Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation Report

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

FINAL

March 2010

URS Corporation Fifth Street Towers 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SUMMARY...... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1-1 1.2 Role of Fatal Flaw Analysis...... 1-1 1.3 Development and Use of Criteria ...... 1-2 1.4 Outcomes...... 1-5 2.0 PART ONE: MODE EVALUATION...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Conceptual Cost...... 2-2 2.3 Transit Ridership ...... 2-10 2.4 Irresolvable Environmental Issues...... 2-33 2.5 Agency and Public Opposition...... 2-46 2.6 Consistency with Local Plans and Policies ...... 2-54 3.0 PART TWO: SEGMENT/ALIGNMENT EVALUATION...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2 Potential Traffic Volumes ...... 3-7 3.3 Potential Traffic Flow Impacts...... 3-19 3.4 Agency and Public Opposition...... 3-27 4.0 CONCLUSION ...... 4-1 4.1 Summary Outcome ...... 4-1 4.2 Next Steps...... 4-2

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Part 1 Evaluation Matrices

Appendix B: Projected Ridership Data

Appendix C: Level of Service Detail

Appendix D: Part 2 Evaluation Matrices

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation i Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Major Corridor Destinations...... 1-1 Figure 2.1 2005 Population Density ...... 2-11 Figure 2.2 Projected 2035 Population Density ...... 2-12 Figure 2.3 2005 Employment Density ...... 2-13 Figure 2.4 Projected 2035 Employment Density...... 2-14 Figure 2.5 Conceptual Streetcar/Bus Station and 0.5 Mile Buffer...... 2-16 Figure 2.6 Conceptual BRT/LRT/People Mover/PRT Station and 0.5 Mile Buffer ...... 2-17 Figure 2.7 Conceptual Heavy Rail/Monorail Station and 0.5 Mile Buffer ...... 2-18 Figure 2.8 Conceptual Commuter Rail Station and 1.0 Mile Buffer...... 2-19 Figure 2.9 Conceptual MagLev Station and 3.0 Mile Buffer...... 2-20 Figure 3.1 Segment A Options: Downtown Lansing...... 3-2 Figure 3.2 Segment B Options: E. Lansing/Lansing Twp...... 3-3 Figure 3.3 Segment C Options: East Lansing ...... 3-4 Figure 3.4 Segment D Options: E. Lansing ...... 3-5 Figure 3.5 Segment E Options: E. Lansing...... 3-6 Figure 3.6 Segment F Options: Meridian Township...... 3-7 Figure 3.7 Corridor Segment Map ...... 3-9 Figure 3.8 Existing Segment ADT and LOS...... 3-11 Figure 3.9 Future Segment ADT and LOS ...... 3-13

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation ii Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Summary Result of Part 1 Evaluation ...... 1-4

Table 1-2: Summary Result of Part 2 Evaluation ...... 1-5

Table 2-1: Summary of Conceptual Capital Costs (2010 Dollars)...... 2-2

Table 2-2: Relative Operating and Maintenance Costs ...... 2-6

Table 2-3: Summary Results of Conceptual Cost Analysis...... 2-9

Table 2-4: Ridership Evaluation Summary...... 2-30

Table 2-5: Irresolvable Environmental Issues Evaluation Summary ...... 2-43

Table 2-6: Business and Developer Meeting Results ...... 2-49

Table 2-7: Public Stakeholder Meeting Results...... 2-51

Table 2-8: Web Site Input...... 2-53

Table 2-9: Transportation & Mobility Goals...... 2-55

Table 2-10: Land Use and Development Goals...... 2-58

Table 2-11: Economic Development Goals...... 2-62

Table 3-1: Existing (2005) Intersection Level of Service...... 3-14

Table 3-2: Future (2035) Intersection Level of Service...... 3-15

Table 3-3: Summary of Traffic Volume Analysis by Segment/Alignment: Rail ...... 3-16

