manner comfortable to them. During a year-long community conversation, the RTA attended and hosted over 110 events across Southeast Michigan and garnered over 8,700 Facebook likes, nearly 1,400 public comments, and almost 1,000 retweets on Twitter.

29

This community conversation helped the RTA begin a full analysis of the existing transit system and a market analysis for existing and future transit demand.

22


Engaging Southeast Michigan

23

Engaging Southeast Michigan A Plan for Southeast Michigan, By Southeast Michigan The RTA began the Regional Master Transit Plan process with a public rally and press conference in downtown Detroit’s Campus Martius to introduce Southeast Michigan to the RTA. The event kicked off public engagement efforts for the Regional Master Transit Plan and Corridor Studies on Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward avenues. This was the first step in engaging the 4.2 million stakeholders throughout Southeast Michigan in a community conversation about the future of regional transit.

Better regional transit matters to all of us, whether you use transit or not. We all have something to gain from the Regional Master Transit Plan. That’s why everyone in Southeast Michigan was considered a stakeholder throughout the RMTP process.

A Community Conversation The RTA hosted community conversations across Southeast Michigan on the benefits and opportunities that could be gained by a coordinated, reliable, and efficient regional transit system. Everyone—young and old; disabled; native or foreign-born; those living in rural areas, suburbs, or cities; transit riders and non-transit riders; knowledgeable, longtime transit advocates and those who have never heard of an RTA—was urged to participate. This inclusive strategy encouraged people from across the region to share their ideas and experiences. It was essential to building a shared awareness of the challenges of transit in our region. Through community consensus, a coordinated range of solutions could be developed with stakeholder support.

OPPOSITE PAGE Transit priority voting during an open house event in October 2015.

24



A Multi-Faceted Approach The RTA gathered the ideas, experiences, and goals from people across Southeast Michigan. Our collaborative approach was:

RTA ON SOCIAL MEDIA Facebook facebook.com/rtamichigan Twitter twitter.com/rtamichigan mySidewalk rtamichigan.org/input

of Southeast MI RTA RTA @RTAmichigan "Ask #millennials what's important for quality of life; usually access to #transit is in the Top 5" - Paul Hillegonds

■■ Flexible – We were able to travel across the region to meet people in their communities. ■■ Multi-faceted – We utilized a wide array of tools and engagement methods to reach as many stakeholders as possible, and we encouraged people to communicate directly with us at their own convenience. ■■ Educational – We sought to raise Southeast Michigan’s “Transit IQ” by explaining complex transit concepts in ways that people can relate. This built a foundation of transit knowledge to elevate the community conversation. ■■ Inclusive – With the goal of encouraging everyone in Southeast Michigan, the RTA used every tool available to reach a wide range of individuals, community groups, and organizations. Where necessary, the RTA provided interpreters to ensure everyone was included and had a voice. ■■ Thought provoking – Our collaborative approach encouraged a broader community conversation among stakeholders themselves. This cross-communication allowed stakeholders with different viewpoints to exchange ideas and concerns with one another. We carefully documented, analyzed, and included what we heard from the public. What you told us about your experiences with local transit and transit in other places—and about your concerns, hopes, and ideas for Southeast Michigan’s transit future—directly and strongly influenced the RMTP.

10:33 AM - 28 May 2015 19

10

Paul Hillegonds is chair of the RTA Board.

A variety of tools allowed the RTA to engage and inform stakeholders in ways comfortable and times convenient to them. ■■ A Stakeholder Advisory Committee ensured multiple perspectives from around the region were represented. ■■ A Citizen Advisory Committee of passionate transit advocates and volunteers from throughout the region assisted throughout the engagement process. ■■ Region-wide open houses allowed the RTA the opportunity to speak directly with stakeholders and explain the RMTP process. ■■ An RTA Meeting Toolkit allowed stakeholders and organizations to host their own meetings on transit. ■■ An RMTP webpage on the RTA website provided up-todate documentation, events, and status of the RMTP. ■■ Listening sessions across Southeast Michigan, including community centers, churches, and community events, were hosted by RTA CEO Michael Ford. ■■ Ongoing media outreach shared updates on the RMTP through traditional and online outlets. ■■ Social media, including Twitter, Facebook, and MySidewalk, allowed further stakeholder engagement and promotion of the RMTP. ■■ RTA newsletters were distributed in print and online. ■■ Community events such as local farmer’s markets, art fairs, and family fun events allowed RTA staff to engage the people of Southeast Michigan face to face. ■■ Text surveys sent through Textizen allowed stakeholders to provide feedback on their phones. ■■ A Ridership Satisfaction Survey and Public Opinon Survey identified top priorities for service improvement. ■■ Branded giveaways, such as t-shirts and buttons, at community events raised interest and the profile of the RTA and the RMTP. ■■ Advertisements on local transit ensured Southeast Michigan’s existing transit users were aware of opportunities to participate in the RMTP process.


Stakeholder Advisory Committee A Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) ensured the RMTP considered the diverse needs of all stakeholders throughout Southeast Michigan. Representatives from transit providers, non-profits, local business associations, labor representatives, and environmental groups brought different perspectives to the planning process and voiced the needs and concerns of their constituents. Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings shaped the direction of the RMTP and guided critical decisions made by the RTA. These meetings ensured a regional transit vision which served the many needs of Southeast Michigan. Each Corridor Study also hosted Technical and Policy Committee Meetings with stakeholders from municipalities along Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward avenues.

RTA Surveys Emma White Research (EWR) and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) conducted two surveys for the RTA.

RIDER SATISFACTION SURVEY Over 1,200 AAATA, DDOT, DTC, and SMART riders were interviewed between November 7 and December 18, 2015. The top priorities for service improvement were more frequent weekday service and improving on-time performance.

PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY From December 2-15, 2015, 1,500 telephone interviews with voters in the four-county RTA area were conducted. The top priorities for service improvement were improving on-demand services for seniors and people with disabilities, improving safety on vehicles and at stops, creating a common fare card, adding new bus routes, and improving on-time performance.

OVERLAPPING PRIORITIES Areas of overlapping priorities between transit riders and the general public include improving on-time performance, adding new bus routes to currently under-served areas, and improving safety.

Engagement Recap The RTA utilized its diverse array of engagement tools, including traditional public engagement, social media, and pop-up community conversations, to obtain stakeholder feedback in shaping the future of regional transit. During a community conversation which lasted over a year, the RTA attended and hosted over 110 events across Southeast Michigan. This included multiple rounds of open house meetings, community conversations held at churches, art fairs, public festivals, farmers markets, and with non-profits and municipalities. The RTA also garnered over 8,700 Facebook likes, nearly 1,400 public comments, and almost 1,000 retweets on Twitter. A Textizen survey, with ads placed on 528 AAATA, DDOT, DTC, and SMART vehicles, received 348 responses.


25

26



27

Three Rounds of Engagement

TOP Michael Ford, CEO of the RTA, addressing the crowd at the RTA’s transit rally in downtown Detroit to launch the first round of public engagement.

In addition to ongoing engagement throughout the RMTP, RTA hosted three rounds of public engagement. These rounds represented significant milestones in the RMTP process. Each round included a series of meetings around a different theme seeking different stakeholder feedback.

MIDDLE The Open Houses included a welcome video, display boards, and a looping self-guided presentation. Take-home handouts reflected the same information provided on the boards, but also included the various ways attendees could continue to participate in the community conversation and stay informed.

1 Building Awareness of the RTA – May 2015 The first round of public engagement introduced Southeast Michigan to the RTA and its initiatives, including the RMTP. Stakeholders were asked what they wanted in regional transit and where they want/ need transit to take them. 2 Identifying Our Transit Priorities – October 2015 The second round of public engagement presented the findings of the State of the System and Market Analysis to outline the challenges, needs, and gaps of our existing transit system. The building blocks identified to improve regional transit were introduced. Stakeholders were asked to identify their transit priorities to help prioritize these different building blocks. 3 Presenting the Draft RMTP – May 2016 The Draft Regional Master Transit Plan is being presented to Southeast Michigan in May 2016. Stakeholder feedback on this draft will help shape the final Regional Master Transit Plan.

BOTTOM Michael Ford listening to stakeholders at an open house in Detroit during the second round of public engagement in October 2015.

OPPOSITE PAGE The RTA held meetings and attended community events throughout Southeast Michigan during the RMTP process.

28

Round One: Building Awareness of the RTA

MAJOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EVENTS: ROUND ONE Washtenaw County Open House EMU Student Center, Ypsilanti Eastern Wayne County Open House WCCCD – Northwest Campus, Detroit Western Wayne County Open House U of M Dearborn, Dearborn Macomb County Open House Macomb Community College, Clinton Township Oakland County Open House Detroit Elks Lodge, Royal Oak

Five open houses were held throughout Southeast Michigan following RTA’s kick-off rally in Campus Martius. The open houses helped build awareness of the RTA and introduced the RMTP and corridor studies. At least one open house was held in each county, and meeting attendees came from throughout the region. The interactive sessions were led by the RTA and the RMTP, Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward avenue corridor teams. Volunteers from the Citizens Advisory Committee provided additional support. Meeting attendees were guided through various stations, given handouts, encouraged to comment, and told how to further participate in the community conversation. Spanish and Arabic interpreters were available at both meetings held in Wayne County to assist non-English speaking attendees. Nearly 500 people attended meetings during this first round of public engagement. Additionally, the RTA attended 25 events over the course of the summer.

WHAT DID WE LEARN? Regional Transit is Important Because... Stakeholders said regional transit is important to improve access to jobs, education, and medical appointments; save time and money related to car ownership, maintenance, congestion, and parking; improve property values and the quality of neighborhoods; position the region as a competitive 21st century metropolitan area to attract businesses and talented young workers; provide access to family and friends around the region, parks, entertainment, and shopping; overcome mobility obstacles related to aging, disabilities, weather, and poor road conditions.

I Want Regional Transit to Take Me... Everywhere! Stakeholders indicated they want to take transit to work, school, medical appointments, and social activities. Service to the airport and train stations was mentioned as a priority. Detroiters want access to the suburbs and suburban residents want to travel into Detroit. The most popular destinations for transit include downtown Detroit, the Detroit Metropolitan Airport (DTW), Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and places along the Woodward Avenue corridor from Detroit to Pontiac.

TOP 10 DESTINATIONS PEOPLE WANT TO GO WITH TRANSIT 1

Ann Arbor & Ypsilanti

2

Downtown Detroit

3

The Airport

4

Dearborn

5

Pontiac

6

Livonia

7

Birmingham

8

Bloomfield Hills

9

Novi

10

Troy


Top Three Factors When Deciding Whether or Not I’ll Use Transit...

1 Location – Will transit get me to my destination?

2 Speed – How fast can transit get me where I want to go?

3 Frequency – How long will I have to wait for a bus? Will service be available when I need it?

I Want to Use Transit for... SHOPPING (25%) APPOINTMENTS (25%) ENTERTAINMENT (20%) WORK (16%) SCHOOL (11%)


Problems with Transit in Southeast Michigan Transit in Southeast Michigan is perceived as an undesirable mode of transportation – one often used only by those without other options. Common complaints included: ■■ The existing system is not connected and requires transfers to cross county lines which are often not coordinated, causing tremendous delays for many getting to work ■■ Transit is not reliable or efficient ■■ Transit does not link the airport and Detroit ■■ The existing system lacks coordination, has too many gaps, and does not go to where people need it to

HOW THIS FEEDBACK WAS USED Feedback from this round of engagement was used to begin a full study of the existing transit system and a market analysis of existing and future transit demand. Stakeholders helped begin the planning process by indicating where they want and need transit to take them and how the existing transit system does or does not meet their needs. Public engagement efforts, in conjunction with the State of the System report and Market Analysis, identified the challenges facing our existing transit system.

Stakeholders indicated where they would like public transit to take them in the region.

29

30



Round Two: Our Transit Priorities

MAJOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EVENTS: ROUND TWO Temple Israel Listening Session Detroit Jewish Community Council Macomb County Public Open House Velocity Center – Oakland University Incubator, Sterling Heights Oakland County Public Open House Detroit Zoo Wayne County Public Open House WCCCD – Downriver Campus Washtenaw County Public Open House Ann Arbor Downtown Development Association Wayne County/Detroit Public Open House Michigan State University Detroit Center

The second round of public engagement for the Master Plan occurred at the end of October 2015. During these open houses, the RTA:

measures against which different transit investment levels could be evaluated and helped determine the correct mix of building blocks to address our unique challenges.

Summarized the Findings of the State of the System and Market Analysis – RTA provided stakeholders with a thorough overview of the challenges, needs, and gaps of transit in Southeast Michigan.

The Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward avenue corridor studies were independently active during this second round of public engagement. The RTA partnered with each corridor study team to host additional public meetings specific to those projects.

Introduced the Building Blocks for Better Transit, different modes and transit services other communities have used to address the challenges identified during round one and meet these needs to close the identified gaps. Continued the Community Conversation on regional transit – RTA and the project team engaged stakeholders to answer any questions. More importantly, stakeholders were encouraged to engage each other in a dialogue on regional transit. This sparked many conversations on the benefits and tradeoffs of different transit services. Asked Stakeholders their Preliminary Transit Priorities by ranking a number of transit values developed from key themes heard in earlier rounds of public engagement. This prioritization stimulated many conversations among stakeholders on the tradeoffs inherent in developing a regional transit system. For example, a system spread throughout the region to provide access to all may not be able to provide as frequent of service as a system concentrated on just a few major corridors. Understanding these regional priorities was essential to developing a regional system for Southeast Michigan. These priorities helped identify the performance

Your Questions Important questions we received at these public meetings included: ■■ Paratransit – How will it work? Will the RTA coordinate it? Will it be easier to use? ■■ Priority Corridors – What will they be? Have we looked at 8 Mile? Is the RTA considering Grand River? ■■ The State Fairgrounds – What will its role be? Can the RTA purchase the property? ■■ Affordability – What will it cost to ride premium transit? Will everyone be able to afford it? ■■ Funding – How will the new transit be funded? What are the different options? ■■ Provider Cooperation – What will the role of the providers be? What will they be working together on? ■■ RTA’s Role – How will the RTA function? Will they run all transit? ■■ Rail – Will commuter rail be a part of the plan? Where will the commuter rail travel to? ■■ Fare System – Will the fare system be integrated into one seamless system? How will transfers work?


YOUR TRANSIT PRIORITIES We asked stakeholders to rank a series of transit values to help prioritize the needs of the regional transit system. These six values were based on themes identified in previous community conversations. Mobility – The ability for every user to get to their destination on public transportation through a variety of fixed-route, paratransit, and demand response services based on their specific needs. Job Access – Access to and from jobs during all hours of the day, not just the peak period. Transit can better connect the region’s many employment centers and increase the opportunity for employers to find talented people. Travel Time – The time it takes to get from one destination to another. Faster travel times increase the likelihood of transit use.


Reliability and mobility emerged as Southeast Michigan’s highest transit priorities. During voting, many stakeholders discussed the merits of and differences between the two. Additional discussion revealed the importance of efficiency and connectivity, two other reoccurring themes of community conversations.

These priorities helped the RTA develop transit services to best meet the needs and priorities of Southeast Michigan within a fiscally constrained environment.

Stakeholders were asked to vote for their transit priorities in-person or with their phones through Textizen. Ads were also placed on transit vehicles moving around the region with the information for the Textizen survey.

TRANSIT PRIORITIES 1

Reliability

24%

2

Mobility

24%

Reliability – Service which arrives on schedule and gets you to your destination on time. Reliable service can be trusted to deliver the same results every day, so it can be used with confidence to travel across the region.

3

Job Access

16%

4

Livability

14%

5

Travel Time

12%

Livability – The improved quality of life better access to transit provides. Benefits of transit include money savings, less time spent in congested traffic, increased health, and higher home values.

6

Environment

10%

Environment – Transit decreases the amount of vehicles on the road which has a positive impact on the environment. Less pollution is good for humans, animals, and plants.

31

ADDITIONAL PRIORITIES Efficiency

Connectivity

At the October meetings RTA staff was on hand to discuss plan updates, listen to stakeholder concerns, and address questions.

32

3

33

State of the System Transit in Southeast Michigan Today

In this chapter...

35

Southeast Michigan is currently served by four transit providers, each offering a variety of services to different parts of the region. These providers often operate independently of one another, resulting in an uncoordinated transit system requiring transfers for regional travel.

46

The Region’s transit system provides low levels of service, especially during off-peak periods and weekends, in terms of frequencies, spans of service, and days of service.

55

Low levels of service can be attributed, in part, to low levels of transit funding. Southeast Michigan’s investment in transit lags far behind peer regions.

34

MACOMB COUNTY OAKLAND COUNTY

EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES

53

24

AAATA

Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, & Parts of Washtenaw Co.

75

DDOT

Detroit, Hamtramck, and Highland Park

DTC

Downtown Detroit People Mover

94

24

SMART

Oakland, Macomb, & Parts of Wayne Co.

Pontiac

59

Non-Stop Peak Hour Service Mount Clemens

Required Transfer

Sterling Heights

Troy

Riders must transfer between DDOT and SMART buses to continue their journey. SMART buses only operate within Detroit during peak hours and do not stop between the city limits and downtown.

Birmingham

Roseville

Royal Oak

96

696 Novi

Southfield

Eastpointe

WAYNE COUNTY

WASHTENAW COUNTY

Livonia 96 23

Plymouth Detroit

14

Dearborn 94 Ann Arbor Ypsilanti

12

23

275 75

Miles 0

5

10


State of the System

State of the System The following information is a snapshot in time reflecting the current conditions in June 2015, unless otherwise noted. The data used was the most recent data available at the time of analysis. It is important to note transit service, productivity, and growth forecasts for the region continue to improve as the economic recovery continues.

WHY STUDY WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW? Why spend so much time affirming what we’ve all heard—and experienced—for decades? Because while it is accepted wisdom that transit in the region needs improvement, a successful effort must begin by detailing the current situation with hard data and solid evidence. This understanding forms a strong foundation for our transit vision.

Existing Transit Services The Ann Arbor Area Transit Authority (AAATA), also known as TheRide, serves Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and several surrounding communities in Washtenaw County. The Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) serves Detroit, Hamtramck, and Highland Park, as well as some limited service to parts of surrounding communities. It is the largest transit system in Southeast Michigan. The Detroit Transportation Corporation (DTC), a City of Detroit agency, operates the People Mover, a fully automated 2.9 mile elevated loop in downtown Detroit. The Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transit (SMART) serves suburban Detroit communities in Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne counties and operates some service to and from Detroit. It is the second largest transit system in Southeast Michigan. According to the National Transit Database (NTD), together, these providers operated 102 transit routes serving over 140,000 passengers each weekday in 2014, the most current year of data available at the time of analysis.

READ THE STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT The information in this chapter comes from the State of the System report, which can be found on the RTA’s website. rtamichigan.org/best-projects/master-plan/ documents/ Please note, some information has been updated since the completion of the State of the System report.

35

36


State of the System

TRANSIT PROVIDER OPERATING STATISTICS

Service Area Population

212,492

713,777

92,477

3,734,090

Square Miles

81

144

3

1,074

Population Density (Pop./Sq. Mile)

2,623

4,953

30,826

3,477

Fare

$1.50

$1.50

75¢

$2.00

Annual Operating Budget (FY15)

$38.7 M

$138.2 M

$12.5 M

$110.6 M

Size

82

307

12

389

Vehicles in Peak Service

70

229

10

338

324,280

1,450,320

46,946

748,841

Annual

6,376,611

25,116,299

2,150,068

8,979,796

Average Weekday

22,961

81,862

5,605

30,570

Fleet

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSIT The University of Michigan also provides transit service between its campuses and facilities in Ann Arbor. This is an important mobility option for the University’s students and faculty.

Vehicle Revenue Hours Annual Ridership

Source: Fleet and FY15 Annual Operating Budget from AAATA, DDOT, DTC, and SMART; Remaining information from 2014 National Transit Database Note: Ridership does not include paratransit services

ANNUAL REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDING (FY2015) FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

STATE FUNDS

LOCAL FUNDS

AAATA

$6.1 M

$11.0 M

$14.6 M (millage)

$7.0 M

$38.7 M

DDOT

$15.9 M

$38.2 M

$51.8 M (General Fund)

$32.3 M

$138.2 M

DTC

-

$3.4 M

$0.3 M (General Fund)

$8.8 M

$12.5 M

M-1 RAIL

-

-

-

-

$5.1 M

$0.3 M

$31.3 M

$65.2 M (millage)

$13.8 M

$110.6 M

$22.3 M

$83.9 M

$131.9 M

$61.9 M

$305.1 M

SMART TOTAL OPERATING RESOURCES

FARES & OTHER FUNDS

TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET

Source: FY2015, Funding estimated from agency budget documents from current and/or prior years, M-1 RAIL budget provided for operations when service commences in 2017


State of the System

37

Paratransit, Demand Response, and Mobility Management DDOT, SMART, and AAATA provide ADA-paratransit and demand response transportation (DRT) services for people unable to use regular transit services or where fixed-route transit service is not practical. These services are often provided with vans and small shuttles. Together, these services provide 1.6 million trips annually. Additionally, the Area Agency on Aging provides some mobility management services for the elderly in Southeast Michigan. The Detroit Area Agency on Aging (DAAA) provides services in Detroit. The Area Agency on Aging 1-B (AAA1b) provides services in Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, and Washtenaw counties.

Like fixed route transit riders, paratransit users often must transfer between providers to complete their trip. Paratransit services require advanced reservations and even greater coordination for trips crossing transit service area boundaries.

¾ Mile

PARATRANSIT/DRT RIDERSHIP ADA TRIPS*

OTHER TRIPS

TOTAL TRIPS

263,000

180,000

443,000

SMART

50,000

896,000

946,000

AAATA

108,000

79,000

187,000

TOTAL

421,000

1,155,000

1,576,000

DDOT

Source: June 2015 Interviews with Providers Note: CY2015 *Federally required ADA-paratransit service

PARATRANSIT?

DEMAND RESPONSE TRANSPORTATION?

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires any transit provider receiving federal funding to provide complementary transportation services for people with disabilities. Services are required to and from destinations located within three-quarters of a mile of a fixed transit route plus “islands” surrounded by the route corridors that are no more than two miles in width or length. Additional paratransit services beyond ADA requirements are optional and funded with local resources or additional grants. Paratransit could involve dial-a-ride services and may also serve the elderly.

Like paratransit, DRT services may provide flex-route or door-to-door transportation services where regular transit is not practical.

Federal regulations require paratransit service within ¾ of a mile of all fixed-route transit service.

MOBILITY MANAGEMENT? Mobility management helps people understand their travel options and matches users to the most appropriate travel choice, regardless of transportation provider.

Myride2 is one example of successful mobility management in the region. The program helps seniors and adults with disabilities understand their transportation options in Macomb, Oakland, and western Wayne counties. Learn more at myride2. com.

38


State of the System

Ann Arbor Area Transit Authority (AAATA) Services

FARES Full Fare $1.50 Reduced For seniors, and youths. Fares Children under five ride for free. Transfers Free transfers valid for 90 minutes from issue. Transit MRide (University of Michigan) Passes EMU 30-day Pass (Eastern Michigan University) Washtenaw Community College go!Pass (getDowntown program, Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority)

FLEET AND FACILITIES Fleet 82 (70 during peak service) Maintenance Administration Building and Facilities Garage (120 bus capacity) Transit Blake Transit Center Centers Central Campus Transit Center Ypsilanti Transit Center Park & Ride 5 Lots Stops 1,200+

■■ Fixed Route service in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township, Superior Township, and Ypsilanti Township ■■ Express, non-stop service from Canton and Chelsea to downtown Ann Arbor and from the University of Michigan Central and Medical campuses ■■ AirRide express high-quality service between Ann Arbor and the Detroit Metropolitan Airport in partnership with the Michigan Flyer ■■ Event Shuttle Services for events such as University of Michigan football games and the annual Art Fair

Paratransit, Demand Response, and Mobility Management ■■ A-Ride (ADA Paratransit) operates in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and portions of Pittsfield and Superior. ■■ GoldRide (Senior Transportation) is provided throughout the City of Ann Arbor and to some areas within Pittsfield Township for seniors 65 years of age and older. ■■ NightRide, through a contract with Blue Cab, offers curb-to-curb taxi service outside AAATA’s general bus service hours—from midnight to 6 AM on weekdays, 8 PM to 7:30 AM on Saturdays, and 7 PM to 7:30 AM on Sundays. Riders can request immediate service or make an advanced reservation by phone or email. ■■ VanRide vanpool service allows participants to start or join a vanpool. An online service helps match riders to others who live and work nearby. ■■ MyRide (Mobility Management) services to transitdependent people in Washtenaw County and select areas in Jackson, Lenawee, Livingston, Monroe, Oakland, and Wayne counties, including:

■■ Information, referrals, and trip planning assistance – Information Specialists/Call Takers match each caller’s trip needs with specific services, connect callers to those services, help plan specific trips. ■■ Scheduling assistance – Information Specialists/Call Takers help callers schedule trips. ■■ Trip fare assistance can subsidize transportation costs through JARC and New Freedom grant funding (see DDOT). ■■ Travel Training for individuals or small groups to learn how to use public and DRT services. Individual transportation plans provide customers realistic plans to maintain their travel independence if they depend on public transit over the long-term.

Recent and Future Changes In May 2014, voters in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti approved a 0.7 mill increase over their existing 2.056 (Ann Arbor) and 0.979 (Ypsilanti) mill assessments. Voters in Ypsilanti and Scio townships approved 0.7 and 0.36 mill contributions respectively to join the agency.2 Service improvements will be phased-in over the five-year period of the millage (2015-2020) and include: ■■ Over 90,000 additional fixed-route bus service hours and 44% more fixed-route service ■■ Expanded hours of service, extended evening hours and increased weekend service ■■ Increased bus frequencies ■■ The introduction of three new routes (two serving Ypsilanti and one serving Saline) and redesign of several existing routes ■■ Improved bus stops and amenities ■■ Additional park & ride facilities ■■ Expanded dial-a-ride services


State of the System

39

Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) Services

Recent and Future Changes

■■ Major Corridor routes have the longest spans of service, more frequent service, and typically the highest ridership in the system. Most service radiates from downtown Detroit on the many “spoke” streets, but not all. ■■ Downtown radial routes provide service to and from downtown Detroit. ■■ Feeder routes include other routes not serving downtown Detroit. Outside of a few exceptions, these typically have shorter spans of service and less frequent service.

Between January and September 2015, DDOT put 80 new buses into service. The new buses allowed the retirement of buses exceeding their service life. The buses feature modern technologies and various features to improve security and comfort. Seventy of the new buses are standard 40-foot coaches, while 10 are 60-foot articulated buses that will help relieve chronic overcrowding on Grand River, Gratiot, and Woodward. Concurrent with the deployment of the new buses, DDOT has hired more than 100 new Transportation Equipment Operators (bus drivers). Lastly, DDOT recently launched “Text my Bus” and a mobile phone app, DDOT Bus, to provide passengers with real-time bus location information and trip planning assistance.

Paratransit, Demand Response, and Mobility Management ■■ MetroLift (ADA Paratransit) serves Detroit plus some transit corridors outside the city. ■■ Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) provides access to suburban jobs for eligible residents, whose income must be under 150% of the poverty level. Trips are preferably scheduled in advance, but same day trips are permitted. ■■ New Freedom (NF) expands the mobility options for people with disabilities beyond ADA requirements. Most often, New Freedom provides transportation to/from medical appointments. Trips are preferably scheduled in advance, but same day trips are permitted.

In Spring 2016 DDOT enacted a variety of service changes based on input from community workshops in 2015. Some routes were shifted to better serve riders and create efficiencies in the system. Frequencies and spans of service were also improved on various routes. Most notably, the Grand River, Gratiot, and Woodward routes were expanded to 24-hour service. Another notable change was an extension to Route 12 to serve Belle Isle.

DDOT/SMART REGIONAL PASS A DDOT/SMART Regional Pass allows use of both systems for $49.50 a month; however, the pass is not valid for the full SMART fare. Users must pay an additional 50¢ when transferring to SMART buses since SMART’s fare is higher than DDOT’s. for $69.50, the Regional Plus Pass for $69.50 eliminates the need to pay extra when transferring to SMART.

FARES Full Fare $1.50 Reduced For students, seniors, and Fares persons with disabilities. Transfers 25¢ Transit DDOT/SMART Regional Pass & Passes Regional Plus Pass

FLEET AND FACILITIES Fleet 307 (229 during peak service) Maintenance Coolidge Garage Facilities (262 bus capacity) Gilbert Garage (200 bus capacity) Shoemaker Garage (240 indoor, 96 outdoor bus capacity) Transit Eastland Shopping Center* Centers Fairlane Town Center* Northland Center* Rosa Parks Transit Center* State Fair Transit Center* *Served by DDOT & SMART Park & Ride 0 Lots Stops 5,600+

40


State of the System

Detroit Transportation Corporation (DTC) / The People Mover Services The 2.9 mile fully-automated People Mover serves 13 downtown stations in a one-way loop. It provides important connections for downtown businesses, visitors, and attendees of major sporting and convention events.

FARES Fare 75¢ Monthly $10 Pass

FLEET AND FACILITIES Fleet 12 (10 during peak service) Maintenance 1 Facilities Transit 0 Centers Park & Ride 0 Lots Stops 13

The People Mover is located in the heart of downtown Detroit. It circulates downtown visitors to major attractions, restaurants, and jobs. Major destinations along the route include Comerica Park, Ford Field, and Joe Louis Arena, the MGM Grand, Greektown Casino, and both the Fox and State Theaters. Riders can visit the iconic American and Lafayette Coney Islands, Cobo Convention Center, and Hart Plaza. The automated system also integrates with DDOT and SMART buses at the Rosa Parks Transit Center, connecting the People Mover to the larger region. The People Mover is utilized by employees of the Renaissance Center. It serves the Coleman Young Municipal Center via the Millender Center Station and the MacNamara Federal Building via the Michigan Avenue Station. The Joe Louis Arena Station connects students to the downtown Wayne County Community College campus.

Recent and Future Changes DTC has numerous upgrades planned for the near future. Maintenance and replacement work is expected on both the tracks and the People Mover’s Automatic Train Control (ATC) system, which is a common railway safety feature regulating speed. A replacement of DTC’s driverless vehicles is anticipated in 2020. Additionally, DTC has upgraded a number of its stations in the past few years.


State of the System

Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) Services SMART provides a variety of local and regional bus services: ■■ Main Corridor Routes provide local service in suburban communities and peak period service in Detroit. ■■ Limited Stop Routes serve only selected stops. ■■ Community Routes provide local community circulation. ■■ Crosstown Routes connect to Main Corridor routes. ■■ Commuter Routes and Commuter Express Routes provide peak period commuter service. ■■ Park & Ride Routes serve 13 Park & Ride lots and provide peak period express service to and from Detroit. ■■ Shuttle Routes at Oakland Mall and Somerset provide flexible, on-demand, curb-to-curb service during weekdays (6 AM to 6 PM). ■■ Dial-A-Ride service in Farmington and Farmington Hills dispatch buses within 60 minutes of request. ■■ Flex Routes operate in Groesbeck. These services combine a regular pattern with the convenience of dial-aride service by deviating from a fixed-route when needed to pick up passengers.

Paratransit, Demand Response, and Mobility Management ■■ Connector (ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit) serves SMART’s ADA service area plus some limited core areas in Macomb, Oakland, and western Wayne counties. Service is also available to the general public, with discounted fares for seniors and persons with disabilities. ■■ Community Partnership Program provides vehicles, maintenance, and operating funds to municipalities for community-based mobility services. These services are contracted or municipally operated. SMART partners with 73 municipalities and 50 different service providers.

Recent and Future Changes Voters passed a funding increase in August 2014. Funding largely went toward replacing aging buses. The four year millage must be renewed by voters in 2018. It is the lowest millage rate in Michigan for a major transit system, though SMART serves the largest population and geographic area.

DIAL-A-RIDE?

PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS?

Dial-a-ride services respond to requests which are often placed over the phone. Although dial-a-ride services are typically reserved for the elderly, people with disabilities, and others who have difficulty reaching fixed-route service, some communities provide these services to the general public. It can provide a “first- and last-mile” connection to transit.

Park-and-ride lots are typically provided in low-density, suburban areas where fixed-route transit services are not able to reach every resident. Parking is free at these facilities. Many are located along major arterial streets or near interstate exits. The ability to drive to a station and park extends the reach of the transit system for those who have access to an automobile.

FLEET AND FACILITIES Fleet 389 (338 during peak service) 235 for fixed-route service 154 for demand-response Maintenance Macomb Terminal Facilities (120 indoor, 70 outdoor bus capacity) Oakland Terminal (135 bus capacity) Wayne Terminal (90 bus capacity) Transit Detroit Metropolitan Airport Centers Eastland Shopping Center* Fairlane Town Center* Lakeside Center Northland Center* OCC Orchard Ridge Campus Phoenix Center Rosa Parks Transit Center* Royal Oak Transit Center Somerset Collection Southland Center State Fair Transit Center* Troy Transit Center *Served by DDOT & SMART Park & Ride 13 Lots Stops 5,466

41

42


State of the System

Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) Continued

SMART OPT-OUTS

Leonard

Existing Transit Service

MACOMB COUNTY

OAKLAND COUNTY Oxford

Weekday Midday (As of April 2016)

Richmond

Romeo

Holly

Opted-Out of SMART Service

FARES

Opted-In to SMART Service

Full Fare $2.00 (local service)

Outside SMART Service Area

Bloomfield Troy Bloomfield Hills Township West Birmingham Bloomfield Beverly Township Hills Ferndale Farmington Royal Oak Hills Southfield Oak Farmington Park

Milford

Transfers 25¢*

*SMART has transfer agreements with AAATA, DDOT, and DTC.

Wixom Novi Northville

WAYNE COUNTY

WASHTENAW COUNTY

Livonia Plymouth

Dexter

Westland

Chelsea

Dearborn Heights Dearborn Inkster

River Allen Rouge Park Lincoln Taylor Park

Ypsilanti Belleville Saline

Sterling Heights Warren

Highland Park Hamtramck

Ann Arbor

Southgate

Manchester

Fifty-one communities have opted-out of SMART transit service. These opt-outs limit the funding for the agency. They also create gaps within the SMART system that severely limit regional mobility in Southeast Michigan.

New Baltimore

Auburn Hills Rochester Pontiac Hills Utica

Reduced For frequent riders, youths, Fares seniors, and persons with disabilities.

Monthly 31 Day Passes Passes Value Passes DDOT/SMART Regional Pass & Regional Plus Pass

New Haven

Clarkston

Flat Rock

Detroit

Mount Clemens

Roseville St. Clair Shores Eastpointe Grosse Pointe Shores Grosse Pointe Park


State of the System

M-1 RAIL along Woodward Avenue (M-1), the streetcar will serve 23 stations at 12 locations. It will provide important connections to DDOT, the People Mover, SMART (during peak hours) and Amtrak services. The streetcar is currently under construction and expected to open in 2017. M-1 RAIL is a unique partnership of private businesses and the philanthropic community, and state/federal government agencies. These partners have pledged more than $100 million to construct the project, with additional financial support from a federal TIGER grant and MDOT. M-1 RAIL has committed to operate the system through at least 2021, after which the RTA will assume operations.

QLINE Services M-1 RAIL will be a 3.3-mile modern streetcar linking downtown Detroit with Midtown and New Center. Running in mixed-traffic

In March 2016 M-1 RAIL officials announced the M-1 RAIL streetcar will be known as the QLINE. While the streetcar will be known as the QLINE, its operating agency will still be known as M-1 RAIL.

LEARN MORE Visit m-1rail.com for more information on the history of the streetcar, construction updates, and a detailed map of station locations.

QLINE STATIONS

43

44


State of the System

Other Transit Efforts

LEARN MORE Ann Arbor Connector Visit aaconnector.com to learn more about the project and read the Alternatives Analysis report. Washtenaw-Livingston Commuter Rail Learn more about WALLY on AAATA’s website. theride.org/AboutUs/Initiatives/ NorthSouthCommuterRail

Other proposed projects would further increase mobility. The following projects or programs are supported by the state or other local municipalities and are not proposed to be funded by the RTA, but would provide additional benefits to the vision.

The University of Michigan is leading the next project phase, environmental review and conceptual design, which is expected to last two years. Project partners anticipate the project could be up and running in six to 12 years3.

ANN ARBOR CONNECTOR

CHICAGO-DETROIT-PONTIAC PASSENGER RAIL

AAATA, in partnership with the University of Michigan, City of Ann Arbor, and Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, is planning high-capacity service between northeast and south Ann Arbor. Following a 2011 feasibility study, the partners released an Alternatives Analysis in February 2016. The study favored light rail over BRT. The preferred route would connect the University of Michigan’s East Medical Campus, North Campus, Medical Center Campus, and Central Campus with downtown Ann Arbor. A second phase would extend the project south from downtown to Briarwood Mall.

Amtrak’s Wolverine line provides passenger rail service between Pontiac and Chicago. It is supported by MDOT. With the State’s purchase of the railroad between Dearborn and Kalamazoo, improvements are in progress to increase maximum operating speed to 110 mph and increase the reliability and frequency of service from three to six trains per day by 2025 and 10 trains by 2035.

WASHTENAW-LIVINGSTON COMMUTER RAIL The Washtenaw and Livingston Line (WALLY) is a proposed 27-mile commuter rail line between Ann Arbor and Howell. The line would run parallel to the heavily congested US-23 corridor.

COAST-TO-COAST PASSENGER RAIL AAATA, along with MDOT and others, is studying potential rail service linking Detroit to Michigan’s west coast. The line would serve Holland, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Ann Arbor, and Detroit. The study is funded by a federal grant.


State of the System

Transit-Supportive Systems and Services Pedestrian, bicycle, and shared mobility systems combine with transit to create a multimodal transportation system. They provide the “first- and last-mile” connections that extend the reach and usability of transit. Transit-supportive systems are predominantly developed and maintained by local municipalities or private companies and include: ■■ Car Share – Car sharing is offered by Zipcar (in Ann Arbor and Detroit), GM’s Maven service (in Ann Arbor), and Enterprise CarShare (in Pontiac). ■■ Ride Hailing – Lyft and Uber provide ride hailing services in addition to traditional taxis. ■■ Vanpools – MichiVan, MiRideshare, vRide, and others offer vanpools and ride sharing options. vRide is a full service vanpool provider covering payment transactions, vehicle maintenance, and rider matching services.

■■ Carpools – SEMCOG maintains MiRideshare, the region’s online carpool matching system. It matches drivers with riders to share commutes. More than 6,000 users have registered to use ridesharing services. ■■ Bicycle Networks and Facilities – Efforts to expand bicycle use are occurring throughout Southeast Michigan. Bicycle networks have expanded in recent years. New trails, bike lanes, and other facilities encourage bicycle use and make bicycling safer and easier. ■■ Bike Share – Bike share systems provide convenient access to bicycles. ArborBike serves downtown Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan campus. Quicken Loans and DTE Energy provide on-demand bicycles for their employees. DDOT and the Downtown Detroit Partnership plan to launch a 35 station system in greater downtown Detroit in 2016.

FIRST-MILE AND LAST-MILE? Transit trips don’t start and end at the transit stop, but at one’s destination (most often home or work). “First- and last-mile” connections are necessary to support transit and extend its reach. Things like walking, cycling, and carpooling all play an important role in transit.

45

46


State of the System

How Transit in Our Region Performs Today TRANSIT FREQUENCY? How often a bus or train will come (and therefore how long you will wait for transit). A frequency of 30 minutes means a maximum wait of 30 minutes for a bus or train. A high frequency means you will wait less, while a low frequency means you will wait longer. Frequency is typically lower on evenings and weekends. Higher frequencies make transit convenient. Generally people are able to use transit without checking a schedule when vehicles arrive every 15 minutes or less.

PEAK, OFF-PEAK, AND MIDDAY? Transit is typically most frequent during the morning and afternoon rush hours. Between these “peak periods”, transit typically reverts to lower frequencies because of reduced demand. Midday and off-peak refers to such periods in the middle of the day, early morning, evening, and late at night. In a changing economy where more people work outside the traditional 9-5 period, it is becoming more important to provide service outside peak periods for those who rely on transit to get to and from work.

FREQUENCIES Frequencies are low. During peak periods, 14% of routes operate at a high frequency. Midday, evening, and weekend services operate at lower frequencies. 18% of routes on Saturdays and 10% of routes on Sundays operate at 30 minutes or better.

AAATA During weekday peak periods, five routes operate every 15 minutes or better, and 16 operate every 16 to 30 minutes. Frequencies remain consistent in the midday, but drop in the evenings. No frequent service is offered on the weekend, and only a few routes operate at 30 minutes or better on Saturday.

DDOT During weekday peak periods, six routes operate every 15 minutes or better, and 15 operate every 16 to 30 minutes. Midday frequencies drop on most routes besides those with the highest frequencies (Dexter, Woodward, Grand River, Gratiot, and Greenfield). Service drops again in the evening. Only a handful of routes operate at 30 minutes or better.

DTC The People Mover operates every three to four minutes daily.

SMART

TRANSIT FREQUENCIES DDOT

SMART

TOTAL

5

6

3

14

Weekday – Peak 15 Minutes & Under 16-30 Minutes

16

15

16

47

31-60 Minutes

4

15

19

38

Over 60 Minutes

3

0

0

3

Weekday – Midday 15 Minutes & Under

4

5

2

11

12

6

5

23

31-60 Minutes

7

24

17

48

Over 60 Minutes

0

1

3

4

0

0

0

0

16-30 Minutes

Weekday – Evening 15 Minutes & Under 16-30 Minutes

4

7

3

14

31-60 Minutes

17

28

19

64

1

1

2

4

Over 60 Minutes Saturday 15 Minutes & Under

0

2

0

2

16-30 Minutes

5

4

3

12

31-60 Minutes

14

28

17

59

1

0

2

3

0

0

0

0

Over 60 Minutes Sunday 15 Minutes & Under 16-30 Minutes

0

4

2

6

31-60 Minutes

16

27

5

48

1

1

7

9

Over 60 Minutes

During weekday peak periods three routes operate every 15 minutes or better, and 16 operate every 16 to 30 minutes. Midday and evening frequencies drop off considerably. No frequent service is provided on weekends.

AAATA

Source: AAATA, DDOT, SMART Note: As of March 2016


SPAN OF SERVICE

AAATA

Spans of service are shorter on the weekend, compared to weekdays. On Sundays, most routes end service before 8 PM.

With the exception of AirRide service, which begins service at 3:55 AM, all AAATA weekday fixed-route service starts between 6 and 7 AM. Seventeen routes operate until at least 10 PM. Six routes end service before 8 PM.

SPAN OF SERVICE – ROUTES ENDING BY… AAATA

DDOT

SMART

TOTAL

6

4

16

26

Weekday Before 8 PM

Weekend spans are much shorter and nighttime service is not provided. On Saturdays, with the exception of AirRide, service begins between 7 and 9 AM. Sunday’s spans are shorter still, with all service except AirRide beginning after 8 AM and ending by 6:30 PM.

8 PM-9:59 PM

5

10

6

21

10PM or Later

17

22

16

55

DDOT

Before 8 PM

1

6

6

13

8 PM-9:59 PM

9

12

3

24

10 PM or Later

10

16

13

39

On weekdays, most routes begin before 6 AM. Over half all routes (22) operate until at least 10 PM. Four routes end service before 8 PM. On Saturdays, 16 routes operate past 10 PM, and on Sundays 10 do.

16

14

3

33

8 PM-9:59 PM

0

8

6

14

10PM or Later

1

10

5

16

Saturday

Sunday Before 8 PM

Source: AAATA, DDOT, SMART Note: Service as of March 2016

DTC The People Mover operates from 6:30 AM to 12 midnight on weekdays and from 9 AM to 2 AM on weekends.

SMART On weekdays, most routes begin between 5 and 6 AM. Sixteen routes operate until at least 10 PM. Nearly half of all routes end before 8 PM. This can be attributed to SMART’s many peak-period commuter oriented routes. On Saturdays, 13 routes operate past 10 PM, while on Sundays only five do.

State of the System

47

SPAN OF SERVICE? Span of service indicates how long transit operates each day. A long span of service, from early morning to late evening or overnight, provides mobility for the widest range of work schedules and other activities. Spans are typically shorter on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays than on weekdays.