Table 3-4: Summary of Traffic Volume Analysis by Segment/Alignment: Bus Rapid Transit ...... 3-18

Table 3-5: Business and Development Meeting Results – Rail...... 3-27

Table 3-6: Business and Developer Meeting Results – BRT ...... 3-28

Table 3-7: Public Stakeholder Meeting Results – Rail...... 3-30

Table 3-8: Public Stakeholder Meeting Results - BRT ...... 3-31

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation iii Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 3-9: Web Input Results - Rail ...... 3-32

Table 3-10: Web Input Results - BRT ...... 3-33

Table 4-1: Summary of Study Outcomes...... 4-1

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AA Alternatives Analysis

AGT Automated Guideway Transit

BRT Bus Rapid Transit

CATA Capital Area Transportation Authority

DMU Diesel Multiple Unit

FTA Federal Transit Administration

LOS Level of Service

LRT Light Rail Transit

LPA Locally Preferred Alternative

PRT Personal Rapid Transit

MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation

MSU Michigan State University

TCRPC Tri-County Regional Planning Commission

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation iv Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 Project Description

The Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA), in consultation with local project participants and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), has undertaken this study of transportation segment options to address future travel demands and to identify potential and feasible alternative transportation improvements for travel along the Michigan/Grand Avenue Corridor, one of the key transportation corridors in the tri-county Lansing area. The Corridor is approximately 7.5 miles long and stretches between the State Capitol, downtown Lansing, Sparrow Hospital, downtown East Lansing, Michigan State University, and the Meridian Mall, connecting multiple cities and townships and regionally centers of employment, education, health care, and recreation. Through this study, CATA intends to work with the region to advance the implementation of regional and local transportation improvements to serve current and future population and employment centers. As part of the Alternative Analysis (AA) process, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires that the study address a wide range of multimodal transportation issues (including roadway, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians) and a broad set of potential social, environmental, cultural and land use impacts in the Corridor.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 1-1 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

1.2 Role of Fatal Flaw Analysis

Eight transit modes have been identified for potential implementation within the study Corridor through previous stages of this planning process. The operational and design characteristics of each of these modes was discussed in “Technical Memorandum #3: Transit Technology Inventory” and defined in the “Preliminary Definition of Transportation Segment Options” report. In addition to maintenance of the existing system and improvements to the existing bus and non-motorized transportation network, the following eight modes have been identified and subjected to evaluation:  Bus (conventional and trolley)  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) (conventional and guided)  Light Rail Transit (LRT)  Modern streetcar  Heavy Rail  Magnetic Levitation (MagLev)  Commuter Rail (conventional and Diesel Multiple Unit)  Automated Guideway Transit (People Mover, Monorail, and Personal Rapid Transit) The purpose of the Fatal Flaw Analysis is to subject each of these modes to two parts of analysis: Part 1 has evaluated the overall implementation viability of each of the modes against a series of five criteria, the details of which are described in Section 2.0 of this report. Part 2 of the Fatal Flaw Analysis has evaluated the modes that passed the Part 1 analysis for their performance against an additional set of three criteria. As described in Section 3.0 of this report, preliminary alignments for these remaining three modes have been developed within the physical context of the Corridor to facilitate a more refined level of analysis. The three modes and alignments that passed Part 2 will move into the most detailed level of analysis during the next stage of the project, the Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives. The mode and alignment identified through that evaluation process will be named as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 1-2 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