In January 2016 DDOT announced 24-hour service on three of its most popular routes (Grand River, Gratiot, and Woodward). Expanded service on these routes has since been enacted. Image: clickondetroit.com

48

49

50

51

52


State of the System

DAYS OF SERVICE

REGIONAL TRAVEL

Compared to weekdays, considerably less transit is available on the weekend. During the weekend, noticeably more service is offered Saturday than Sunday. While DDOT operates all but four of its weekday routes on Sunday, AAATA only operates half, and SMART only one-third.

Fixed-Route

ROUTES BY DAY AAATA

DDOT

SMART

TOTAL

Weekday

28

36

38

102

Saturday

20

34

22

76

Sunday

17

32

12

61

Source: AAATA, DDOT, SMART Note: Service as of March 2016

PARATRANSIT AND DEMAND RESPONSE SERVICES Eligibility Each provider determines eligibility for ADA-required paratransit services differently. A consistent eligibility process is needed. Ideally, this screening should include in-person assessment and training on how to use the transit system.

Demand Response and Mobility Management Demand response and mobility management services vary by provider. A centralized source of information is needed to inform residents of their transportation options. Consistent and comprehensive mobility services are needed for all of Southeast Michigan, no matter their local service provider.

Regional travel on the fixed-route system is very limited. Service area boundaries require transfers between DDOT and SMART at the Detroit city border outside of peak periods. Low frequencies—especially during the midday, nights and weekends—make these transfers time consuming and inconvenient at best. At worst, transfers are not always possible due to differences in spans of service between the providers. Communities which have opted-out of the SMART system have created gaps in the regional network. This limits regional connections, both between Detroit and these opt-out communities and between suburbs. While a regional transit pass allows users to ride both DDOT and SMART, the difference in fares between the two providers requires riders to pay an additional 50 cents when transferring from DDOT to SMART. Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County are disconnected from the rest of the region. No connection exists between AAATA and DDOT or SMART.

Paratransit Cumbersome transfers and limited connections make regional paratransit travel difficult. Transfers are arranged via three-way calls between the customer and reservation agents from DDOT and SMART. Additionally, it is not possible to transfer between AAATA’s paratransit service and that of DDOT or SMART.


State of the System

ANNUAL RIDERSHIP BY PROVIDER

53

AAATA DDOT DTC SMART

40,000,000

RIDERSHIP 30,000,000

In 2014, Southeast Michigan’s four transit providers carried an average of 140,998 passengers per weekday. Ridership has remained relatively stable over the past decades. Coinciding with declines in funding and population, reductions in service 20,000,000 levels, and low gas prices, there have been slight declines in ridership since 2009 at DDOT and SMART. While ridership data from the National Transit Database is not available for 2015, ridership numbers from DDOT suggest ridership 10,000,000 has begun to stabilize as the provider has begun restoring service levels to pre-2009 levels. AAATA has seen a steady rise in ridership over the decade as services have expanded, 0 increasing more than 50% since 2004. DTC ridership has 2004 remained consistent and is expected to remain steady or grow in the future as revitalization continues in downtown Detroit.

OCTOBER 2014 DAILY RIDERSHIP

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

TOTAL ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

WEEKDAYS

SATURDAYS

SUNDAYS

AAATA

26,778

7,276

3,403

DDOT

90,701

51,561

33,948

5,134

8,224

5,575

DTC

2005

SMART

34,041

16,734

8,175

TOTAL

156,654

83,795

51,101

Source: October 2014 ridership from AAATA, DDOT, DTC, and SMART

2012

2013

2014

AAATA DDOT DTC SMART

70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000

TOP RIGHT Source: National Transit Database BOTTOM RIGHT Source: National Transit Database

0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

54


State of the System

ON-TIME PERFORMANCE (2014)

Industry Standard AAATA DDOT DTC SMART

100% 90%

RELIABILITY

80% 70% 60% 50%

ON-TIME PERFORMANCE?

40%

On-time performance measures the percent of transit trips arriving on-time (within some threshold of their scheduled arrival time, typically five minutes). Transit is not reliable when on-time performance is low.

30% 20% 10% 0%

January to March

April to June

PULL-OUT RATE (2014)

July to September

October to December

Industry Standard AAATA DDOT DTC SMART

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

PULL-OUT RATE?

50%

Southeast Michigan’s bus providers have historically not been reliable. An on-time performance of 90% is considered the industry standard. While AAATA typically comes very close to meeting these standards, DDOT and SMART do not. DTC’s automated system on a dedicated guideway allows it to achieve near perfect on-time performance. AAATA and SMART consistently provide enough buses on the street to provide all their scheduled service each day. DDOT has struggled with low pull-out rates, but has greatly improved as of late. Historically, DDOT has had issues providing on-time service, which discourages people with other transportation options from using transit. DDOT has a capital investment plan that prioritizes regular vehicle purchases so vehicles are not pressed into service beyond their useful life. A typical transit bus can last 12-15 years as long as it receives proper maintenance, usually including a mid-life overhaul. New buses put into service have begun to improve performance, reliability, and quality of experience. Although DDOT is making significant improvements by hiring additional bus operators and procuring new buses, additional funding for their capital, operating and fleet maintenance plans could mitigate issues related to vehicle maintenance, facilities, amenities, and frequency.

Pull-out rate measures the percent of transit vehicles departing a transit provider’s garage on time for scheduled service. A low pull-out rate typically means a transit agency has problems with driver availability or vehicle maintenance.

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

January to March

April to June

July to September

October to December

TOP Source: AAATA, DDOT, DTC, and SMART BOTTOM Source: AAATA, DDOT, DTC, and SMART


State of the System

55

TRANSIT OPERATING SPENDING PER CAPITA (2014) $500

$471

Regional transit service can be assessed through transit spending per person. Just under $280 million—roughly $69 per person—was spent providing transit services in Southeast Michigan in 2014. This is significantly lower than peer regions, even those with less population. While FY2015 budgets from the region’s transit providers show an increase in transit operating spending, 2014 totals were used for this analysis. 2014 is the most recent year which comparable data from the National Transit Database for other regions is available.

$400

$357

$300

Voter-approved millages provide SMART and AAATA reliable local funding. Although based on property values, which have generally decreased across the region in recent years, these millages provide a relatively stable and consistent source of funding. DDOT and DTC lack a dedication funding source and rely on revenues from the City of Detroit’s general fund.

$283

$232

METRO REGION

$200

$177 $177

$0

SEATTLE

BOSTON

CHICAGO

PITTSBURGH

DENVER

CLEVELAND

MINNEAPOLIS- ST. PAUL

$119

ATLANTA

SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN

$69

TRANSIT OPERATING SPENDING PER CAPITA? This is the average amount of money spent per person to provide transit. This comes from the National Transit Database, a national source for transit agency statistics, and the US Census.

WHY THESE REGIONS? Regional peers illustrate transit spending throughout the country. They include similarly sized regions (Seattle, Boston, Atlanta) and traditionally manufacturingbased economies (Chicago, Pittsburgh, Cleveland).

ANNUAL TRANSIT OPERATING SPENDING PER CAPITA

$214

$100

FUNDING

POPULATION

SQ. MILES

DENSITY

SPENDING

PER CAPITA

Southeast Michigan

4,040,112

1,497

2,699

$ 278.8 M

$ 69

Atlanta

4,515,419

2,645

1,707

$ 538.5 M

$ 119

Minneapolis-St. Paul

2,650,890

1,022

2,594

$ 468.1 M

$ 177

Cleveland

1,780,673

772

2,307

$ 315.1 M

$ 177

Denver

2,374,203

668

3,554

$ 509.1 M

$ 214

Pittsburgh

1,733,853

905

1,916

$ 402.3 M

$ 232

Chicago

8,608,208

2,443

3,524

$ 2,432.7 M

$ 283

Boston

4,181,019

1,873

2,232

$ 1,492.4 M

$ 357

Seattle

3,059,393

1,010

3,028

$ 1,441.3 M

$ 471

Average

$ 233

Source: 2014 National Transit Database Note: Transit spending expressed as operating expenses. Density measured in persons per square mile. Urbanized area population from 2010 US Census.

56

4

57

Demand for Transit Transit Market Analysis of Southeast Michigan

In this chapter...

59

Many factors influence the demand for and attractiveness of transit, including where people live, work, and travel within the region.

65

There are significant mismatches between where transit is currently being provided and areas of high transit demand. Some areas with high demand are underserved by low levels of transit. Other areas demanding transit are not served at all.

67

Nearly one-third of commuters in Southeast Michigan cross county lines to get to their job. Without a regional transit system, driving is often the only option for getting to and from work.

58


Demand for Transit

59

Demand for Transit Before laying out a regional transit vision for the future we must first better understand the existing demand for transit, including where it is and is not being met. Many factors impact the demand for transit, including: ■■ Population and Employment Densities – More than any other factor, densities indicate where transit will be possible. Transit demand is higher where larger numbers of people live and/or work in close proximity. ■■ Socio-Economic Characteristics – Some people use transit more than others. ■■ Existing and Projected Travel Flows – Travel patterns show us where people are going. ■■ Development Patterns – Areas with dense development, a mixture of uses, and a good pedestrian environment can lead to convenient, attractive, and well used transit. Conversely, useful transit can encourage a mixture of uses and improve the pedestrian environment of an area. Other secondary factors also influence the demand for transit: ■■ Travel Times – Most people accept trips by transit will take longer than the same trip by car, but the time differences can be offset by other advantages. When the times are comparable, ridership will be higher. When a trip by transit takes considerably longer than by car, ridership will be lower.

■■ Walking Conditions – People will typically walk a quarter mile to transit. In comfortable and safe pedestrian environments, people are often willing to walk farther. On the other hand, people are much less willing to walk to transit in uncomfortable or unsafe environments. The reach of transit is generally limited to a half mile from a transit line or station. ■■ Service Design – Transit routes which aim to provide coverage over a larger service area can also be slow and indirect. Such routes can be preferred by some riders who put the highest value on a shorter walking distance to and from the bus stop, such as older adults and individuals with disabilities. However, longer trip times and slower speeds make such routes inconvenient for many others. Thus, no matter the inherent demand for transit, service must be designed appropriately to appeal to local markets. ■■ Costs – Transit ridership is higher when the costs of driving, such as gasoline prices, auto insurance, car payments, tolls, and parking, are high. Conversely, ridership will be lower when the costs of driving are lower. ■■ Access to Parking – Transit is more attractive when parking is difficult to find, hard to access, or very expensive, such as at sporting and special events, in large downtowns, and at large employment centers like hospitals.

READ THE STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT The information in this chapter comes from the State of the System report, which can be found on the RTA’s website. rtamichigan.org/best-projects/master-plan/ documents/

OPPOSITE PAGE Riders board a SMART bus at the Royal Oak Transit Center.

60

MACOMB COUNTY

Leonard

OAKLAND COUNTY

POPULATION DENSITY

53

24 Oxford

Richmond

Romeo

Population Density

Holly

People per Acre

75

8 - 16 16 - 31

New Haven

Clarkston

Over 31

Midday Transit Service

Auburn Hills Rochester Hills

Pontiac

59

Existing Service as of June 2015

New Baltimore

94

24

Utica

Very Frequent (15 Minutes or Less) Frequent (16 to 30 Minutes)

Bloomfield Township

Milford

Not Frequent (More than 30 Minutes)

Mount Clemens Bloomfield Hills

West Bloomfield Township

Birmingham Beverly Hills

Wixom

Warren

Ferndale

Roseville

Royal Oak

Farmington Hills

96

Sterling Heights

Troy

696

Novi

Southfield

Eastpointe

Oak Park

Farmington

St. Clair Shores

Grosse Pointe Shores

Northville

WAYNE COUNTY

WASHTENAW COUNTY


Livonia

Grosse Pointe Park

96 23

Plymouth 14

Detroit

Dearborn Heights

Dexter

Westland

Dearborn

Chelsea 94

Inkster Ann Arbor

Allen Park Ypsilanti

River Rouge Lincoln Park

People Served By... 602,055

14%

Frequent Transit

1,624,423

39%

All Transit

2,333,327

56%

Very Frequent Transit

Taylor Detroit Metropolitan Airport

Belleville Saline

Manchester

12

Southgate

23

Within a 10 minute walk during peak period

275 75 Flat Rock

Miles 0

5

10


Demand for Transit

Existing Transit Demand POPULATION-BASED DEMAND There are over 4.2 million people living in Southeast Michigan. While the total regional population has remained stable, there continues to be overall population declines in Detroit and Wayne County and increasing populations in the suburbs. Population losses in Detroit and Wayne County were offset by gains in Oakland, Macomb, and Washtenaw counties. Despite population losses over many decades, Detroit has seen recent positive growth in neighborhoods such as Midtown, New Center, and Southwest Detroit. As urban areas within the region grow and densify, more of the regional population will be easily served with transit.

SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN POPULATION Wayne Detroit Other Wayne

2010

2014

% CHANGE

1,820,584

1,764,804

-3.1%

713,777

680,250

-4.7%

1,106,807

1,084,554

-2.0%

Macomb

840,978

860,112

2.3%

Oakland

1,202,362

1,237,868

3.0%

344,791

356,874

3.5%

4,208,715

4,219,658

0.3%

Washtenaw SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN

Source: 2010 US Census and 2014 American Community Survey

Only 56% of the region is served by transit of any kind. Fewer people are served by frequent transit. While the existing transit network serves most high density areas, service in many of these areas is not adequate to meet the existing demand. Other areas with significant demand are not served at all, including communities that have opted out of the SMART system, such as Livonia, Plymouth, Rochester, and Wixom.

PEOPLE MORE LIKELY TO USE TRANSIT Population distribution alone does not adequately tell where demand for transit service exists, and therefore where that demand is not being met. Some demographic groups are more likely to use transit than others and greatly influence regional transit demand. Older Adults often become less comfortable or able to operate vehicles as they age. Transit offers them the ability to remain active and independent. Transit also allows older adults to “age in place” – staying in their homes instead of relocating because of a lack of transit options. Like a majority of communities across the Midwest, Southeast Michigan’s population is aging. As of 2014, 14.4% (nearly 607,000) of the region’s population was 65 years old or older.

83%

OF OLDER AMERICANS

say public transit provides easy access to things in everyday life.

Source: APTA4

Baby Boomers – those born between 1946 and 1964 – are entering the ranks of senior citizens and looking for transportation alternatives to the car. Baby Boomers are the largest and wealthiest generation in Southeast Michigan. As of 2014, nearly 1.1 million Baby Boomers made up 25.6% of the region’s population.

I won’t be able to drive forever. RTA Kickoff Rally May 12, 2015

All my millennial friends moved away because we don’t have regional transit. RTA Kickoff Rally May 12, 2015

61

62

MACOMB COUNTY

Leonard

OAKLAND COUNTY

PEOPLE MORE LIKELY TO USE TRANSIT

53

24 Oxford

Richmond

Romeo

Concentration of People More Likely to Use Transit

Holly

Based on demographic characteristics

75

High Concentration Very High Concentration

New Haven

Clarkston

Auburn Hills


Rochester Hills

Pontiac

59

Very Frequent (15 Minutes or Less)

Utica

Frequent (16 - 30 Minutes) Not Frequent (More than 30 Minutes)

Bloomfield Township

Milford

Mount Clemens


Wixom

Warren

Ferndale

Roseville

Royal Oak

Farmington Hills

96

Sterling Heights

Troy

Bloomfield Hills


696

Novi

Southfield

St. Clair Shores

Eastpointe

Oak Park

Farmington


Northville

WAYNE COUNTY

WASHTENAW COUNTY


Livonia 96 23

Plymouth 14

Dexter

Westland

94

Dearborn Inkster

Ann Arbor

Allen Park Ypsilanti Taylor


Certain groups of people, such as Baby Boomers, Millennials, and low-income households, are more likely to use transit than others.

Detroit Metropolitan Airport

Belleville Saline

12

Grosse Pointe Park

Detroit

Dearborn Heights

Chelsea

Manchester

New Baltimore

94

24


Southgate

23

275 75 Flat Rock

Miles 0

5

10


Millennials are a strong market for transit. They are considered important to regional economic strength and vital to attracting and retaining leading and growing industries. While large cities throughout the country have attracted Millennials in large numbers, Southeast Michigan lost over 103,000 Millennials between 2000 and 2010. As of 2014, over 1.1 million Millennials comprised 26.5% of the region’s population.

73%

OF DETROIT MILLENIALS

want better access to mass transit. Source: Crain’s Detroit Business5

Persons with Disabilities often cannot drive or have difficulty driving. Public transportation is essential to ensure many people with disabilities can remain mobile and engaged in the community. As of 2014, nearly 590,000 people with disability made up 13.9% of the region’s population. Low-Income Individuals – those living in households at 150% or less of the poverty limit – tend to use transit more than those with higher incomes. As of 2014, one quarter (1.1 million) of all people in Southeast Michigan are considered low income. While heavily concentrated in the urban cores, particularly in Detroit, Pontiac, Mount Clemens, and Ypsilanti, low-income residents are found throughout the region, including in suburban areas which often lack transit service. Besides housing, transportation is frequently the largest household expense. As transit is often more affordable than owning and maintaining a car, quality transit service can eliminate the financial burden of car ownership.

Demand for Transit

Minority Populations are 2.7 times more likely to take transit to work than the working population as a whole8. Providing effective transit service to minority populations is a requirement under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As of 2014, minorities (non-white, Hispanic, or non-Hispanic) made up one-third of Southeast Michigan (nearly 1.4 million people). Young People who cannot yet drive are more likely to use transit to travel to and from school and after school activities, such as jobs and sports. As of 2014, nearly 710,000 young people made up 16.8% of Southeast Michigan. Zero-Car Households have limited transportation options. A University of Michigan study found 26% of Detroit households do not own a car7. Moreover, recent on-board surveys showed 68% of DDOT riders depend on transit for their daily mobility needs. As of 2014, over 150,000 households, or 9.5%, in Southeast Michigan do not have a car. As with low-income residents, these households are heavily concentrated in its urban cores, particularly in Detroit, Pontiac, Mount Clemens, and Ypsilanti. Many more residents have only a single vehicle.

26%

2

�3

63

OF MILLENNIALS said access to high quality transit was one of their top three priorities when considering where to live.

OVER would consider

HALF

moving to another city with better options OF MILLENNIALS for getting around. Source: Rockefeller Foundation & Transportation for America6

HIGHEST CAR INSURANCE RATES IN THE COUNTRY Carinsurance.com found metropolitan Detroit has the highest car insurance rates in the country. Rates in Detroit are 165% higher than the national average9.

OF DETROIT HOUSEHOLDS do not own a car.

Source: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute

In Southeast Michigan there is a significant relationship between minorities, low-income residents, and zero-car households. Minority populations are most concentrated in Detroit, but also in Dearborn Heights, Plymouth, River Rouge, and Southfield, as well as in the region’s university centers. OPPOSITE PAGE Source: US Census

64

MACOMB COUNTY

Leonard

OAKLAND COUNTY

EMPLOYMENT DENSITY

53

24 Oxford

Richmond

Romeo

Employment Density

Holly

Jobs per Acre

75

4-8 8 - 16

New Haven

Clarkston

Over 16


Auburn Hills Rochester Hills

Pontiac

59


New Baltimore

94

24

Utica

Very Frequent (15 Minutes or Less) Frequent (16 to 30 Minutes)

Bloomfield Township

Milford


Mount Clemens Bloomfield Hills



Wixom

Warren

Ferndale

Roseville

Royal Oak

Farmington Hills

96

Sterling Heights

Troy

696

Novi

Southfield

Eastpointe

Oak Park

Farmington

St. Clair Shores


Northville

WAYNE COUNTY

WASHTENAW COUNTY


Livonia

Grosse Pointe Park

96 23

Plymouth 14

Detroit

Dearborn Heights

Dexter

Westland

Dearborn

Chelsea 94

Inkster Ann Arbor

Allen Park Ypsilanti


Jobs Served By... Very Frequent Transit

403,836

23%

Frequent Transit

839,710

47%

1,205,594

68%

Taylor Detroit Metropolitan Airport

Belleville Saline

Manchester

12

All Transit

Southgate

23

Within a 10 minute walk during peak period

275 75 Flat Rock

Miles 0

5

10


EMPLOYMENT-BASED DEMAND

TODAY

Work trips generally occur during peak travel times and add to a region’s overall traffic congestion. Jobs are concentrated along major regional transportation corridors. Areas with a high concentration of jobs include Detroit—especially from downtown to Midtown and New Center along the Woodward Avenue corridor—Ann Arbor, Troy, Pontiac/Auburn Hills, Warren, and Dearborn.

92% JOBS OF

are not accessible within a 60 minute trip on transit.

Demand for Transit

65

REGIONAL JOB CENTERS Number of Jobs

Top 10 Regional Job Centers Over 300,000 100,000 - 299,999 80,000 - 99,999 60,000 - 79,999

Pontiac & Auburn Hills


Troy

Existing Service as of June 2015 Very Frequent (≥ 15 Minutes) Frequent (16 - 30 Minutes) Not Frequent (> 30 Minutes)

Farmington Hills

Southfield

Livonia

Ann Arbor

Sterling Heights

Warren

Detroit Dearborn

Source: SEMCOG

Airport

Though two-thirds of Southeast Michigan jobs are within a 10 minute walk of any transit service, limited transit frequency, span of service, and coordination between providers means only 8% of jobs in the region can be accessed by transit within an hour.

REGIONAL JOB CENTERS Major employers can generate significant transit demand. Major employment clusters include Detroit, Dearborn, Warren, and Ann Arbor.

OVERALL TRANSIT DEMAND There are significant mismatches between where transit is currently provided and areas demanding transit service.

When population and employment densities are considered with certain demographic characteristics10, the highest overall demand for transit is in Detroit, Ann Arbor, and Ypsilanti. In general transit demand is highest in Detroit’s core and decreases outward. Few areas in the outer portions of Macomb, Oakland, and Washtenaw counties have sufficient demand to support transit. There are significant mismatches between where transit is currently provided and areas demanding transit service. Some places with a large demand for transit currently receive little or no transit service.

Source: SEMCOG The Detroit Metropolitan Airport is also a major regional job center with a high collection of service-sector jobs. Many workers at and around the airport rely on transit. More importantly, many of these jobs begin or end when transit does not currently operate.

66

MACOMB COUNTY

Leonard

OAKLAND COUNTY

DEMAND FOR TRANSIT

53

24 Oxford

Richmond

Romeo

Transit Demand

Holly

A result of jobs, population, & demographic characteristics

75

Low New Haven

Clarkston

Moderate Auburn Hills

High

Rochester Hills

Pontiac

59

Utica


Existing Service as of June 2015 Bloomfield Township

Milford

Very Frequent (15 Minutes or Less) Frequent (16 - 30 Minutes)

Mount Clemens


Wixom

Warren

Ferndale

Roseville

Royal Oak

Farmington Hills

96

Sterling Heights

Troy

Bloomfield Hills



696

Novi

Southfield

St. Clair Shores

Eastpointe

Oak Park

Farmington


Northville

WAYNE COUNTY

WASHTENAW COUNTY


Livonia 96 23

Plymouth 14

Dexter

Westland

94

Dearborn Inkster

Ann Arbor

Allen Park Ypsilanti Taylor Detroit Metropolitan Airport

Belleville Saline

12


Overall transit demand combines populationbased demand and employment-based demand while taking into account certain groups of people which are more likely to us transit than others. The higher the demand for transit, the higher the transit frequencies an area could support.

Southgate

23

Grosse Pointe Park

Detroit

Dearborn Heights

Chelsea

Manchester

New Baltimore

94

24

275 75 Flat Rock

Miles 0

5

10


Demand for Transit

67

Travel Patterns CROSS-COUNTY COMMUTES


Understanding where people are traveling is essential to creating a useful regional transit system in Southeast Michigan.

DAILY TRIPS People move throughout Southeast Michigan each day. Many do not live in the same county in which they work. The existing transit system does not align with these travel patterns, making regional travel difficult. Transit in Southeast Michigan must meet the travel demands of the region to be successful.

= 1,000 Commuters Living in One County but Commuting...

to Macomb County to Oakland County to Washtenaw County to Wayne County

WASHTENAW COUNTY

Source: 2009-2013 American Community Survey

While downtown Detroit remains the strongest travel market in the region, other travel patterns are growing. Cross-county trips outside Detroit, particularly in the suburbs north and west of the city, are increasing. These travel patterns are not well served by transit. The existing transit system is primarily focused on serving downtown Detroit. Additionally, suburban transit service to downtown Detroit primarily serves suburban commuters working in Detroit during traditional weekday work schedules. Many of these commuter-oriented services are only offered during weekday peak periods. These services do not serve Southeast Michigan’s many reverse commuters, who live within Detroit but work in the suburbs. Commuter-oriented services also do not serve those who work outside a traditional work schedule, such as nights and weekends. Regional travel is the norm in Southeast Michigan. Crosscounty trips, for both work and other purposes, are a daily reality for many in Southeast Michigan. The existing system is not well aligned to these travel patterns, making daily trips difficult or impossible for many in the region. New regional services are needed to serve how people move through Southeast Michigan on a daily basis.

WAYNE COUNTY

Nearly one-third of commuters in Southeast Michigan cross county lines to get to their job. Without a regional transit system, driving is often the only option for getting to and from work.

MANY IN SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN DON’T LIVE IN THE SAME COMMUNITY AS THEIR JOB

62%

of people who live in Detroit work outside the city.

72%

of people who work in Detroit don’t live in the city.

Source: US News and World Report11

68


TOP 100 TRAVEL FLOWS All Trips (2010) Daily Trips

Under 5,000 5,000 to 15,999 16,000 to 29,000 30,000 to 49,000

Rochester, Rochester Hills

Pontiac, Auburn Hills

50,000 and Over

Shelby

Clinton Township, Mt Clemens

Troy Birmingham, Bloomfield

Novi, Wixom

Farmington, Farmington Hills

Southfield

Sterling Heights

Royal Oak

Warren

Roseville, Eastpointe, St Clair Shores

WAYNE COUNTY

WASHTENAW COUNTY

Plymouth, Northville

Livonia

Detroit

Ann Arbor

Canton

Westland, Wayne, Inkster

Dearborn Allen Park, Ecorse, River Rouge

Romulus

Pittsfield

Ypsilanti

Miles 0

5

10


Future Transit Demand SPECIAL PURPOSE TRIPS Southeast Michigan is the host to an abundance of festivals, conferences, and sporting events that will benefit from transit service. Downtown Detroit is home to the Detroit Lions, Tigers and Red Wings. It is also the location of the Cobo Center which hosts the Auto Show annually and a series of other events. The Palace in Auburn Hills hosts the Detroit Pistons and concerts year round. Ann Arbor is the home to the University of Michigan, a titan in sporting and cultural events, as well as the annual Ann Arbor Art Fair. Southeast Michigan also boasts the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Detroit Institute of Arts, Cranbrook Art Museum, and Edsel and Eleanor Ford House to name a few. Transit service to many of these locations is limited or nonexistent. The lack of a transit connection between Ann Arbor and Detroit makes driving the only viable option for many attendees. Visitors will greatly benefit from the increased transit serving these locations and events. Detroit Metropolitan Airport serves as Southeast Michigan’s gateway to the rest of the country and world. Despite being one of the countries busiest airports, transit access is limited. Apart from AirRide express service from Ann Arbor, only one local route serves the airport. There is currently no direct connection from downtown Detroit and the airport.

Emerging trends have the possibly of increasing demand for transit in the future. Growth in Detroit – Despite recent declines in population, growth in Downtown and Midtown show Detroit is in a state of transition. While not yet operational, M-1 RAIL has spurred development between these neighborhoods along Woodward Avenue and generally extending between the I-75 and M-10 corridors. As new rapid transit services come online in Detroit, more growth and development can be expected. Walkable Communities – Dense walkable communities are popular for both young and aging adults. These shifting household preferences are driving new development in urban areas. Outside Detroit, communities like Ann Arbor, Dearborn, Novi, and Rochester Hills continue to grow and urbanize. As these areas grow, transit will be able to serve more people. Ride-Hailing Services – Ride-hailing services, such as Uber and Lyft, continue to evolve and grow in popularity, especially in major cities. New research by the Shared Use Mobility Center for the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) found ride-hailing services complement transit12. People who use these services are more likely to also use public transportation and own fewer cars than the average household. This suggests as more people in Southeast Michigan rely on these services to get around instead of owning a private automobile, so too will the demand for transit increase. Smartphones and New Technologies – Made possible by growing smartphone usage and the increasing availability of transit data, new apps are making it easier and more attractive to use transit. People can now plan their trips, see when the next bus is coming, and in some cases even pay their fare with their smartphone. These new technologies are removing the barriers that once stopped people unfamiliar with transit from riding in the first place.

Demand for Transit

69

70

5

71

The Challenges of Our Current System In this chapter...

74

Southeast Michigan’s transit system does not allow for easy regional travel. The system does not align with existing travel patterns. It underserves many areas with high transit demand and does not serve enough of the region’s jobs.

75

Additional investment is needed to address the challenges of transit in Southeast Michigan and create a truly regional system.

76

Transit is Southeast Michigan is not operated as one regional system. Instead, a lack of service coordination, varying fare policies, and required transfers make regional travel difficult.

72


The Challenges of Our Current System

73

The Challenges of Our Current System After an extensive analysis of the existing system, public outreach, and a series of on-board and general public surveys, we now know more about the current state and perception of transit in Southeast Michigan than ever before. What we learned was presented in the State of the System, a report identifying our needs and gaps. This chapter summarizes the key findings from this report.

THE CHALLENGES OF OUR CURRENT SYSTEM 1

Regional Travel

2

Convenience

3

Reliability

4

Rapid Transit

5

Safety

6

Transit Funding

7

Mobility Management

8

Coordination

READ THE STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT The information in this chapter comes from the State of the System report, which can be found on the RTA’s website. rtamichigan.org/best-projects/master-plan/ documents/

OPPOSITE PAGE An AAATA bus in downtown Ann Arbor. Image courtesy of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

74


Southeast Michigan ranks

34

TH

OUT OF THE 46 LARGEST METRO AREAS

in jobs accessible by transit. Source: University of Minnesota

12

Regional transit means a chance to widen my job prospects. I often see a lot of good jobs outside of Detroit. Precious D.


Regional Travel

Convenience

Current service is not designed for regional travel.

Transit is not convenient for regional trips.

Many areas are unserved or underserved by the existing transit network. There are large gaps in coverage in the existing transit system. Many areas with significant transit demand are not served. Other areas are underserved by transit and demand higher levels of service. Few areas and people are served by frequent transit. Transit does not serve enough of the region’s jobs. Transit has not followed jobs which have shifted from Detroit to the suburbs. Many Detroit residents who must rely on transit have difficulty getting to suburban job centers, especially areas which have opted-out of the SMART system. As a result, many jobs remain unfilled. Transit does not align with current travel patterns. The existing network primarily serves downtown Detroit. While downtown remains one of the most significant travel destinations, especially for work trips, a growing number of trips are being made to and from places not served well by transit. This includes large suburban employment and retail centers. More cross-county service—not radiating from downtown Detroit— is needed to support these travel patterns. Southeast Michigan lacks regional transit connections. Connections between major regional destinations, to and from Detroit Metropolitan Airport, and between Ann Arbor and Detroit are needed.

Transit frequencies are low throughout Southeast Michigan. A few routes provide convenient service during peak periods. Frequencies are worse during the midday, late at night, early in the morning, and on the weekends. Poor service levels make transit inconvenient for those who rely on it and discourage most with other travel options from using it. Higher frequency is needed throughout the region to make transit a true choice. Additionally, customers should have access to real-time information about vehicle arrivals. This eliminates uncertainty, a significant barrier to increasing ridership. Most transit service ends too early. Over 40% of SMART’s services end before 8 PM. Over half of DDOT’s services end before 10 PM. With a short span of service, transit is not convenient for service sector employees and others who may not commute to work during the traditional morning and afternoon rush hours. Longer running services are needed to meet the varied schedules of transit users.

Reliability Transit is not reliable. DDOT and SMART fall below national reliability standards, including pull-out rate and on-time performance. This means enough buses and drivers are not always available to operate all the service scheduled for the day, which may result in late or overcrowded buses. Much of this has been due to older equipment failing due to a lack of funding for replacements. However, it should be noted both DDOT and SMART have recently acquired new vehicles, which is improving reliability.



Rapid Transit

Transit Funding

No rapid transit services exist.

Transit funding is insufficient for our needs.

Southeast Michigan does not offer any rapid transit services, such as BRT or regional rail, though some high-ridership corridors warrant such service. A network of high quality premium services in Southeast Michigan, where appropriate, will allow rapid, reliable, and convenient regional travel. Fast and reliable premium services connected to other regional and local services will improve regional mobility and attract riders to the overall system.

Transit investment is far below peer regions. Southeast Michigan spends $69 per person per year on public transit, while the Cleveland region spends $177, the Pittsburgh region spends $232, and the Seattle region spends $471. As a result, Southeast Michigan provides far fewer transit options. This lower investment in transit also constrains the quality of transit service provided in the region. Additional transit investment is needed to not only improve the existing system but also develop a truly regional system in Southeast Michigan.

The RTA has been studying rapid service along Gratiot, Michigan, Washtenaw, and Woodward avenues. This includes a regional rail service connecting Ann Arbor and Detroit.

Safety Transit is perceived to be unsafe. Transit services in the region are often viewed as not safe. Local news stories on bus driver and passenger safety, both real and perceived, threaten future ridership growth. Recent efforts by existing providers to increase security— on-board cameras, security coordination with other providers, driver safety training, passenger codes of conduct, and an increased presence by Detroit Transit Police—go a long way to reducing real safety threats. There is still a need to address a perceived lack of safety as service expands in the future. Additional transit investment will provide more resources to coordinate shared safety programs. Coordination with local municipalities is needed to ensure transit stops are well lit and sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb ramps are in good condition.

75

Mobility Management Paratransit, Demand Response, and Mobility Management Services are inconsistent and uncoordinated. The region lacks a centralized point of information for mobility management. These services provide valuable assistance so people know their travel options and are critical in such a large region with many different transit providers. Paratransit services vary between providers and are not well coordinated. Paratransit service varies between transit providers. No minimum standard for regional service exists. Regional paratransit travel involving transfers between DDOT and SMART require cumbersome three-way calls between the user and representatives from both agencies. There are no paratransit connections available between AAATA and DDOT/SMART. The region lacks a consistent eligibility screening process for ADA paratransit services. Transit providers screen ADA paratransit-eligible users separately, and no regional standards exist.

While not yet open, the M-1 RAIL streetcar has catalyzed revitalization efforts along Woodward Avenue between downtown Detroit and Midtown.

76



Coordination Transit needs better coordination.

#HeyRTA! In the future, I hope I’m able to use just one pass for all transportation modes in the region. Candice B.

REGIONAL FARE CARD STUDY Read the Seamless Fare Integration Study for the Detroit Region report on the RTA’s website. rtamichigan.org/wp-content/uploads/FareIntegration-Final-Report-Draft.pdf

Southeast Michigan’s transit providers independently design service and set policies. Despite some ongoing collaboration, service is less coordinated than it should be. Transit services are not planned and operated as one coordinated system of complementary services. While DDOT and SMART operate overlapping service in some corridors, these services are operated independently of one another. In addition to forced transfers at the Detroit border, SMART operations are limited within Detroit. All service in the region should be planned and operated the way passengers need to use it–as one system, regardless of provider. Seamless integration also extends to trip planning, fare payment, and real-time information, in addition to coordinated stop locations and synchronized service schedules. Transfers are required for regional travel between SMART and DDOT routes outside the peak period. This reduces the usefulness of the system and makes regional travel burdensome and inconvenient. While some SMART routes continue to downtown Detroit during peak periods, serving traditional

work schedules, these routes terminate at the Detroit border at all other times. This forced transfer causes longer trips and creates more uncertainty for each trip. It is a significant barrier to job access for many with non-traditional work shifts, including those employed in service industries. Fares, transfer policies, and payment systems vary throughout the region. The complicated nature of fare payment among the different providers is a significant barrier to ridership, especially new users. Even experienced passengers who don’t want or need a monthly pass are inconvenienced by the system of transfers. The RTA is partnering with the transit providers to develop an integrated fare payment system. A fare card study was completed by the RTA in July 2015. Transit information is not easily accessible. Southeast Michigan does not have a centralized, coordinated, and easy to access source of travel information. Transit schedules and rider information should be easily accessible from a centralized source regardless of who is providing the service provider. Route, schedule, fare, and mobility management information should be easily accessible by all, including people with disabilities, through a variety of media.



77

78

6

79

Building Blocks for Better Transit In this chapter...

81

A variety of new transit services were identified to address stakeholder concerns and the challenges facing our existing transit system. Each service is useful for solving different kinds of problems in our region.

83

New regional services, such as BRT, Cross-County Connectors, and Regional Rail will make regional travel faster and more convenient.

98

New regional services will improve coordination and create a more seamless transit system.

80


Building Blocks for Better Transit

81

Building Blocks for Better Transit Only after listening to the needs and concerns of the many stakeholders in Southeast Michigan and identifying the problems and gaps in our system are we able to build a regional transit system meeting the unique needs of Southeast Michigan. A variety of new transit services were identified to address these concerns and solve these transit problems. The RTA team treated these possible transit services as “building blocks” that could be laid on top of the existing transit service provided within the region. The existing service and the building blocks of transit service complement each other to create a rapid, reliable, and regional transit system.

During our community conversation with stakeholders throughout Southeast Michigan, we learned any new investment in our transit system must: ■■ Be regional, efficient, and connected to meet their needs; ■■ Improve reliability and offer increased mobility at all times of the day; ■■ Improve accessibility to jobs throughout the region without the need for multiple transfers to make these daily trips; ■■ Enhance livability by providing better access to our region’s parks, shopping centers, medical facilities, and educational opportunities; ■■ Shorten commute and travel times across the region; and ■■ Add sustainable, environmentally friendly improvements to benefit current and future generations. The following “building blocks” were identified to address the problems with our current system, connect missing links, and meet demand for transit throughout the region.

OPPOSITE PAGE A SMART bus approaches a bus stop in downtown Detroit.

82



83

Bus Rapid Transit

BRT

WHAT IS IT?

WHERE IS IT APPROPRIATE?

BRT is a rapid transit service offering many of the same benefits of light rail transit (LRT) at a lower cost. It usually operates on key regional corridors. BRT is faster and more reliable than the typical bus by utilizing dedicated bus-only lanes, transit signal priority, and limited stops. Stations are typically one mile apart for faster service. Features like ADA-compliant level boarding and off-board ticketing/pre-payment make boarding vehicles faster and easier. With longer vehicles and higher frequencies, BRT can move more people across the region as well. Other amenities, such as premium stations, next-bus information, on-board wi-fi, and unique branding, improve the overall rider experience. In the past, numerous studies have called for rapid transit, such as BRT, in Southeast Michigan13.

BRT is being studied along Gratiot, Michigan, Washtenaw, and Woodward avenues where it will provide easy access to downtown Detroit. BRT is appropriate in high ridership regional corridors.

ADDRESSING YOUR CONCERNS BRT will introduce a frequent, convenient, and reliable service. Three common themes in the input we received were cost, transfers, and travel time. BRT is a premium service that cost-effectively delivers rapid and reliable transportation across jurisdictional boundaries in the region’s strongest transit corridors.

Market Regional Station Type Premium Span of All-Day Service Stop Limited-Stop Spacing Approximately every mile Frequency Frequent Service Capital $5 million to $15 million Costs per mile Real World Healthline BRT (Cleveland, Ohio) Example

OPPOSITE PAGE Healthline BRT in Cleveland, Ohio. Image: Roger DuPuls – flickr.com/ photos/24853930@N08

84



85

Cross-County Connectors

C3

WHAT IS IT?

ADDRESSING YOUR CONCERNS

Cross-County Connectors are regional bus services which will allow people to easily travel through the region. Depending on ridership and need, some stations may include premium features. Unlike BRT, these buses travel in mixed traffic. While service levels will be less than BRT, Cross-County Connectors will still be faster, more frequent, and more reliable than local bus service.

Cross-County Connectors improve east-to-west connections and increase mid-day frequency and services, two areas stakeholders would like to see improved. They will offer a new level of service to the region, decrease travel time, and increase job access. Cross-County Connectors will provide more options for rapid transit and regional travel, two of the main concerns we heard, allowing people to travel more easily throughout the region.

WHERE IS IT APPROPRIATE? Cross-County Connectors are appropriate along major regional corridors, such as Grand River, Seven Mile, or Van Dyke, which cross county boundaries.

Market Regional Station Type Standard or Upgraded Span of All-Day Service Stop Limited-Stop, Spacing Approximately every ¼ to ½ mile Frequency Frequent Service Capital $200,000 to $500,000 Costs per mile Real World KC Max (Kansas City, Missouri) Example

OPPOSITE PAGE Cross-County Connectors could feature upgraded stations at major activity centers much like this one for the MAX BRT in Kansas City, Missouri.

86



87

Local Bus

WHAT IS IT?


Local Bus is the bus service we currently have in Southeast Michigan. Buses stop frequently to deliver people close to their destinations. In the future, Local Bus service will connect people to faster regional transit services and help to fill gaps in the existing system.

You told us you would like to see better coordination between providers for a transit network that feels seamless to you, the rider. Local bus is a foundational building block for any transit network. It offers convenience, job access, and mobility. As part of this network the RTA will work with local bus providers to increase coordination and deliver services more seamlessly.

WHERE IS IT APPROPRIATE? The RMTP maintains the Local Bus service currently provided by AAATA, DDOT, and SMART. In some places, route changes may be made to better connect with regional services. New Local Bus service is appropriate in places where no transit service exists today. This is particularly important to enable riders to access other regional services, such as BRT and Cross-County Connectors.

Market Local Station Type Standard Span of All-Day Service Stop Local Stops, Spacing Every one or two blocks Frequency Less Frequent Service Capital Minimal – Vehicles and shelters Costs only Real World AAATA, DDOT, and SMART Example (Southeast Michigan)

OPPOSITE PAGE A SMART bus in downtown Detroit.

88



89

Regional Rail

WHAT IS IT?


Regional Rail often connects suburban areas with dense employment centers and usually carries riders to and from work. Many major metropolitan regions offer some kind of regional rail service. It is an efficient way to transport a high volume of people to and from work or special events. Regional Rail travels on tracks shared with freight trains, usually during peak hours. Stations are typically many miles apart and routes range between 20 and 50 miles.

Regional Rail has been studied between Ann Arbor and Detroit15. It is appropriate to connect key population/employment centers, which are far apart from one another.

ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS Regional rail was high on the wish list of services you would like to see in Southeast Michigan. Regional rail provides a reliable, convenient option for commuters as an alternative to automobile traffic.

Market Regional Station Type Premium Span of All-Day Service Stop Non-Stop Service, Spacing Limited stops at each end with non-stop service in between Frequency Less Frequent Service Capital $2 million to $5 million per mile Costs Real World Rail Runner Example (Between Albuquerque and Santa Fe, New Mexico) OPPOSITE PAGE The Rail Runner regional rail travels between Albuquerque and Santa Fe, New Mexico.

90

Photo by George Lumbreras



91

Commuter Express

EXP

WHAT IS IT?


Commuter Express is a weekday rush-hour service between employment centers and park-and-ride facilities to carry riders to and from work. Commuter Express buses typically serve only a few stops over long distances. They offer commuters a faster and more attractive service along major job generating corridors.

Commuter express bus service was included to connect commuters across county borders to employment centers. You asked for connectivity to major job centers. This service will increase job access and offer the benefits of regional rail where there is no track.

WHERE IS IT APPROPRIATE? Commuter Express is appropriate along long major corridors, such as M-59, which connect many key employment centers.

Market Specialized Station Type Upgraded or Premium Span of Rush Hour Only Service Stop Non-Stop Service, Spacing Limited stops many miles apart with non-stop service in between Frequency Less Frequent Service Capital $300,000 to $1 million per stop Costs plus vehicles Real World Commuter Express Example (Los Angeles, California) OPPOSITE PAGE A commuter express bus in Los Angeles, California. Image: George Lumbreras – flickr.com/photos/ luzian400/

92



93

Airport Express

WHAT IS IT?


Airport Express is a premium limited-stop express service from regional centers to Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Airport Express buses will travel regularly throughout the day to and from the airport. To be an attractive travel option, a high-quality level of service is needed with amenities such as on-board wi-fi and luggage storage racks. Fares for this premium service will be higher than that of a normal bus ride.

The airport was one of the most popular places people in Southeast Michigan want to travel to on transit. People want a reliable airport service to increase their mobility. Airport Express will make it easier for residents and visitors to access the airport from throughout Southeast Michigan.