1.3 Development and Use of Criteria

A set of five criteria and sub-criteria were developed for use in screening the modes in Part 1 of this analysis:  Conceptual cost o Capital Cost o Operating and Maintenance Cost  Transit ridership o Employees in ridershed o Residents in ridershed o Suitability of mode in meeting Corridor travel needs  Irresolvable environmental issues o Aesthetic impacts o Environmental justice/social equity issues o Impacts in historical/cultural resources  Agency and public opposition o Results from business and development meetings o Results from public stakeholder meetings o Input from website  Consistency with local plans and policies o Transportation/mobility goals o Land use and development goals o Economic development goals These specific criteria were chosen because they address the operational characteristics that most clearly highlight key cross-modal points of comparison. These criteria also are similar to some of the criteria used by the FTA when evaluating projects through the New Starts federal funding process. The use of these criteria, then, sets a solid foundation from which the study team can build a case for federal funding assistance in implementing transit improvements within the study Corridor. A detailed summary of the evaluation and scoring system used in Part 1 can be Section 2.0 and Appendix A. A summary of the results of the Part 1 analysis is included below.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 1-3 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 1-1: Summary Result of Part 1 Evaluation

Mode Rating

Conventional  Bus Trolley Bus  Conventional  BRT Guided  LRT  Modern Streetcar  MagLev  Heavy Rail  Conventional  Commuter Rail DMU  People Mover  AGT Monorail  PRT 

Rating Definition  Pass Part 1 Evaluation  Failed Part 1 Evaluation

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 1-4 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Following Part 1, the three remaining alternatives were subjected to a level of analysis that was designed to evaluate the potential modes and alignments within the physical context of the Corridor. Variations in the width of the Corridor’s right-of-way, land use and development patterns, and traffic patterns require a level of analysis that acknowledges the Corridor’s unique operational environment and eliminates modes that fail to adequately meet study Goals and Objectives within this environment. The following criteria and sub-criteria were used in Part 2:  Potential Traffic Volumes o Impact on 2005 Level of Service o Impact on 2035 Level of Service  Potential Traffic Flow Impacts  Agency and Public Opposition o Results from business and developer meetings o Results from public stakeholder meetings o Input from web site A detailed summary of the evaluation and scoring system used in Part 2 can be Section 3.0 and Appendix A. A summary of the results from the Part 2 analysis in included below:

Table 1-2: Summary Result of Part 2 Evaluation

Mode Rating

Center-Running  BRT Curb-Running  Center-Running  Modern Streetcar Curb-Running  Center-Running  Light Rail Curb-Running 

Rating Definition  Pass Part 2 Evaluation  Failed Part 2 Evaluation

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 1-5 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

1.4 Recommendations

As shown in Table 1-1 above and discussed in Section 2.0, the three modes retained for further analysis in Part 2 were BRT, streetcar, and LRT. Comparatively high capital and operating and maintenance costs required for MagLev and heavy rail service, in combination with a scale of service that is disproportionate to the scale of the Corridor, contributed to the elimination of these two modes from evaluation in Part 2. Commuter rail system capital costs are projected to be lower than MagLev or heavy rail, but system operating and maintenance costs are among the highest of the modes surveyed. The scale of commuter rail service, like MagLev and heavy rail, is not compatible with the environment and character of the Corridor. The three Automated Transit Guideway alternatives were comparatively expensive, do not meet the Corridor’s travel needs, and are not consistent with local plans and policies for the Corridor. BRT, modern streetcar, and LRT were advanced into Part 2 screening because they demonstrated feasible conceptual cost estimates, an ability to serve riders from the densest employment and residential concentrations, suitability in meeting Corridor travel needs, and consistency with local plans and policies. Part 2 evaluated these three modes for their operational suitability within the built environment of the Corridor. As shown in Table 1-2 above and discussed in Section 3.0, the three transitway configurations of the remaining modes that are being retained for further analysis are center-running BRT, center-running streetcar, and center-running LRT. A center-running transitway through the Michigan/Grand River Corridor would preserve as much of the existing access to adjacent land uses. It would also provide optimal travel time advantages to transit by minimizing delays from general traffic that are associated with turning traffic, parking vehicles and the like. Additionally, it would allow for safe co-location of bike lanes within the street right-of-way. These are the rationale for center-running rapid transit operating within arterial roadway rights-of-way throughout the United States. Of course, the Michigan/Grand River Corridor has areas of constraint that require further study during conceptual engineering, and that may result in deviations from the general vision of center-running transitway that is recommended herein. Such considerations include analysis of the alignment in downtown Lansing, the narrowest point of the Corridor in East Lansing, and the end of line in Meridian Township. In addition to center-running BRT, modern streetcar and LRT, the detailed development and evaluation of alternatives also entails defining and analyzing enhanced bus service and facilities within the Corridor, as proscribed by the FTA.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 1-6 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