Market Specialized Station Type Upgraded or Premium Span of All Day Service Stop Non-Stop Service, Spacing Non-stop service between two points many miles apart Frequency Less Frequent Service

WHERE IS IT APPROPRIATE? Airport Express is appropriate to connect a few key regional centers to the airport. Each airport express route will pick up passengers at designated locations. Service is already being provided today from Ann Arbor to Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport.

Capital $100,000 to $300,000 per stop Costs plus vehicles Real World AirRide (Between Ann Arbor and Example Detroit Metropolitan Airport) OPPOSITE PAGE AirRide already provides service to Detroit Metropolitan Airport from Ann Arbor. Image © 2016 Prevost, a division of Volvo Group Canada Inc. – prevostcar.com

94



Streetcar

WHAT IS IT?


Soon the QLINE (M-1 RAIL) will open in Detroit, offering Southeast Michigan a new kind of transit service. The QLINE streetcar will be a modern, hybrid-electrified urban rail service traveling in both mixed-traffic and its own dedicated lane. The streetcar will connect downtown Detroit, Midtown, and New Center. It will serve 12 locations along a 3.3 mile stretch of Woodward Avenue.

Based on your input you wanted to see a multi-modal system connecting Southeast Michigan. The QLINE streetcar will offer an alternative option for riders to travel along Woodward Corridor. Along the way it will provide key connections to a variety of other transportation options, including Amtrak regional passenger rail, local bus service, and the People Mover.

Market Local Station Type Premium Span of All Day Service Stop Local, Spacing Approximately every ¼ mile Frequency Frequent Service Capital $40 million to $50 million Costs per mile Real World Portland Streetcar Example (Portland, Oregon)

OPPOSITE PAGE Streetcar in Portland, Oregon. Image: flickr.com/photos/environmentblog

95

96



Paratransit, Demand Response, And Mobility Management

WHAT IS IT?


Paratransit includes trips initiated by calls from passengers in need of special service and transportation to their destinations. Demand response trips are not fixed route and operate door-to-door. Mobility management includes a range of services and programs to help people understand their travel options, match users to the most appropriate travel choice (regardless of transportation provider), and make it easier for people to utilize means of travel other than the private automobile. Passengers typically must qualify for paratransit and demand response services.

Paratransit, demand response, and mobility management services will be available throughout Southeast Michigan. As the service area of fixed route transit increases, so too will the size of the paratransit service area increase.

ADDRESSING YOUR CONCERNS Stakeholders told us it is important to create an expansive transit system serving all users. Many people also requested a paratransit system that was easier to use. Expanding paratransit service will increase mobility and livability for those it serves, two important transit priorities.

Market Specialized and Regional Station Type n/a Span of All Day Service Stop n/a Spacing Frequency Less-Frequent/ On Demand Service Capital n/a Costs Real World AAATA’s wide range of mobility Example management solutions could serve as a model for the rest of the region. OPPOSITE PAGE A TriMet paratransit shuttle in Portland, Oregon. Image: TriMet – flickr.com/photos/trimet/

97

98



LEFT The Ventra card in Chicago is accepted by all the region’s transit providers and includes smartphone integration for easy payments. Image: Steve Vance – flickr.com/photos/ jamesbondsv/ RIGHT New buses in a DDOT maintenance facility. Image: City of Detroit

Regional Services

Regional Facilities

Initiatives to better coordinate Southeast Michigan’s transit providers will increase mobility throughout the region. These initiatives could include the implementation of an integrated regional fare card, a centralized call center, strategic transit stop location improvements, synchronized schedules between different transit providers, and comprehensive mobility management.

Regional facilities include capital projects which will benefit the transit throughout Southeast Michigan. Upgrading and maintaining regional facilities will help ensure vehicles last longer and are more reliable. New and upgraded transit facilities will improve the user experience for transit riders throughout the region. Proper asset management will ensure RTA’s resources are utilized efficiently.



Stakeholders told us you wanted centralized, readily available, and easy to access travel information. Many people would also like one fare system throughout the region to decrease confusion around transfers. Regional services have the potential to streamline services including information, fares, and schedules.

You told us you want a system that is safe, reliable, and gets you to work on time. Regional facilities are an important part of this equation. New and upgraded facilities will improve pull-out rates to help buses get to you on time, decreasing your travel time and increasing your safety.


Building Block

Travel Market Station Type


Span of Service

How often does it stop?

Frequency

Limited-Stop

Bus Rapid Transit

Capital Costs

$5 million to $15 million per mile

BRT

99

Real-World Example Healthline BRT Cleveland, Ohio

Every Mile

C3

Limited-Stop

Cross-County Connector

$200,000 to $500,000 per mile

KC MAX Kansas City, Missouri

Every ¼ Mile Local

Local Bus

Minimal – Vehicles and shelters only

AAATA, DDOT, & SMART Southeast Michigan

Every 1 to 2 Blocks Non-Stop

Regional Rail


Limited stops at each end with non-stop service in between Limited-Stop

Commuter Express

EXP

$300,000 to $1 million per stop plus vehicles

Limited stops many miles apart with non-stop service in between Non-Stop

Airport Express

$100,000 to $300,000 per stop plus vehicles

Non-stop service between two points many miles apart Local

Streetcar


Rail Runner Albuquerque & Santa Fe, New Mexico Commuter Express Los Angeles, California

AirRide Ann Arbor to DTW

Portland Streetcar Portland, Oregon

Every ¼ Mile Non-Stop

Paratransit, Demand Response, Mobility Management

Travel Market:

Local

Regional

N/A

Station Types:

Normal

Upgraded Premium

Span of Service:

On-Call Services May need to be sched. before

All-Day Rush Hour

n/a

AAATA Washtenaw County

Service Frequency:

Frequent Less Frequent

100

101

Draft RMTP A Transit Vision for Southeast Michigan

103

Building the System

119

Financial Analysis

137

Making it Real

A Rapid, Reliable, Regional Transit System

Funding the RMTP

Implementing the RMTP

102

7

103

Building the System A Rapid, Reliable, and Regional Transit System

In this chapter...

105

The Regional Master Transit Plan is a balanced, strategic, long-term plan for regional transit in Southeast Michigan. The system was constructed from the building blocks identified to improve transit in the region.

107

New rapid transit services create a framework for regional transit, while Cross-County Connectors and local bus services fill in the gaps and spread access to the regional transit network to more job centers and destinations.

113

New funding and programs for paratransit service and mobility management will create more efficient, reliable, and useful ways to travel for those who cannot utilize traditional fixed-route transit.

115

New regional services, such as regional fare integration, will help unify transit in Southeast Michigan through the efficient coordination of our many transit providers.

104


Building the System 105

We constructed a regional transit system from the building blocks identified for better transit. Combining the existing transit system with the building blocks identified to solve our transit problems allowed us to construct a regional transit network unique to the needs of Southeast Michigan.

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 1

The Foundation

2

A Rapid Transit Framework

3

A Regional Network

4

Ensuring Accessibility and Mobility

5

Unifying the System

6

Upkeep and Maintenance

DRAFT REGIONAL MASTER TRANSIT PLAN

Building the System Many factors influenced the development of the system, including: ■■ Stakeholder Input – Our community conversation on regional transit told us how the existing system works— and more importantly does not work—for its users and where people throughout the region need transit to take them. ■■ Challenges of our Current System – Our extensive analysis of transit in Southeast Michigan identified the many challenges facing our current system. ■■ Future and Planned Transit Service – We incorporated new transit services planned for the region. ■■ Input from the Transit Providers – Feedback from the region’s transit providers influenced the prioritization of transit corridors, approach to implementation, and financial considerations. ■■ Fiscal Responsibility – A thorough analysis of the long-term costs of transit allowed the development of a regional system Southeast Michigan can afford.

OPPOSITE PAGE AAATA’s Blake Transit Center in Ann Arbor. Image courtesy of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

106

EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE 59

Existing Bus Service

MACOMB CO.

Pontiac

94 53

59

OAKLAND CO. Mt. Clemens Sterling Heights

75

Troy

Birmingham

5

96

Novi

Roseville

Royal Oak Southfield

696

Eastpointe Northville 23

Livonia

WASHTENAW CO.

10 24

Plymouth

Detroit

96

14

Dearborn

Map not to scale.

Ypsilanti

Ann Arbor

Existing bus service has been simplified for illustrative purposes and may not be comprehensive of all AAATA, DDOT, and SMART routes.

275

94

23


75

WAYNE CO. 85

The Foundation

A Rapid Transit Framework

The local bus network already in place is the foundation of new regional services.

New rapid transit services create a framework for regional transit.

The existing fixed-route network provided by AAATA, DTC, DDOT and SMART will serve as the foundation of a new regional transit system. AAATA, DDOT, DTC, and SMART will continue operating their existing services and provide the needed connections to new regional services. The local network will play an important role in providing a rapid, reliable, and regional transit system.

Public Act 387 of 2012 included specific reference to four corridors in the region where the RTA may want to plan, design, develop, construct, and operate rolling rapid transit. These included: Woodward Avenue from downtown Detroit to downtown Pontiac, Gratiot Avenue from downtown Detroit to downtown Mt. Clemens, a northern cross-county route between the City of Pontiac and Mt. Clemens with stops on M-59 and Big Beaver, and a western cross-county route from downtown Detroit to downtown Ann Arbor. The RTA elected to proceed with detailed alternatives analysis for the Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward avenue corridors because they all served strong existing transit markets and provided rapid transit connections across the entire region.

For planning purposes, this is the base case against which proposed building block investment levels are compared.

BRT

$69 per Capita

BRT

EXP

REGIONAL NETWORK

RAPID TRANSIT FRAMEWORK

THE FOUNDATION

C3

The RTA is recommending the northern cross-county route be served by a Cross County Connector service on 15 Mile, with a stop at Big Beaver at or near the Somerset Mall, as well as a Commuter Express bus serving M-59. We feel this meets the level of transit demand in the corridor, the current travel market, and existing land use patterns. The RTA will continue working in partnership with Oakland and Macomb County stakeholders to develop these services to match the needs of the corridor. The independent alternatives analyses for Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward avenues allowed the RTA to have very detailed information about each rapid transit corridors to ensure maximum planning-level accuracy with capital and O&M cost estimates. Further, these projects are now poised to move into environmental clearance and ultimately project development and funding through the FTA’s 5309 Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grant program.


CORRIDOR STUDIES The alternatives analyses for Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward avenues led to the adoption of Locally Preferred Alternatives in November 2014 (Woodward), and May 2016 (Gratiot and Michigan). Detailed information about those corridor planning process can be found on the RTA’s website: rtamichigan.org/best-projects/



108

RAPID TRANSIT ONLY 59

Bus Rapid Transit East-West Transit To be evaluated further

MACOMB CO.

Pontiac

94 53

59

OAKLAND CO.

Regional Rail

Mt. Clemens

Streetcar Sterling Heights

75

Planned Station

Troy

Transfer End of Route

Birmingham

5

96

Novi

Roseville

Royal Oak Southfield

696

Eastpointe Northville 23

Livonia

WASHTENAW CO.

10 24

Plymouth

Detroit

96

14

Dearborn

Map not to scale.

Ypsilanti

Ann Arbor

BRT and Regional Rail station locations are still in the planning phase and may change.

275

94

23



75

WAYNE CO. 85


BUS RAPID TRANSIT

EVALUATION

■■ Gratiot Avenue between downtown Detroit and M-59. ■■ Michigan Avenue between downtown Detroit and the Detroit Metropolitan Airport ■■ Washtenaw Avenue between downtown Ann Arbor and downtown Ypsilanti ■■ Woodward Avenue between downtown Detroit and Pontiac

While rapid transit provides faster and more reliable transit service in the BRT corridors, it alone does not improve regional mobility elsewhere in Southeast Michigan. However, it does provide the framework needed to define the structure of a larger regional network.

REGIONAL RAIL Ann Arbor to Detroit regional rail service will offer the first rapid, reliable connection to regional job centers in Washtenaw and Wayne counties. Stations are expected in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Wayne, Dearborn, and the Detroit New Center Amtrak station.

Regional – Rapid transit would provide the first regional services in Southeast Michigan Efficient – Only four new routes throughout the entire region does not efficiently serve Southeast Michigan as a whole Connected – The BRT corridors are already well served by transit, and improved service Mobility – Mobility would increase in the four corridors, but would not improve elsewhere throughout the region

STREETCAR

Job Access – Job access would increase in the four corridors, but major regional employment centers would still be underserved

The QLINE (M-1 RAIL) streetcar, planned to open in 2017, will be absorbed by the RTA in 2024. It will provide key connections to other local and regional transit services.

Livability – Livability benefits of rapid transit on these four corridors are not passed on to the entire region Travel Times – Shortened commute and travel times in the four corridors Environment – Likely decreases in congestion, increases in walkability, and improved air quality along the four corridors



110

REGIONAL MASTER TRANSIT PLAN 59

Bus Rapid Transit

MACOMB CO.

Pontiac

94

Regional Rail

53

59

OAKLAND CO.

Cross-County Connector Local Bus

Mt. Clemens

Streetcar Commuter Express

Sterling Heights

75

Airport Express

Troy

Existing Bus Service Birmingham

5

96

Planned Station Novi

Transfer

Roseville

Royal Oak

End of Single Route Southfield

End of Multiple Routes

696

Extension of Existing Local Service

Eastpointe Northville

23

Livonia

WASHTENAW CO.

10 24

Plymouth

Detroit

96

14

Dearborn

Map not to scale.

Ypsilanti

Ann Arbor

BRT and Regional Rail station locations are still in the planning phase and may change.

275

94

23



75

WAYNE CO. 85



A Regional Network

Rapid transit alone does not address enough of the region’s challenges nor meet the desires of regional stakeholders. As such, a regional network was further developed on top of a framework of rapid transit. This more comprehensive regional network better connects Southeast Michigan in an efficient manner for increased mobility throughout the region.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT ■■ Gratiot Avenue between downtown Detroit and M-59. ■■ Michigan Avenue between downtown Detroit and the Detroit Metropolitan Airport ■■ Washtenaw Avenue between downtown Ann Arbor and downtown Ypsilanti ■■ Woodward Avenue between downtown Detroit and Pontiac

DDOT/SMART Coordinated Service Before BRT services are operational on Woodward and Gratiot avenues, RTA will work with DDOT and SMART to coordinate service in these corridors by increasing service levels, coordinating schedules, and eliminating required transfers. Coordination on these corridors will be a first step towards regional transit in Southeast Michigan. The lessons learned implementing coordinated service will help the RTA more efficiently deliver BRT in the future. Prior to BRT operations on Michigan and Washtenaw avenues, RTA will operate a commuter express or other regional service with stops in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Dearborn, and Detroit.

Changes to Local Service Local service will continue in the BRT corridors. Unlike BRT’s limited-stop service, these local routes will continue serving all stops. As riders shift from local service to BRT, it is anticipated local service levels will decrease. This decrease will allow AAATA, DDOT, and SMART to redirect resources to improve the frequency and reliability of their other transit services, two key areas identified in our community conversation. Coordination between RTA and the other transit providers will be necessary once BRT services begin operation. Additionally, changes to other local services which interface with these corridors may be possible as BRT projects are further refined.

CORRIDOR PRIORITIZATION A data-driven process identified regional corridor priorities. To better improve access and connectivity, a series of regional transit corridors were identified to link Southeast Michigan. While the market analysis identified many areas in need of better transit, financial limitations required a prioritization of regional corridors. This data-driven process helped identify corridors for the regional network. Six metrics were used to evaluate corridors in Southeast Michigan. ■■ Overall Transit Demand ■■ Job Access ■■ Travel Flows

■■ Pedestrian Access ■■ Gap in Transit Service ■■ Existing Transit Ridership

While these corridor rankings provided a solid foundation of data to inform the development of a regional network, other factors were also considered. Most significant of these factors was input gained from regional stakeholders, including the public, municipalities, transit providers, and public, private, and non-profit organizations.

Regional transit would provide a quick and safe option to get from the suburbs to my job in Detroit. At the same time, it will provide Detroiters with a transportation option to their jobs. Wayne County Open House May 19, 2015


New regional transit services fill in the gaps and give our transit network structure.



CROSS-COUNTY CONNECTORS ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ DRAFT REGIONAL MASTER TRANSIT PLAN

#HeyRTA! I want a better way to go to the airport than driving myself, paying for parking, and driving home. Mark N.

12 Mile - East 12 Mile - West 15 Mile 8 Mile 9 Mile Fort/Eureka

■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

Grand River Greenfield Jefferson/Detroit Plymouth Van Dyke

These regional routes will be operated by DDOT or SMART. RTA will subsidize the full incremental cost of increased service beyond what exists in each corridor today, including any additional buses required. The RTA will also provide funding for station upgrades and other capital projects along these corridors. Routes will operate at increased frequencies and allow cross-county travel with no midday, evening, or weekend transfers required.

REGIONAL RAIL Detroit to Ann Arbor regional rail service will offer the first rapid, reliable connection to regional job centers in Washtenaw and Wayne counties. Eight daily trips in each direction will connect stations in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Wayne, Dearborn, and the Detroit New Center Amtrak station. Additionally, two feeder buses will connect stations in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti with nearby employment Centers. Service will be coordinated with regional rail arrivals/departures.

COMMUTER EXPRESS ■■ Ann Arbor-Plymouth-Livonia ■■ Canton Express upgraded service to AAATA’s existing route between Ann Arbor and Canton

■■ I-75 with stops at Great Lakes Crossing Outlets, Oakland University, Somerset Collection, Oakland Mall, GM Hamtramck Assembly Center, and downtown Detroit ■■ M-59 with stops in Pontiac, Troy, Utica, and Mt. Clemens Routes will connect key employment centers with non-stop, premium, weekday service every half hour. Except for M-59 which will operate all day, routes will only run at peak periods.

AIRPORT EXPRESS ■■ Ann Arbor ■■ Downtown Detroit ■■ Macomb County

■■ Oakland County ■■ I-275 (Oakland County)

Routes will connect Detroit Metropolitan Airport with daily premium express service. Routes will operate hourly except for the Detroit route, which will operate every half hour.

NEW/EXTENDED LOCAL SERVICE ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

Canal Groesbeck Highway Highland Northville Ypsilanti Connector

■■ Dequindre (Route 494) to Rochester ■■ Ford Road (Route 250) to Sheldon ■■ Middlebelt South (Route 280) to Farmington Hills

New routes will operate every hour. Route extensions will maintain service levels of existing routes. These services will be operated by DDOT or SMART. RTA will subsidize the full cost of new services and the incremental cost of extending existing routes.



STREETCAR

Accessibility and Mobility The fixed-route regional system improves accessibility for many in Southeast Michigan, but it does not fully address the unique needs of the elderly, people with disabilities, people with low-incomes, and others unable to utilize traditional transit because of geographic or time of day barriers. The RTA is committed to working with existing fixed route transit providers, on-demand service providers, mobility management services, and the growing ride-sourcing industry to enhance and develop flexible services that will ensure everyone in Southeast Michigan benefits from regional transit. The RTA splits these services into two categories ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit and Mobility Management.

ADA AND NON-ADA PARATRANSIT As the RTA partners with stakeholders and transit providers to implement the RMTP, it intends to address improvements to ADA paratransit by funding the expansion of complementary ADA paratransit service that will occur with the increased fixed route service coverage and span. Further, the RTA will work with existing fixed route transit providers to identify shortfalls and coordinated solutions in

their existing ADA paratransit and non-ADA services. These shortfalls could be covered through additional funding or coordination of services. For example, the RTA could take on administrative duties like ADA paratransit eligibility screening. This will provide customers with a unified process and alleviate some overhead costs for the transit providers.

MOBILITY MANAGEMENT The RTA will play an important role leading the regional discussion on the integration of new and rapidly growing mobility strategies and technology to meet future mobility needs. Shared-use mobility strategies, such as bike-sharing, car-sharing, ride-hailing (e.g., Uber and Lyft), carpooling, and many others, are rapidly evolving and several transit agencies throughout the United States are partnering with private sector providers on complementary services that cost- effectively extend the reach of transit. The RTA also intends to consolidate information on existing on-demand services into a one-call/one-click call center and website allowing anyone in the region to plan a trip with both public and private transportation providers. AAATA’s MyRide and AAA-1b are already successfully coordinating in Washtenaw County. The RTA intends to build on this existing model to provide this type of information and access to the entire RTA region.

Detroit needs transit as we age. RTA Kickoff Rally May 12, 2015


The M-1 RAIL streetcar, opening in 2017, will eventually be absorbed by the RTA. It will provide key connections to other local and regional transit services. Importantly, it will connect the regional rail to downtown Detroit to other parts of the city.



ADA Paratransit and Mobility Management Program Structure


This flexible program will fund new paratransit and mobility management services. The program will be funded at $10 million in the first year with annual growth planned to grow in proportion to the region’s over-65 population. The RTA anticipates that this program will invest $280 million into these needs over the 20-year plan. The RTA intends to manage this program through a combination of subsidies to existing providers, partnerships with existing Mobility Management programs, development of regional services, and grants for innovative projects. The program will include: Paratransit Service Expansion – The required ADA-paratransit service area will be expanded, based on the larger fixed-route system, to serve more of Southeast Michigan. Service improvements and coordination will also be funded. Additionally, Non-ADA services will be improved. Regional Mobility Management Program – A variety of regional mobility programs, such as travel vouchers, travel training, and car/vanpool programs, will be provided throughout the region. A centralized website and phone number will provide everyone in the region with one source for trip making and travel information. On-Demand Services – Because of the size, low density, and automobile-oriented land use patterns of Southeast Michigan, fixed-route transit service will not be available to all who need it. On-demand solutions to address these issues may include flex-routes, late-night service, and other community connections. Partnerships with existing on-demand transportation operators (such as taxis and ride-hailing companies) to provide job access, first- and last-mile, and emergency ride home services.

Transportation Demand Management Program – Partnerships will also be sought to expand existing employer/institution-provided shuttles to serve the broader community and offer circulation and first- and last-mile services. The program will: 1 Expand transportation services outside the fixed route transit network (such as ADA paratransit and senior transportation services) to create a more equitable, reliable, and useful transit system for everyone in the region. 2 Offer a wider range of non-automobile travel options for Southeast Michigan, especially for those who cannot use or do not have access to the fixed-route network. 3 Establish a central source for mobility information for the entire region. 4 Develop ways to market these new travel options to the entire region.

ADA Paratransit and Mobility Management Task Force The RTA will seek to convene an ADA Paratransit and Mobility Management Task Force every five years to assess the impact of existing and emerging mobility strategies and integrate them into the RMTP. To ensure successful implementation of the RMTP, the task force should consider various aspects of the transit system including workforce evolution, financial needs, equity, and accessibility and propose necessary updates. This effort will prepare the RTA to partner with local and state government agencies and officials to craft the necessary policy and guidelines to enhance rapid and reliable transportation for all across the region in the future.


Unifying the System

Upkeep and Maintenance

A new regional approach will help unify transit in Southeast Michigan through the efficient coordination of our many transit providers.

Regional facilities will improve the passenger experience and help efficiently maintain our investments.

Initiatives to better coordinate Southeast Michigan’s transit providers will increase mobility throughout the region. These initiatives will include the implementation of an integrated regional fare card, a centralized call center, strategic transit stop location improvements, synchronized schedules between different transit providers, and comprehensive mobility management.

The RMTP includes funding for construction, upgrades, and maintenance of new and existing regional facilities.

Regional Fare Integration will unify the regional transit system through a consistent fare policy and a regional fare card. A regional fare card will allow for seamless regional travel and easier transfers between different providers and include the installation of upgraded fare boxes within AAATA, DDOT, and SMART buses. RTA Administration Center and Call Center will improve regional transit coordination by providing a central point of information and trip planning. The facility will also serve as RTA’s administration center.

REGIONAL FACILITIES New/Upgraded Maintenance Facilities will ensure sufficient maintenance capacity to accommodate new regional services. These new and/or improved maintenance facilities will allow for necessary and timely maintenance of transit vehicles. Properly maintained vehicles last longer and can improve transit performance and reliability. Transit Facility Program will improve the passenger experience with new or upgraded passenger facilities throughout Southeast Michigan. Funding will allow for improvements such as new or upgraded transit centers for better network efficiencies and enhancements to existing stops. The program will also allow for the maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities in the future.


REGIONAL SERVICES




Evaluation This transparent and pragmatic approach to developing the Regional Master Transit Plan builds upon existing assets within the region to create a rapid, reliable, and regional network providing users choice, improving livability, and keeping Southeast Michigan economically competitive. Regional – Regional services allow convenient cross-county travel without time consuming transfers


Efficient – New regional services and facilities allow for the effecient use of new and existing transit resources Connected – Regional services effeciently connect all four counties in Southeast Michigan Mobility – Increased frequencies, spans of service, and cross-county routes increase regional mobility Job Access – An estimated 633,930 jobs will have access to very frequent transit service and over one million jobs will be accessible by transit coming every 30 minutes or better

COMPARED TO RAPID TRANSIT Rapid transit alone does not meet the needs of Southeast Michigan. While it does provide significant benefits to key regional corridors, it does not do enough to connect the entire region. A more comprehensive regional network of new services is needed improve regional mobility, increase job access, and connect the region in an efficient manner.

RAPID TRANSIT ONLY

REGIONAL TRANSIT

Regional Efficient Connected

Livability – Increased access to jobs, schools, shopping, entertainment, and parks

Mobility

Travel Times – Faster regional services shorten commute and travel times

Job Access

Environment – Likely decreases in congestion, improved air quality, and better walkability along the major corridors

Livability Travel Times Environment



A rapid, reliable, regional transit network will improve the mobility options and quality of life for all of Southeast Michigan. But even after implementing the Regional Master Transit Plan, the job will not be complete. Financial limitations restricted the number of corridors served by new regional service. As trends both nationwide and locally have shown, the demand for and interest in transit continues to grow. Additionally, regions which add new rapid transit services typically see increased ridership in their transit systems. As Southeast Michigan grows, urban areas like downtown and Midtown Detroit grow and densify, and the demographics in our region continue to change, the demand for quality transit services is expected to rise. The RTA will update this plan regularly to align investment priorities with changes in demographics, technology, and transit needs.

The RTA will continue leading the way for better transit in Southeast Michigan.


Moving Forward

118

8

119

Financial Analysis Funding the RMTP

In this chapter...

121

The Regional Master Transit Plan considers the financial implications of regional transit. A financial model helped determine the long-term costs of the RMTP, and a Financial Task Force ensured a realistic and fiscally responsible funding strategy.

129

The financial model determined the millage required to implement the RMTP. This millage will be applied in addition to any existing transit millages in the region. Other possible state and federal funding sources were also identified.

135

The RMTP will increase transit investment in Southeast Michigan from $69 per person to $156 per person, a 126% increase.

120


Financial Analysis 121

A detailed financial analysis—using methods and assumptions endorsed by business, non-profit, education, and transit leaders from throughout Southeast Michigan—was an essential step in developing the RMTP. A clear, transparent, and well-documented process ensures the RMTP is a fiscally responsible plan we can afford.

The RMTP considers the financial implications of transit, including future operating and capital costs and the funding needed to make it a reality. It balances our mobility needs with a responsible use of scarce funding.

FINANCIAL MODEL STRUCTURE SERVICE LEVELS

ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS

OPERATING STATISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS

FINANCIAL MODEL? PERFORMANCE MEASURES

O&M COSTS

REVENUE SOURCES

PRELIM CASH FLOW

Federal State Local System-Generated

Capital Revenues Capital Expenditures Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures

FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS

DEBT REQUIREMENTS

A financial model is a complex financial tool using historical trends and assumptions about the future to predict future costs and revenues. A variety of inputs—such as when new service begins, how much new service costs, and how much state and federal funding will be available—can be adjusted.

PROJECT TIMING

Financial Modeling A financial model determined the anticipated costs and funding sources of the Regional Master Transit Plan. It forecasted the future cash flow of all transit providers in Southeast Michigan, including the RTA, to predict the costs and funding needed to operate regional transit over the next 20 years.

FINAL CASH FLOW

SENSITIVITY SCENARIOS

OPPOSITE PAGE A SMART bus.


Financial Analysis


LEARN MORE For more information on the financial analysis and financial modeling process, see the Financial Analysis Tech Memo on the RTA’s website. rtamichigan.org/best-projects/master-plan/ documents/ DRAFT REGIONAL MASTER TRANSIT PLAN

WERE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES CONSIDERED? RTA legislation allows two local funding sources: a property tax millage and a vehicle registration fee (VRF). While the VRF was considered, the property tax millage is a more consistent and reliable funding source.


LOCAL FUNDING MECHANISM

MULTIPLE TRANSIT PROVIDERS

A property tax millage is the assumed local funding mechanism to implement the RMTP. The financial model estimated the long-term costs of the RMTP and the corresponding millage rate required. While the millage will be RTA’s primary source of funding, it will be supplemented by state and federal funding as well as fare revenues. The model assumes the millage will begin generating revenue in 2017 and be applied at a uniform rate going forward.

The financial model accounted for the complex financial relationship between Southeast Michigan’s many transit providers. Historical data, past annual financial reports, an inventory of assets, and existing funding sources and local millages provided a baseline. This allowed the model to forecast the future revenues and expenditures of each provider. The model also evaluated the effect new transit service and changing federal and state formula funding will have on each provider, including the net financial impact of these changes.

FINANCIAL TASK FORCE A Financial Task Force (FTF), comprised of representatives from local and state government, the business community, academia, and community foundations throughout Southeast Michigan, advised the development of the financial model and gave feedback on the financial assumptions used. This collaborative process provided a critical local perspective to better calibrate the model. The FTF confirmed the assumptions, forecasts, and methodology were reasonable and realistic. The FTF also assessed the feasibility of various financial options and associated tax rates. The FTF observed the following about the development of a realistic and appropriately conservative funding strategy: ■■ The technical approach is rigorous. ■■ The analysis reflects the types of revenues and expenditures the RTA is likely to experience while implementing the RMTP. ■■ The growth rate assumptions are reasonable based on historic trends and information available at this time. ■■ Sensitivity tests allowed the RTA to consider the relative impacts of a reasonable range of potential deviations from baseline assumptions on the required millage.

MODEL INPUTS The financial model combines: ■■ Macroeconomic and financial assumptions such as inflation, capital cost escalation, and bond interest rates ■■ Demographic forecasts provided by SEMCOG ■■ Information from the existing transit providers, including: ■■ Past and current revenue sources ■■ Existing service levels and O&M costs ■■ Ridership ■■ Existing revenue sources such as local, state, and federal funding, and forecasts of future funding levels ■■ Future revenue sources such as a region-wide transit millage and VRF, forecasted based on taxable valuation data provided by the State of Michigan ■■ Recommended transit services and corresponding O&M costs by provider, route, and mode ■■ Capital cost estimates associated with the recommended transit services ■■ Implementation schedule of when recommended transit services begin operation ■■ Stakeholder input


Economic and Financial Assumptions Inflation – Historical inflation from the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) was used to convert past year dollars to constant 2015 dollars. Forecasted inflation from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was used to convert forecasted dollars to 2015 dollars. The forecasted annual average rate of inflation is 2.4%. Escalation – To develop an accurate and conservative estimation of construction costs, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Cost Index for Michigan was used and adjusted to constant 2015 dollars. Escalated construction figures reflect this 1.1% historical annual growth rate (20002014) in excess of inflation. Cost of Borrowing – The amount of borrowing needed in each year for the RTA to maintain a positive cash balance and the resulting principal and interest payment was calculated. A debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) of 1.5 is maintained for each year of outstanding debt. This is generally consistent with the high quality (“A”) bond ratings maintained by peer agencies. Long-Term Debt – Historical rates from the Federal Reserve’s 20-year state and local bond index are used to forecast a longterm debt interest rate. The average of monthly rates from 1990 through 2014, adjusted for historical inflation, results in an estimated rate of 2.54% above inflation. A payment period of 10 years was assumed.

Short-Term Debt – Historical rates from Moody’s yields for corporate bonds for all industries are used to forecast a shortterm debt interest rate. The average monthly rates BAA rated bonds from 1990 through 2014, adjusted for historical inflation, results in an estimated rate of 4.67% above inflation. A payment period of two years was assumed.

Demographic Assumptions SEMCOG’s five-year demographic forecasts by city (from 2010 to 2040) were used to forecast population and housing unit growth in Southeast Michigan. These forecasts were interpolated to produce individual year forecasts through 2040. It was assumed the growth rate from 2035 to 2040 will continue in perpetuity beyond 2040. Population – Southeast Michigan’s population is forecasted to grow at 0.05% per year from 2017 to 2040. The population over 65 years of age is forecasted to grow at 1.79% annually during the same period. Housing Units – Housing units in Southeast Michigan are forecasted to grow annually at 0.16% from 2017 to 2040. Property Valuation – Past taxable property valuations were obtained from the Michigan Department of Treasury at the municipal level and adjusted to 2015 dollars. It was assumed property values will grow at the rate of inflation in the future. Overall growth in taxable property valuation is a product of the projected per-unit growth rate (which was held flat) and the growth in total housing units. Total property valuation is projected to increase by 0.16% annually, in constant 2015 dollars, from 2017 to 2040.

O&M COSTS? Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are the costs required to provide transit on a daily basis. O&M includes things like fuel for buses, driver’s wages, maintenance of transit vehicles and facilities, and general agency administration.

CAPITAL COSTS? Capital costs are major, one-time purchases. They include things like purchasing new transit vehicles, installing new transit centers, building a new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line, or renovating an existing maintenance facility.


The financial model helps understand the relative impacts of these inputs, such as fixed-route transit service, paratransit service, capital investments, the future distribution of state and federal funding, and the local revenues needed to implement the plan.




Revenue Sources


The financial model accounts for a variety of existing and potential future revenue sources. These include system-generated, local, state, and federal funding. The model allows existing revenue streams to be adjusted in the future and new revenue sources, such as a region-wide property tax millage, to be introduced. Assumptions were made about future funding levels for each revenue source based on FTF and stakeholder input, demographic and economic data, and historical funding growth trends.

TRANSIT MILLAGE RATES AND REVENUE MILLAGE RATE

2015$ (M)

AAATA Ann Arbor

2.756

$13.2

Ypsilanti

1.679

$0.5

Ypsilanti Township

0.700

$0.8

1.000

$65.2

SMART Opt-In Communities

Source: Agency financial reports (AAATA 2014, SMART 2015)

Fare Revenue – The financial model forecasts fare revenue for the system through the farebox recovery ratio, defined as the percentage of total operating expenses met through fare revenues. Farebox recovery for existing agencies was derived from recent financial reports. A farebox recovery ratio of 20% was assumed for most RTA services, which is higher than existing providers but less than industry norms of 25% or more. Purchase of Service Agreements (POSA) – AAATA, DDOT, and SMART enter into POSA’s with local governments and other organizations to provide a range of transportation services based on a community’s unique needs. Funding from these agreements was correspondingly incorporated into the model. Local Contributions and Millages – Southeast Michigan transit agencies receive local contributions for transit service through different types of taxes. Local support is provided to DDOT and DTC through a General Fund subsidy from the City of Detroit. Local funding for AAATA and SMART is provided through local transit millages. Local funding was assumed to hold at existing levels in perpetuity.

To calibrate the model’s assumptions regarding taxable value against past year data, a reduction factor was calculated by comparing the model’s estimate of property taxes for recent years to the actual reported millage revenues in those years. This reduction is applied to revenue forecasts to account for factors, such as delinquent payments, tax appeals, and administrative costs of collection. RTA Property Tax Millage – The model determines the future tax rates for any RTA property tax millage required to fund the RMTP. The tax rate is assumed to be uniformly applied throughout the region and will remain unchanged from 2017 through 2036. State Funding – The State of Michigan’s Comprehensive Transportation Fund (CTF) provides funding for public transportation and is appropriated in the annual state transportation budget. Southeast Michigan transit providers receive funding from the CTF through the Operating Assistance Program and the Capital Assistance Program. The RTA is the designated recipient for state and federal grants for the region. ■■ Local Bus Operating Assistance Program is the largest annual CTF appropriation. The majority of operating assistance funding allocated to providers in Southeast Michigan is dispersed through the Local Bus Operating assistance program (LBO). Urbanized areas with populations over 100,000 receive state operating assistance for up to 50 percent of eligible expenses. The financial model reflects expected increases in LBO funding for Southeast Michigan region as a result of 2015 legislative changes related to transportation funding.


Federal Formula Program Grants – Federal transit support is provided through a variety of grant programs based on designated criteria and a distribution formula. ■■ Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants provide funding for public transportation capital, planning, and job access and reverse commute projects. The formula incorporates population, number of low-income residents, vehicle revenue miles, and passenger and route miles17. ■■ Section 5337 State of Good Repair Formula Grants provide funding to ensure fixed-guideway rail and high-intensity motorbus systems continue safe, efficient, and reliable operations. Eligible expenses include the maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of capital assets. Southeast Michigan has no fixed-guideway transit apart from the People Mover, but as projects like regional rail between Ann Arbor and Detroit begin operations, the region can expect to receive Section 5337 funding. ■■ Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities grants provide funding to replace and rehabilitate buses, bus-related facilities, and related equipment. Each state and territory receives an equal allocation and then the remaining funds are apportioned based on a formula considering population, vehicle revenue miles, and passenger miles. A 20 percent local match is required18.

Historical federal formula funding was estimated from aggregate federal formula and discretionary grant totals in the agency annual financial reports. The financial model reflects that funding originally intended for capital projects has been used to cover operating cost shortfalls in past years. Reflecting potential increases in Southeast Michigan’s share of the national total as its system grows the financial model assumed federal formula funding will increase with the rate of inflation each year when regional transit service levels are stable and 1% above inflation in years when significant service increases are implemented. The model allocates the regional apportionment to each provider and the RTA based on its share of the regional total O&M expenditures. Federal Discretionary Program Grants – The federal government supports transit investment projects though competitive, discretionary programs that evaluate individual projects. Discretionary funding can be unpredictable. Forecasts for the region are estimated based on a multi-year historical average for each agency that was calculated from the available annual financial report data. In addition to formula funding, the Federal Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities program also includes discretionary grant funding. In 2016, the FTA made $211 million available for this competitive grant. This program in particular could fund the replacement of transit vehicles and upgrades to maintenance facilities. This is one example of the federal discretionary program grants available to the RTA to fund regional transit.


■■ Capital Assistance Program provides matching funds for projects receiving federal funding16. It is also important to note that funding originally intended for capital projects has been used to cover operating cost shortfalls in the past and this proportion was estimated and carried forward in the model. Capital Assistance Program funding forecasts reflect a historical average for each agency.





Federal Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants – The Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grant program funds new fixed-guideway, extensions to fixedguideway, mixed traffic bus rapid transit (BRT), projects of substantial investment, and projects improving capacity on an existing fixed-guideway system. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) of 2015 allocates over $2.3 billion annually to the program from FY 2016 to FY 2020. Funding is distributed through four categories:

Surface Transportation Program (STP) – The Surface Transportation Program (STP) is a formula grant program for flexible funds to states, regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), or local governments. The funds can be used for the improvement of highways, bridge projects, facilities for nonmotorized transportation, transit capital projects, and public bus terminals and facilities. Because formula funding originates with a federal source, it cannot be used as part of the local match funds.20

■■ New Starts projects are new fixed guideway projects or extensions to existing fixed guideway systems with total estimated capital costs of $300 million or more, or are seeking $100 million or more in Section 5309 funding. The maximum federal funding share for New Starts projects is 60 percent. ■■ Small Starts projects are new fixed guideway projects, extensions to existing fixed guideway systems, or corridor-based bus rapid transit projects with total estimated capital costs of less than $300 million and are seeking less than $100 million in Section 5309 funding. The maximum federal funding share for Small Starts projects is 80 percent.19 ■■ Core Capacity projects are substantial corridor-based capital investments in existing fixed guideway systems that increase capacity by at least 10 percent in corridors at capacity either today or in the next five years. Core capacity projects may not include elements designed to maintain a state of good repair. ■■ Programs of Interrelated Projects are comprised of any combination of two or more New Starts, Small Starts, or Core Capacity projects. The projects must have a logical connection to one another and all must begin construction within a reasonable timeframe.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) is a formula grant program for state and local governments. A portion must be set aside for the transportation alternatives program and planning and research. CMAQ funds are distributed to state and local governments to help nonattainment and maintenance areas meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. In states, such as Michigan, that do not have any areas with nonattainment status, CMAQ funding can be used for any STP eligible project.21

Operations and Maintenance Costs Fuel Prices – The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Energy Outlook was used to project future fuel prices in constant 2015 dollars. Diesel fuel prices are forecasted to grow 1.3% annually. The cost of electricity is forecasted to grow 0.9% annually. To reflect the uncertainty of future energy markets and develop a conservative financial plan for implementation of the RMTP, all forecasted fuel costs were increased by 50% in the financial model.


Operating costs for the RTA were determined based on typical regional rates of the existing providers or, for modes not currently in operation in the region, based on peer system research.

MODE OPERATING COSTS BY AGENCY OPERATIONS (LESS FUEL) (PER VRH)

VEHICLE MAINTENANCE (PER VRM)

NON-VEHICLE MAINTENANCE (PER VOMS)

ADMINISTRATION (PER VOMS)

FUEL (VRM/GAL OR VRM/KWH)

AAATA

$58.55

$1.64

$10,793

$88,496

4.28

DDOT

$64.64

$3.66

$40,214

$67,629

2.87

SMART

$70.71

$1.79

$7,682

$64,839

3.92

RTA

$70.71

$1.79

$7,682

$64,839

3.92

AAATA

$48.23

$0.31

$15,883

$164,110

3.13

RTA

$48.23

$0.31

$15,883

$164,110

3.13

$398.50

$4.39

$55,224

$382,518

1.36

DTC

$61.02

$6.34

$54,534

$369,934

0.12

RTA

$61.02

$6.34

$54,534

$369,934

0.12

M-1

$131.21

$6.33

$68,880

$66,000

0.14

RTA

$131.21

$6.33

$68,880

$66,000

0.14

AGENCY/MODE Bus

Commuter Bus

Regional Rail RTA People Mover

Streetcar

Operating costs for each RMTP service depends on the assigned provider of that service. Because operating costs vary by provider, the assumed operator of a particular RMTP service directly influences its operating cost. Paratransit Service – It was assumed each agency’s future costs for providing paratransit service within their existing service areas will grow from existing levels in proportion to growth in the over-65 population. Fleet requirements for providing paratransit service were also assumed to grow in proportion to the overall quantity of service provided.

Sources: Regional Rail: Northstar Line commuter rail in Minneapolis, MN; Streetcar: M-1 RAIL O&M Cost Model; People Mover & Bus: NTD


Unit Operating Costs – Unit operating costs were estimated for each provider and type of transit service. Operating costs are determined from up to ten years of historical operating costs, as reported to the National Transit Database (NTD). Provider operating costs are broken into five categories (vehicle operations except fuel, vehicle maintenance, non-vehicle maintenance, administration, and fuel). Each cost category is associated with one of three “cost drivers”: vehicle revenue-hours (VRH), vehicle revenue-miles (VRM), and vehicles operated in maximum service (VOMS). Historical total cost data was divided by historical cost drivers to develop estimated unit costs. Unit cost growth was separately forecasted by mode for each transit agency, and adjusted to constant 2015 dollars. Operating costs for BRT services were provided by the BRT corridor studies.



LEARN MORE The Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward avenue corridor studies developed detailed capital cost estimates for the BRT and Regional Rail projects. Learn more on the RTA’s website. DRAFT REGIONAL MASTER TRANSIT PLAN

rtamichigan.org/best-projects/


Capital Costs

Service-Specific Assumptions

Capital Projects – The financial model estimated the cost of capital projects for each transit service. Capital costs were estimated on a per-mile basis for corridors projects, per-unit for garages and vehicles, and lump sums from project studies or peer research for specific projects (e.g., call center, AA Connector, regional rail, etc.) for which such data was available. Additionally, the independent corridor studies developed detailed capital cost estimates for the BRT and Regional Rail projects.

In addition to global financial assumptions, the financial model allowed for a wide array of service-specific assumptions. These inputs collectively defined services in the RMTP.

Vehicle Costs – Because the financial model assumes capital costs to be one-time occurrences while vehicles must be replaced on a regular cycle, vehicle costs were treated separately from other capital costs. Estimated vehicle purchase costs were determined through peer system research, and vehicle service lives were identified based on FTA guidance. Costs for BRT vehicles were provided by the BRT corridor studies. Overall Fleet Requirements – Overall fleet requirements are calculated based on the sum of all route-level VOMS totals, multiplied by an assumed spare ratio. The spare ratio for all modes and agencies was assumed to be 20%, which represents an industry standard.

Fixed-Route Service – Existing, expanded, and new fixedroute transit service may include expansion of the existing providers’ services, transfer of existing services and vehicles from one provider to another, or new service operated by an existing provider or the RTA. The model also allowed for the establishment of operating subsidies wherein an existing transit provider will operate a service while the RTA will cover some or all of the cost of that service. Future fixed-route transit service inputs included which agency will operate each component of the system, what (if any) RTA subsidies will be provided to the existing agencies, and when changes are implemented. Capital Projects, including the opening year of a project, estimated costs, and assumed levels of state and federal funding, are defined in the model. Paratransit Service inputs included determining who will operate the existing system in the future, what if any expansion will occur (and by who), and when these changes may occur.



RMTP Costs OPERATING COSTS

This new regional transit millage will be collected in addition to the existing SMART and AAATA transit millages.

Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs were estimated for all of Southeast Michigan at full build-out of the RMTP. This includes existing services operated by the current transit providers and any new operating projects and support services included in the Draft RMTP. In 2036 transit operating and maintenance costs for Southeast Michigan will total just under $600 million (2015$).

The Draft RMTP will result in a regional transit millage of 1.2. It is assumed the millage will begin in 2017. The regional transit millage will be collected in addition to the existing transit millages in the SMART and AAATA service areas. If the millage is approved by voters, all municipalities within the four county RTA jurisdiction will pay the millage. Communities will not have the option to “opt out” of the millage.

REGIONAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS (2036) BY MODE OR EXPENSE MODE/EXPENSE Administration

WHAT WILL IT COST ME? A 1.2 regional transit millage is a $1.20 property tax for every $1,000 of assessed value of a home. Assessed value is determined as half the market value of a home.

$120 per year for every $100,000 of assessed value

$78,856 The average assessed value in Southeast Michigan

$95 / per year for the average home

LESS THAN

$8

per month on average

$5.9

BRT

$82.9

Bus

$370.2

PROVIDER AAATA RTA Subsidy DDOT

Airport Express

$14.5

Regional Rail

$12.7

DTC

Paratransit

$90.7

M-1 RAIL

People Mover

$14.0

RTA

Streetcar TOTAL

$7.2 $598.1

RTA Subsidy

SMART RTA Subsidy TOTAL

2015$, M

THIS EQUALS ABOUT

COSTS

BY PROVIDER COSTS $67.7 $5.0 $194.2 $34.1 $14.0 $0.0 $56.8 $191.7 $34.7 $598.1

1.2

REGIONAL TRANSIT MILLAGE DRAFT REGIONAL MASTER TRANSIT PLAN

REGIONAL TRANSIT MILLAGE



Existing & Future Funding CAPITAL COSTS Capital and vehicle costs were estimated for projects included in the Draft RMTP through the 20-year analysis period of the RMTP. Total capital and vehicle costs for all of the projects included in the Draft RMTP is just over $1.4 billion (2015$).

RMTP PROJECTS CAPITAL COST DRAFT REGIONAL MASTER TRANSIT PLAN

PROJECT Airport Express BRT Local Bus Commuter Express Regional Rail Mobility Management

CAPITAL COSTS

VEHICLE COSTS

TOTAL COSTS

n/a

n/a

n/a

$731.5

$173.1

$904.6

$0.0

n/a*

$0.0

$3.1

n/a*

$3.1

$126.8

$10.6

$137.4

n/a

n/a

n/a

Cross-County Connector

$105.6

n/a*

$105.6

Regional Services

$119.8

$0.0

$119.8

Streetcar

n/a

n/a

n/a

RTA-Purchased Buses*

n/a

$155.6

$155.6

$1,086.8

$339.3

$1,426.1

TOTAL 2015$, M

Note: Airport Express is assumed to be fully contracted to an outside provider who would provide vehicles for the service. The RTA would not be required to purchase vehicles for this service. *RTA-Purchased Buses would be shared between Local Bus, Commuter Express, and Cross-County Connector services.

Federal and state funding levels for Southeast Michigan as a whole were estimated based on recent legislation and then distributed to the RTA and providers based on the Draft Plan.

REGIONAL TRANSIT MILLAGE A regional transit millage of 1.2 will generate nearly $3.3 billion (2015$) in local transit funding over 20 years from 2017 to 2036.

STATE FUNDING Total state formula funding for transit in Southeast Michigan is anticipated to increase from $97.4 M in 2015 to $118 M (2015$) in 2036, a 21% increase. Local Bus Operating (LBO) formula funding, a part of state funding, is anticipated to increase from $80.2 M in 2015 to $100.8 M (2015$) in 2036, a 13% increase. Most new state formula funding will be used to help pay for RMTP services. Because the RTA will be facilitating capital projects, it is also assumed to receive an increasing level of state capital assistance funding. The share is not a fixed percentage but rather is tied to specific projects for which state support is likely. The assumed levels of state capital assistance were determined based on stakeholder feedback that established a funding probability and likely state share for RMTP capital projects.


Federal formula funding is allocated by the FTA to UZAs (census defined Urbanized Areas) for transit service. Allocations are based on a complex formula accounting for regional population, types of services offered, and levels of service provided. Projected federal formula funding changes from the RMTP were based on future revenue miles of service, an increase in RTA service, and a reduction in some overlapping service and associated costs for existing providers. The RTA will retain all new federal formula funding above inflation to help fund the RMTP.

DISTRIBUTION OF FORMULA FUNDING

Federal formula funding allocated to the Ann Arbor UZA is anticipated to increase from $8.3 M in 2015 to $8.8 M (2015$) in 2036, a 6% increase. Federal formula funding allocated to the Detroit UZA is anticipated to increase from $50.8 M in 2015 to $70.6 M (2015$) in 2036, a 39% increase. The RTA is also assumed to receive an increased level of federal discretionary funding for capital projects it will facilitate. The share is not a fixed percentage but rather is tied to specific projects for which federal support is likely. The assumed levels of federal capital assistance were determined based on stakeholder feedback that established a funding probability and likely federal share for capital projects.

(2015$) RTA AAATA DDOT DTC SMART

$100 M $90 M $80 M $70 M $60 M $50 M $40 M $30 M $20 M $10 M $0 M

2015 2036 State – LBO

2015 2036 State – Other

2015 2036 Federal – AA

2015 2036 Federal – DET


FEDERAL FUNDING




Impact to Existing Providers The RMTP will impact Southeast Michigan’s existing transit providers in several ways:


ADDITIONAL SAVINGS FROM BRT New BRT projects could allow AAATA, DDOT, and SMART to reduce parallel local services in those corridors. This reduction could allow resources to be reallocated to increase service and frequency elsewhere in the local network. These potential savings have not been quantified.

■■ New or expanded services operated by the existing transit providers will impose a new cost on those agencies. ■■ RTA subsidies for new or expanded services operated by the existing transit providers will offset the impact of the increased costs of these new services. ■■ In some cases, a new service, whether operated by the RTA or an existing agency, will replace an existing service, leading to a potential reduction in cost to the provider.

BENEFITS TO AAATA – GROWTH IN...

(2015$) Local State Fed Other Fare RTA

VEHICLE REVENUE HOURS

VEHICLE REVENUE MILES

1.0 M

12 M

300

$240 M

0.9 M

11 M

275

$220 M

10 M

250

$200 M

9M

225

$180 M

0.8 M 0.7 M

VEHICLES IN MAXIMUM SERVICE

REVENUE

8M

200

$160 M

0.6 M

7M

175

$140 M

0.5 M

6M

150

$120 M

0.4 M 0.3 M Note: An increase in AAATA service, from a voter-approved millage increase in 2014, has been accounted for in these charts. AAATA’s growth in VRH, VRM, VOMS, and revenue is a result of both this planned increase in local service and the RMTP.

■■ While future federal and state formula funding distributions have been estimated based on the best information available, the actual amount of federal and state formula funding available in the future may vary. Formula funding distributions will be refined as needed in the future. If revenues fall short or costs exceed what we have estimated, the RTA will work together with Southeast Michigan’s transit providers to adjust formula funding distributions.

0.2 M

323,344

5M 4M 3M

208,069

0.1 M 0.0 M

4,241,907

2036

107

100 750

2,438,252

66

$100 M $80 M $60 M

2M

50

$40 M

1M

25

$20 M

0M Existing

125

2036

$55.7

$0 M

0 Existing

$44.2

Existing

2036

Existing

2036



BENEFITS TO DDOT – GROWTH IN... 1.0 M

960,195

11 M

0.9 M 0.8 M

VEHICLE REVENUE MILES 11,998,136 12 M 10 M

759,116

VEHICLES IN MAXIMUM SERVICE 300

$240 M

275

9,868,241

250

REVENUE

258 228

$220 M

9M

225

8M

200

$160 M

0.6 M

7M

175

$140 M

0.5 M

6M

150

$120 M

0.4 M

5M

125

$100 M

4M

100

$80 M

3M

750

$60 M

2M

50

$40 M

1M

25

$20 M

0.7 M

0.3 M 0.2 M 0.1 M 0.0 M

0M Existing

2036

2036

VEHICLE REVENUE MILES

1.0 M

12 M

0.9 M

11 M

0.7 M 0.6 M 0.5 M

518,064

0.4 M 0.3 M 0.2 M 0.1 M 0.0 M

11,336,218

10 M 9M

2036

VEHICLES IN MAXIMUM SERVICE 300

Existing

275 225

8,595,788

REVENUE $220 M

242

$180 M

201

200

7M

175

$140 M

6M

150

$120 M

5M

125

$100 M

4M

100

$80 M

3M

750

$60 M

2M

50

$40 M

1M

25

$20 M

$160 M

$146.7 M

$0 M

0 2036

$207.6 M

$200 M

8M

Existing

2036

$240 M

250

0M Existing

2036



765,562

$159.7

$0 M Existing

BENEFITS TO SMART – GROWTH IN...

0.8 M

$180 M

0 Existing

$210.5

$200 M

Existing

2036

Existing

2036

Note: DDOT’s funding and service levels are assumed to increase above 2015 levels to prerecession levels. Following this increase in service, DDOT’s funding and service levels are assumed to be held constant in the future.






Framing Criteria


The financial model generates performance measures to objectively evaluate the RMTP.

calculated based on the over-65 populations in each jurisdiction and applied proportionately.

FUNDING MECHANISM

By law, the 85% Rule is met when all money the RTA spends on new transit operations serving each member jurisdiction equals at least 85 percent of the amount of revenue raised by the RTA in that same jurisdiction. This calculation includes all RTA directly generated and non-RTA sources of funding, such as federal and state grants, passenger fares, and other system-generated revenues. The RTA further ensures compliance with the 85% Rule by managing the expenditure of local dollars so 85 percent of those locally generated dollars are expended within the jurisdiction as well. This secondary calculation only includes RTA directly generated revenue (via property tax millage or VRF), without including non-RTA sources of funding. This is a more restrictive standard than is required by law.

For a scenario to be viable, it must be sufficient to generate a positive agency cash balance in all years through 2036. If the RTA’s cash flows require the agency to take on debt, the funding mechanism must also allow the RTA to maintain a debt service coverage ratio equal to 1.5 or greater in all years in which debt is outstanding.

85% RULE COMPLIANCE The RTA’s legislation sets forth an “85% Rule,” which requires the RTA ensure not less than 85% of the money raised in each member jurisdiction through either an assessment or a motor vehicle registration tax is expended on the public transportation service routes located in that member jurisdiction. The provision was included to ensure to taxpayers in each jurisdiction are that 85% of their investment will be returned in the form of public transit service and infrastructure enhancements. MACOMB

OAKLAND

WASHTENAW

WAYNE

DETROIT

On each proposed route identified in the RMTP, the RTA calculated operating and capital investments by route mile within each jurisdiction. Regional investments, like facilities and the seamless fare system, were allocated in proportion to route-specific capital and operating investments. Increased investment in Paratransit and Mobility Management were

For the Draft Plan to be viable it must comply with this 85% Rule. The RMTP meets the 85% rule using the most general and strictest interpretations of the law. Because the RTA’s expenditures, particularly for capital facilities, will be focused in some jurisdictions more at some times than others, it is possible the RTA will not comply with the 85% Rule in every jurisdiction when computed on a short-term basis. The RTA will track compliance on a cumulative multiyear basis. The financial model tracks 85% Rule compliance across an aggregate 20-year period from 2017 through 2036. To comply with the 85% Rule, the RTA worked extensively with a broad cross-section of stakeholders within each jurisdiction. The RTA collaborated with the public, government, and elected officials, existing transit providers, Financial Task Force, and other targeted stakeholder groups throughout the development of the RMTP. This led to a Draft Plan which not



TRANSIT SPENDING PER CAPITA (2014)

MINNEAPOLISST. PAUL

CLEVELAND

DENVER

$177

TRANSIT SPENDING PER CAPITA (RMTP) $500

$471

$400

$357 $283

$300

$0

SEATTLE

BOSTON

$100

$177

CHICAGO

$119

$177

$232

PITTSBURGH

$156

DENVER

$200

CLEVELAND

$214

MINNEAPOLISST. PAUL

$69

$156

$177

$232

$0

SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN

The Regional Master Transit Plan will more than double transit operations spending per capita in Southeast Michigan.

$119

ATLANTA

$200

$214

PITTSBURGH

$69

$100

The Draft Plan will increase regional per capita transit spending to $156 (2015$) from $69. Although transit spending in Southeast Michigan would still fall behind most other peer regions, this represents a significant increase in regional transit investment, and would go a long way toward meeting the needs of a region striving for greater economic resilience and growth.

$283

$300

SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN

The RMTP will more than double transit spending per capita in Southeast Michigan.

$357

ATLANTA

Transit spending per capita is a useful benchmark to measure the overall level of regional transit investment. As the RMTP was developed, peer region per capita spending was used as a guide for identifying an appropriate system size.


$400

SEATTLE

TRANSIT SPENDING PER CAPITA$471

$471

BOSTON

$500

CHICAGO

only fulfilled the requirements of the RTA legislation, but also met the varied needs of stakeholders within each jurisdiction.

136

9

137

Making it Real Implementing the RMTP

In this chapter...

139

139

The RTA is committed to keep the promises made to Southeast Michigan in the Regional Master Transit Plan. A detailed implementation plan allows the RTA to swiftly and efficiently deliver regional transit to Southeast Michigan. Even as a relatively new agency, the RTA has already accomplished a great deal. Throughout these accomplishments, the RTA has maintained transparency to ensure fiscal responsibility to the people of Southeast Michigan.

141

The RTA has laid out a detailed roadmap for the next 10 years. This implementation plan identifies the steps needed to make each component of the Regional Master Transit Plan a reality.

138


Making it Real 139

Time to Deliver The RTA maintains a commitment to keep the promises made to Southeast Michigan. With this mindset, the RTA has developed a roadmap for delivering the RMTP vision. Following this roadmap will require commitment from the RTA, the existing transit providers, key stakeholders, transit advocates, and the public at large. Upon adoption of the RMTP, the RTA will move swiftly and purposefully to make the RMTP a reality. This implementation plan outlines the activities and timing needed to fulfill the RMTP vision. It is a roadmap for delivering successful regional transit in Southeast Michigan. As required by the State of Michigan, it will be updated annually to track progress, celebrate achievements, and propose any necessary program changes. This will assure the RTA delivers the RMTP within the resources available.


Making it Real RTA’S EARLY SUCCESSES Despite being a relatively new agency, the RTA has already accomplished a great deal. ■■ Locally Preferred Alternatives – The RTA is on schedule to deliver three LPAs for the BRT corridors. ■■ First FTA Triennial Certification Review ■■ First Administrative Budget – The RTA’s three-year budget identified a funding shortfall in FY2017 of just over one million dollars. In a second year budget amendment, the forecasted deficit was reduced to just $100,000 in FY2017. The RTA carefully monitors spending and strives to be responsible stewards of limited funding. ■■ First External Audit – No findings of deficiency or material weaknesses were found in the RTA’s accounting processes. Throughout all these accomplishments, the RTA has maintained a commitment to transparency. Regular reporting, open board meetings, comprehensive content on the RTA website, and frequent meetings with the community illustrate this commitment.

OPPOSITE PAGE Construction of the QLINE (M-1 RAIL) streetcar in downtown Detroit.

140 Making it Real


RMTP PROJECTS SUMMARY 2016

‘17

‘18

‘19

Regional Services Regional Rail BRT Regional Express Commuter Express Cross-County Connector Local Airport Express ‘20

‘21

‘22

‘23

‘24

‘25

‘26

‘27

Regional Facilities & Transit Centers Regional Fare Integration Mobility Management Program Woodward BRT

Woodward Regional Express Gratiot Regional Express

Gratiot BRT

Ann Arbor Airport Express Detroit Airport Express Michigan BRT

Michigan Regional Express Canton Commuter Express Ann Arbor-Plymouth-Livonia Commuter Express


12 Mile East & West Cross-County Connector Grand River Cross-County Connector Greenfield Cross-County Connector Canal Local Ypsilanti Connector Local I-75 Commuter Express M-59 Commuter Express 8 Mile Cross-County Connector 9 Mile Cross-County Connector Van Dyke Cross-County Connector Fort/Eureka Cross-County Connector Ford Local Extenstion Middlebelt South Local Extenstion 15 Mile Cross-County Connector Jefferson Cross-County Connector Dequindre Local Extension Northville Local Plymouth Cross-County Connector Groesbeck Highway Local Highland Local I-275 County Airport Express Oakland County Airport Express Macomb County Airport Express Regional Rail Regional Rail Feeder Bus – Ann Arbor Regional Rail Feeder Bus – Ypsilanti Washtenaw BRT

‘28

‘29

‘30

‘31

‘32

‘33

‘34

‘35

‘36

‘37

‘38

‘39

‘40


Making it Real 141

Implementation Categories

Policy Development (PD) is needed to define the necessary RTA and partner responsibilities, implementation strategies, and procurement processes. This will occur for new services, such as BRT and Cross-County Connectors, and other programs funding services such as paratransit/mobility management. It will also be necessary to establish policies for the allocation of federal and state funding in the context of project-level financial plans. Policy development will generally occur during the planning phase, with some activities needing to begin before the 2016 RTA referendum.

Implementation Agreements (IA), such as intergovernmental agreements (IGAs), are necessary for program elements requiring cooperation between the RTA and the existing transit providers (such as Cross-County Connectors, expanded local service, and paratransit/mobility management services). These activities are anticipated to occur up to one year prior to the opening of projects.

PD Policy Development PMP Program Management Planning EC NEPA Assessments and Environmental Clearance FA Funding Application

Design includes preliminary and final engineering for capital improvement projects such as BRT. Some economies of scale can likely be realized if consistent program elements (stations, station amenities, ticket vending machines, etc.) are applied across the entire region.

IA Implementation Agreements Design Design CON Construction VP Vehicle Procurement

Program Management Planning (PMP) includes activities needed to leverage federal funding for specific elements of the RMTP. This includes refined capital cost estimates as BRT and regional rail project development activities proceed. Project specific scheduling, document control, quality control, and risk management are also included. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Assessments and Environmental Clearance (EC) is required for capital projects receiving federal funding. At a minimum, this will include the BRT and regional rail projects. Funding Application (FA) activities, such as New Starts and Small Starts grant applications, are necessary to secure federal funding. Successful grant applications will require advanced financial planning and clear funding commitments for RMTP projects.

Construction (CON) includes all actions necessary to implement the services within the RMTP. This includes, but is not limited to: road construction, utility relocations, stations, traffic signal modifications, systems and communication infrastructure, track upgrades and layover facilities, maintenance facilities, and transit centers. Other facilities and activities benefiting the entire system, including the regional call center and integrated fare system, will also be included. Vehicle Procurement (VP) includes coordinating with the existing transit providers to procure buses needed to provide RMTP services. Additional VP activities will be required for Regional Rail. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) includes executing agreements with the existing transit providers and developing and executing contracts with new O&M vendors.

O&M Operations and Maintenance


The implementation plan is organized by year for the first five years of the plan into the following broad categories:

142 Making it Real


YEARS 1-5


The first five years of the RMTP will establish a reliable regional transit network for Southeast Michigan. The immediate implementation of new paratransit and mobility management services will expand regional mobility from the onset. By planning for new services as soon as possible, the RTA will be able to introduce Cross-County Connectors, expanded local, airport express, and commuter express services in the first year of the program. These new services will greatly expand the usefulness and reach of the regional transit network. New capital projects will improve regional coordination (Regional Fare Integration program), increase reliability (new/improved maintenance facilities), and upgrade regional transit facilities (Transit Centers Program and Cross-County Connector capital improvements). Finally coordinated services between SMART and DDOT will provide the RTA with valuable lessons learned that can be applied to the implementation of BRT and also prepare the region for expanded rapid transit in the future.

ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY For planning purposes, implementation activities were developed with a traditional program delivery approach. By industry standards, this is considered the most conservative method for financial and implementation planning. However, the RTA recognizes the importance for providing rapid, reliable, and regional transit as quickly as possible. Following adoption of the RMTP, the RTA will convene a task force to evaluate alternative delivery approaches and assess whether expanded regional transit can be delivered quicker and more efficiently. One alternative delivery method combines the design and construction phases by issuing a single design/build contract. Overlapping these phases can save time during the bidding process. Additionally, buses and other long lead purchases

can be procured in advance during design. Many regional transit agencies across the country have found significant time savings with this approach without sacrificing quality.

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY The RTA is committed to responsible spending. Transportation dollars within Southeast Michigan and across our state are scarce, meaning every dollar must be spent effectively. Regional taxpayers expect and deserve a return on transit investments bringing economic and quality of life benefits. The RTA has already developed a transparent system of checks and balances to ensure accountability. This approach will be expanded to the delivery of the RMTP.

Years 6-20 After establishing a reliable regional network during the first five years of the program, the RTA will focus on expanding rapid transit in the region over the long-term. This includes opening all BRT corridors, establishing regional rail service between Ann Arbor and Detroit, and assuming operations of M-1 RAIL. Once these rapid transit services are operational, RTA’s focus will shift toward maintaining the regional system through asset management, ensuring RTA’s assets are maintained in a state of good repair.


Making it Real 143

REGIONAL RAIL 2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

Regional Rail Host Railroad Access Agreements Develop PMP Preliminary Design

EC IA

IA

PMP Program Management Planning

PMP Design

Vehicle Procurement Acquire ROW

PD Policy Development

VP ROW

VP

VP CON CON

System Integrated Testing and Safety Security Procurement for O&M Services

FA Funding Application

ROW

Construct Maintenance Facility Construct Layover Facility (if separate from MF)

EC NEPA Assessments and Environmental Clearance

Design

Design Design CON

O&M

O&M

Develop Operating SOP's & Conduct Training

O&M

Develop Rail Activation Plan

CON

Ann Arbor Regional Rail Feeder Bus Intergovernmental Agreement with AAATA

IA

Vehicle Procurement in partnership with AAATA

VP

O&M Contract with AAATA

VP O&M

Ypsilanti Regional Rail Feeder Bus Intergovernmental Agreement with AAATA

IA

Vehicle Procurement in partnership with AAATA

VP

O&M Contract with AAATA Services Above Begin in 2022

IA Implementation Agreements

VP O&M

CON Construction VP Vehicle Procurement O&M Operations and Maintenance


Environmental Clearance

144 Making it Real


BUS RAPID TRANSIT 2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

VP

VP

VP

CON

CON

2022

Woodward PD Policy Development PMP Program Management Planning EC NEPA Assessments and Environmental Clearance FA Funding Application IA Implementation Agreements DRAFT REGIONAL MASTER TRANSIT PLAN

Design Design CON Construction VP Vehicle Procurement O&M Operations and Maintenance

Regional Express Service IGA with Existing Providers

IA

Vehicle Procurement in Partnership with Providers

VP

VP

Service Begins in 2017 Until BRT Opens Complete Environmental Clearance

EC

Development of PMP

PMP

Development of Financial Plan

FA

Development of IGA

IA

Early Preliminary Engineering (0-30%)

Design

BRT Bus Procurement

VP

Preliminary Engineering (30%-60%)

Design

Request for Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA)

FA

Final Design (60%-100%)

Design

Construction System Integrated Testing and Safety Security

CON

Procurement for O&M Services

O&M

Develop Operating SOP's & Conduct Training

O&M

BRT Service Begins in 2022 Gratiot Regional Express Service IGA with Existing Providers

IA


VP

VP

Service Begins in 2017 Until BRT Opens Complete Environmental Clearance Development of PMP

EC PMP


FA

Development of IGA

IA

Early Preliminary Engineering (0-30%) BRT Bus Procurement

Design VP

VP

VP

VP

2023

2024

2025

2026


2017

2018


2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Design

Request for Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA)

FA

Final Design (60%-100%)

PD Policy Development Design

Construction

CON


O&M

PMP Program Management Planning EC NEPA Assessments and Environmental Clearance

BRT Service Begins in 2023


Michigan


Regional Express Service IGA with Existing Providers

IA


VP

Design Design VP

CON Construction

Service Begins in 2018 Until BRT Opens Complete Environmental Clearance Development of PMP

VP Vehicle Procurement

EC PMP


O&M Operations and Maintenance FA

Development of IGA

IA

Early Preliminary Engineering (0-30%) BRT Bus Procurement

Design VP

VP

VP


VP Design

Request for FFGA

FA


O&M

BRT Service Begins in 2026 Washtenaw Complete Environmental Clearance

EC

Development of PMP

PMP


FA

Development of IGA

IA

Early Preliminary Engineering (0-30%) BRT Bus Procurement Procurement for O&M Services BRT Service Begins in 2026

2026

Design VP

VP

VP

VP O&M


2016

Making it Real 145

146 Making it Real


CROSS-COUNTY CONNECTORS (C3) Policy Development PD Policy Development PMP Program Management Planning EC NEPA Assessments and Environmental Clearance FA Funding Application IA Implementation Agreements DRAFT REGIONAL MASTER TRANSIT PLAN


2016

2017

PD

PD

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Capital Investment Program IGA with Local Municipalities

IA

IA

IA

IA

IA

IA

IGA with Existing Providers

IA

IA

IA

IA

IA

IA

Environmental Clearance Design

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

Design

Design

Design

Design

Design

Design

CON

CON

CON

CON

CON

Construction Capital Improvements Completed by 2023 12 Mile (East) IGA with Existing Providers

IA


VP

O&M Contract with Existing Providers

VP O&M

12 Mile (West) IGA with Existing Providers

IA


VP


VP O&M

Grand River IGA with Existing Providers

IA


VP


VP O&M

Greenfield IGA with Existing Providers

IA


VP

O&M Contract with Existing Providers C3 Services Above Begin in 2018

VP O&M

CON

2024

2025

2026


2016

2017

2018

Making it Real 147

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

8-Mile IA


VP


PD Policy Development VP


O&M


9-Mile IGA with Existing Providers

IA


VP



VP


O&M

Van Dyke

Design Design


IA


VP


CON Construction

VP


O&M

Fort/Eureka



IA


VP


VP O&M

C3 Services Above Begin in 2019 15-Mile IGA with Existing Providers

IA


VP


VP O&M

Jefferson IGA with Existing Providers

IA


VP


VP O&M

C3 Services Above Begin in 2020 Plymouth IGA with Existing Providers

IA


VP

O&M Contract with Existing Providers C3 Services Above Begin in 2021

VP O&M



148 Making it Real


LOCAL SERVICE Policy Development PD Policy Development PMP Program Management Planning EC NEPA Assessments and Environmental Clearance FA Funding Application IA Implementation Agreements DRAFT REGIONAL MASTER TRANSIT PLAN


2016

2017

PD

PD

2018

2019

Canal IGA with Existing Providers

IA


VP


O&M

Ypsilanti Connector IGA with Existing Providers Vehicle Procurement in Partnership with Providers O&M Contract with Existing Providers

IA VP O&M

Local Services Above Begin in 2018 Ford (Extension) IGA with Existing Providers

IA


VP


O&M

Middlebelt South (Extension) IGA with Existing Providers Vehicle Procurement in Partnership with Providers O&M Contract with Existing Providers Local Services Above Begin in 2019

IA VP O&M

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026


2016

2017

2018

Making it Real 149

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

Dequindre (Extension) IA


PD Policy Development VP



O&M


Northville IGA with Existing Providers Vehicle Procurement in Partnership with Providers O&M Contract with Existing Providers

IA


VP


O&M

Local Services Above Begin in 2020

Design Design

Highland IGA with Existing Providers

CON Construction

IA


VP


O&M

Groesbeck Highway IGA with Existing Providers Vehicle Procurement in Partnership with Providers O&M Contract with Existing Providers Local Services Above Begin in 2021

IA VP O&M

VP Vehicle Procurement O&M Operations and Maintenance



150 Making it Real


COMMUTER EXPRESS 2016

2017

IGA with AAATA

PD

IA

Vehicle Procurement in Partnership with AAATA

VP

VP

2018

2019

Canton Express PD Policy Development PMP Program Management Planning EC NEPA Assessments and Environmental Clearance FA Funding Application IA Implementation Agreements DRAFT REGIONAL MASTER TRANSIT PLAN



VP O&M

Ann Arbor-Plymouth-Livonia IGA with AAATA Vehicle Procurement in Partnership with AAATA Station/Capital Improvements Design

PD

IA

VP

VP

VP

Design

Construction

CON


O&M

Commuter Express Services Above Begin in 2018 I-75 Develop IGA Vehicle Procurement Station/Capital Improvements Design

VP

PD

IA

VP

VP

Design

Construction

CON

Procurement of O&M Contract

O&M

M-59 Develop IGA Vehicle Procurement Station/Capital Improvements Design Construction Procurement of O&M Contract Commuter Express Services Above Begin in 2019

VP

PD

IA

VP

VP

Design CON O&M

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026


Making it Real 151

AIRPORT EXPRESS 2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

DTW to Detroit Define Downtown Detroit Service Develop RFP Execute Contract

IA

PD Policy Development

PD


O&M


O&M

Service Begins in 2017


DTW to Ann Arbor Evaluate Rebranding Evaluate Existing Contract


PD O&M

Design Design

RTA Takes Over Service in 2017

CON Construction

DTW to Oakland County (Novi) Define Service to Novi via I-275


PD

Develop RFP

O&M

Execute Contract

O&M Operations and Maintenance O&M

DTW to Oakland County (Troy) Define Service to Troy

PD

Develop RFP

O&M

Execute Contract

O&M

DTW to Macomb County Define Service to Macomb County Develop RFP Execute Contract Airport Express Services Above Begin in 2021

PD O&M O&M


Develop Wayside Agreement with WCAA

152 Making it Real


REGIONAL SERVICES 2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

Integrated Fare Card & System PD Policy Development PMP Program Management Planning EC NEPA Assessments and Environmental Clearance FA Funding Application IA Implementation Agreements DRAFT REGIONAL MASTER TRANSIT PLAN

Design Design CON Construction VP Vehicle Procurement

Fare Policy Development

PD


IA

Issue RFP

Design

Procurement/Construction/Implementation

CON

CON

Design

Design

Design

CON

CON

CON

CON

CON

CON

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

Design

CON

PD

PD

PD

PD

PD

PD

PD

PD

PD

PD

Completed by 2018 Regional Facilities Design

Design

IGA with Local Municipalities Where Necessary

IA

IGA with Existing Providers Where Necessary

IA

Construction Completed by 2023


MOBILITY MANAGEMENT 2016 Develop a Task Force to Define Program

PD

Roll Out Plan to Interested Agencies/Stakeholders

PD

Initiate One-Call/One-Click Systems Annual Program

Making it Real 153



154

10

155

Benefits of Regional Transit In this chapter...

157

A rapid, reliable, and regional transit system addresses many of the things that matter to the people of Southeast Michigan and solves the challenges of our existing system.

159

An efficient and effectively coordinated regional transit system is crucial to Southeast Michigan’s economy. It will help more people access jobs throughout the region and support local economic development.

156


Benefits of Regional Transit 157

Benefits of Regional Transit Rapid, Reliable, Regional The Regional Master Transit Plan will bring rapid, reliable, regional transit to Southeast Michigan. The RTA is the only agency with the power to create such a plan, one that brings all of the current providers together in a coordinated, connected, and more efficient system. The RMTP will create a transit system for Southeast Michigan that is: Rapid to get you where you need to go quickly and efficiently, with higher frequencies, less waiting, and without time-consuming transfers from one transit provider to another. ■■ Increased frequencies and longer spans of services ■■ Cross-county travel without the need to transfer ■■ Bus Rapid Transit and Regional Rail services

Regional to get you to the places you want and need to go— whether its work, home, school, or shopping—when you need to get there, throughout Southeast Michigan with a seamless and coordinated system. ■■ Expanded transit and paratransit coverage to serve more people and connect them to more employment and educational opportunities ■■ One universal regional fare card for easier transfers ■■ A centralized source for travel information and paratransit services ■■ More coordination between the existing transit providers

If mobility is restrained, it limits our ability to grow as a region. Sandy Baruah President and CEO Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce

Reliable to get you where you need to go on time, without wondering when or if a bus will ever come. ■■ Regional services with features to help buses stay on schedule ■■ New vehicles and facilities to maintain the ones we already have OPPOSITE PAGE Rosa Parks Transit Center in Downtown Detroit.



Economic Impact of Rapid, Reliable, Regional Transit? The Michigan Department of Transportation conducted an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) of the Draft RMTP. The analysis identified the economic benefit of new investment on transit service within Southeast Michigan by the RTA over a 20 year period from 2017 to 2036.

METHODOLOGY

Regional transit might help improve the lives of many, many people. RTA Kickoff Rally May 12, 2015

The Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) model used to analyze transit-only spending effects relies on policy variables selected through the REMI, TranSight regional modeling system. The Michigan 84-Regional model, Version 3.7.6, Build 4056 was used for this particular study. MDOT assumed consistent input of regional capital cost expenditures, O&M expenditures, and additional funding from the proposed 1.2 mill increase in transit spending. The total transit capital and O&M spending from 2017 to 2036 was assumed to be $4.6 billion (2015$). The analysis measured the benefits on employment, gross regional product (GRP), and real personal income as well as the rate of return for transit investment.

RESULTS Over 20 years, the economic impacts of the RMTP in Southeast Michigan were determined to be: ■■ 67,844 jobs supported, averaging 3,392 jobs per year ■■ Approximately $6.0 billion (in 2015$) added in gross regional product ■■ Approximately $4.4 billion (in 2015$) growth in real personal income In addition to the economic impact stated above for Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties in Southeast Michigan, the $4.6 billion (2015$) in transit spending will also generate some economic activities in neighboring counties. The total statewide economic impact of the RMTP includes: ■■ 72,941 jobs supported, averaging 3,647 jobs per year ■■ Approximately $6.4 billion (in 2015$) added in gross regional product ■■ Approximately $5.3 billion (in 2015$) growth in real personal income

159

Why Invest in Rapid, Reliable, Regional Transit? The Regional Master Transit Plan addresses the things that matter to you… Mobility – A comprehensive network of regional services (such as BRT, regional rail, and Cross-County Connector) will simplify regional travel and allow people to move throughout Southeast Michigan. 60% of people in Southeast Michigan will live near transit. Nearly half will live near transit which comes every 30 minutes or better, and almost one-quarter will live near transit which comes every 15 minutes or better. Expanded and coordinated paratransit and mobility management services will make it easier for those who cannot use the fixed-route transit system to get where they need to go.

2,486,020 people will live near transit.

Job Access – Cross-County Connectors and Commuter Express services will connect the region to major employment centers. Three-quarters of the region’s jobs will be accessible by transit. More importantly, nearly 60% more jobs will be accessible by transit with a 15-minute frequency or better.

60%

MORE JOBS

accessible to convenient, high frequency transit. Travel Time – New rapid transit services (such as BRT, regional rail, and the M-1 RAIL streetcar) will get you where you need to go quickly. New regional services (such as CrossCounty Connectors and Commuter Express) will move you across the region without the need to transfer between buses.

Reliability – New and upgraded maintenance facilities will help ensure vehicles last longer and operate more reliably. Other projects, such as dedicated bus-only lanes and Transit Signal Priority (TSP), will allow buses to stay on schedule, even in congested traffic, to offer service you can depend on. Livability – A network of rapid, reliable, and regional transit services will make for a more livable Southeast Michigan. The new system will increase the quality of life for all, offering benefits like new job opportunities, more time spent with friends and less time spent in traffic, the ability to live a healthier lifestyle, and money saved by driving less. New transit services, especially premium rapid transit like BRT, regional rail, and the M-1 RAIL streetcar, can increase property values and generate new development. Downtown and Midtown Detroit are already seeing the benefits of the QLINE streetcar, even though it won’t begin service until 2017. Environment – A regional system which connects people to the places they want and need to go means less vehicles on the road and therefore less harmful pollution as a result. Efficiency – A coordinated network of local and regional services will create a more efficient, unified and seamless regional transit system for Southeast Michigan. New regional services such as a universal regional fare card and a centralized source of travel information will make the system easier to use. Connectivity – A regional network of services will connect you to the places you need to go. With less need for complex transfers, regional travel will be simpler and faster.

Everyone should have access to safe, clean, and reliable transportation. People need to be connected to jobs and opportunity throughout the region. RTA Kickoff Rally May 12, 2015


The Regional Master Transit Plan will improve the region’s economy… Economic Returns – The American Public Transportation Association completed an economic study and found that for every $1 communities invest in public transportation, approximately $4 is generated in economic returns.

Every dollar invested in public transit generates

Construction continues for the QLINE streetcar in Detroit as new development is already taking place along Woodward Avenue.

$4

IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.

Source: American Public Transportation Association

An Economic Impact Analysis found Southeast Michigan will experience substantial economic benefits over the next 20 years by implementing the RMTP. These benefits will be experienced by all four counties in the RTA region.

Over the next 20 years, direct investment in regional transit could result in:

67,800

$6.0 $4.4

JOBS SUPPORTED

BILLION

ADDITIONAL GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT

BILLION

GROWTH IN PERSONAL INCOME

Source: Michigan Department of Transportation

The evidence is compelling, the results of the analysis indicate that people use Public Transportation for two reasons: to spend money and to make money. Southeast Michigan could use a lot more of both! Supports Local Economic Development – Public transportation directly supports economic development by building stronger and more livable neighborhoods. M-1 RAIL is a local example of transit’s ability to generate new local investment.

M-1 RAIL:

Over the next 10 years

130 $3

OVER


developments underway, with more on the way.

BILLION IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

10,000 new housing units and over 5 million sq ft of new commercial space. Source: M-1 RAIL

Job Creation – Investing in transit will create new bus operator, mechanic, and administration jobs for the existing providers and the RTA. Plus, the economic development from these transit investments can create new jobs throughout the region. Reduced Transportation Costs – Using transit costs less than owning and operating a vehicle. Without gas, maintenance, insurance, parking, and monthly car payments, people who utilize transit pay less altogether for transportation. These savings can be reinvested into our economy.


Benefits of Regional Transit 161

The Regional Master Transit Plan solves the challenges of our existing transit system…

CONNECTING THE REGION

Convenience – New services will run more frequently and stay open later than services typically do today. Reliability – Investments in maintenance facilities and new vehicles will help keep buses on the street. Regional Travel – The network will connect new parts of the region to transit. 60% of people will be able to walk to transit and 75% of jobs will be served by transit. Many more people and jobs will be served by frequent service than are today. Coordination – New regional services, like a universal regional fare card and consistent paratransit and mobility management services, will make for a more seamless and easy to use system for all. Cross-County Connectors and BRT services will allow for regional travel without transfers, even during the midday and on the weekends.

Safety – New investments in passenger facilities means safer, better lit, and more comfortable transit stations throughout the region. Rapid Transit – New rapid transit services, such as BRT, Regional Rail, expanded Airport Express service, and the QLINE streetcar, will offer Southeast Michigan premium services which don’t exist today. Transit Funding – The RMTP will increase transit funding in Southeast Michigan by 126%, bringing us closer to that of our peers.

126%

New rapid, reliable, regional services from RMTP will directly serve...

946,200 Jobs 1,125,500 People 23 Colleges 290 Schools 22 Hospitals 104 Grocery Stores

INCREASE

in transit operations spending per person.

Paratransit/Mobility Management – New programs will expand paratransit, demand response, and mobility management services throughout the region. A centralized source of information will also make it easier for people to use these services.

414 Parks 47 Libraries

162


Endnotes 163

Endnotes 1 American Public Transportation Association. “Public Transportation Benefits”. Retrieved from http://www.apta.com/ mediacenter/ptbenefits/Pages/default.aspx 2 Stanton, Ryan (November 4, 2015). Michigan Live. “Scio Township approves new transit tax to expand AAATA bus service”. Retrieved from http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2015/11/scio_transit_millage_2015.html 3 Stanton, Ryan (Feburary 25, 2016). Michigan Live. “U-M taking lead role on Ann Arbor light rail project as it enters next phase”. Retrieved from http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2016/02/u-m_taking_lead_role_on_ann_ar.html 4 American Public Transportation Association (2006). Older American Attitudes Toward Mobility and Transportation. 5 Walsh, Dustin (March 29, 2015). Crain’s Detroit Business. “What employers need to know about metro Detroit millennials”. Retrieved from http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20150329/FEATURE05/303299995/ what-employers-need-to-know-about-metro-detroit-millennials 6 Rockefeller Foundation (April 22, 2014). “Access to Public Transportation a Top Criterion for Millennials When Deciding Where to Live, New Survey Shows “. Retrieved from https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/about-us/news-media/ access-public-transportation-top/ 7 Sivak, Michael (January 2014). University of Michigan – Transportation Research Institute. “Has Motorization in the U.S. Peaked? Part 4: Households without a Light-Duty Vehicle”. 8 Workers Age 16 and Over. 2009-2013 American Community Survey 9 Megna, Michelle (Janurary 22, 2015). CarInsurance.com. “Highest and lowest car insurance rates by ZIP code“. Retrieved from http://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/car-insurance-rate-comparison.aspx 10 Figures were combined by adding demand-based on population and employment densities and then factoring that combined demand up or down based on demographic characteristics. 11 Anbinder, Jacob (January 29, 2015). U.S. News & World Report. “Detroit’s Road to Transit Ruin”. Retrieved from http://www. usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/01/29/detroit-on-the-road-to-transit-ruin-thanks-to-michigan-gas-tax-initiative 12 Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit. American Public Transportation Association. March, 2016. http:// sharedusemobilitycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Final_TOPT_DigitalPages-03.11.16.pdf

OPPOSITE PAGE A family boarding the AirRide Airport Express from Ann Arbor to Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Image courtesy of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

164 Endnotes


13 University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies (2014). Access Across America: Transit 2014. Retrieved from http:// access.umn.edu/research/america/transit/2014/ 14 Studies calling for rapid transit services in Southeast Michigan include A 1997 transportation vision report from the Metropolitan Affairs Coalition and the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, Improving Transit in the SEMCOG Region: Framework for Action (SEMCOG, 2001), the Comprehensive Regional Transit Service Plan (RTCC, 2008), the Regional Long Range Transportation Plan – Direction 2035 (SEMCOG, 2009), and SEMCOG’s 2013 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan. 15 SEMCOG (2001). Improving Transit in Southeast Michigan: A Framework for Action. Retrieved from http://semcog.org/desktopmodules/SEMCOG.Publications/GetFile. ashx?filename=ImprovingTransitInSoutheastMichiganAFrameworkForActionOctober2001.pdf 16 Michigan Department of Transportation. Accessed September 2015. Local Bus Capital and Operating Assistance Programs. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-11056_11266-26940--,00.html 17 Federal Transit Administration. Accessed September 2015. Fact Sheet: Urbanized Area Formula Grants Section 5307 & Section 5304. Retrieved from http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP-21_Fact_Sheet_-_Urbanized_Area_Formula_Grants.pdf 18 Federal Transit Administration. Accessed September 2015. Fact Sheet: Bus and Bus Facilities. Retrieved from http://www.fta. dot.gov/documents/MAP-21_Fact_Sheet_-_Bus_and_Bus_Facilities.pdf 19 Federal Transit Administration. Accessed September 2015. Fact Sheet: Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants (“New Starts”). Retrieved from http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP-21_Fact_Sheet_-_Fixed_Guideway_Capital_Investment_ Grants.pdf 20 Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/summaryinfo.cfm 21 Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/cmaq.cfm

1001 Woodward Avenue, Suite 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 313-402-1020 rtamichigan.org [email protected] facebook.com/rtamichigan @rtamichigan