2.0 PART ONE: MODE EVALUATION

2.1 Introduction

Part 1 of this fatal flaw analysis was intended to evaluate potential transit system investments from a modal level. As previously discussed, each of the eight modes was rated for its performance against a series of five criteria, which were developed to most clearly reveal differences between the modes and to facilitate the elimination of poorly performing modes from further consideration. As previously discussed, the following criteria and sub-criteria were used during this level of analysis:  Conceptual cost - Capital Cost - Operating and Maintenance Cost  Transit ridership - Employees in ridershed - Residents in ridershed - Suitability of mode in meeting Corridor travel needs  Irresolvable environmental issues - Aesthetic impacts - Environmental justice/social equity issues - Impacts in historical/cultural resources  Agency and public opposition - Results from business and development meetings - Results from public stakeholder meetings - Input from website  Consistency with local plans and policies - Transportation/mobility goals - Land use and development goals - Economic development goals The modes were evaluated against a three-tier scale for each of the criteria and sub-criterion:

Rating Definition  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-1 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Modes that scored in the highest category (“mode meets criterion very well”) were awarded two points, modes that scored in the middle category (“mode meets criterion sufficiently”) were awarded one point, and modes that scored in the lowest category (“mode does not meet criterion”) were awarded no points. Following the completion of the evaluation, points were tallied, and those modes that scored at least 50 percent of the maximum possible score (14 out of 28 possible points) were carried forward into the next level of evaluation. Details of the evaluation process are discussed in Sections 2.2 through 2.6 of this report, and summary evaluations with scoring results are available in Appendix A: Evaluation Matrix.

2.2 Conceptual Cost

“Technical Memorandum #3: Transit Technology Inventory” described the variety of modes under evaluation and developed the conceptual capital cost per mile of each mode, based on the recent experiences of transit agencies and cities across the country. As part of the Fatal Flaw Analysis, the consulting team has refined these conceptual capital costs and outlined conceptual operating and maintenance costs for each mode. The conceptual capital cost figures were refined using the most updated engineering and materials cost data, while operating and maintenance costs were drawn from aggregate data submitted to the National Transit Database (NTD) by transit agencies around the country. In instances where a scarcity of mode implementation resulted in limited available cost data, costs developed through completed systems planning efforts have been used. Both the capital and operating and maintenance costs presented below are conceptual: they will be refined within the next level of analysis so that they more accurately reflect the costs associated with system implementation within the Michigan/Grand River Avenue Corridor.

Conceptual Capital Costs

Conceptual capital costs have been projected on a per-mile basis for each of the modes under evaluation. Table 2-1 presents these costs and the associated considerations. Modes that exceeded a projected minimum capital cost of $40 million per mile where designated as failing to meet the minimum criteria, relative to the distribution of values for all of the modes under consideration

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-2 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 2-1: Summary of Conceptual Capital Costs (2010 Dollars)

Mode Conceptual Capital Cost per Mile Notes Rating Conventional bus service uses Conventional Bus Depends of fleet type and size.  existing roadways  Requires extensive infrastructure Trolley Bus $900,000 - $1,400,000  for catenary.  Depends on the mix of street- running and exclusive bus lanes; Conventional BRT $10,000,000 - $40,000,000  cost also varies by fleet type and  size. Higher capital costs are associated Guided BRT $10,000,000 - $50,000,000 with guided BRT because of the  required infrastructure. Major cost items include vehicle storage and maintenance facilities, Light Rail $30,000,000 - $80,000,000  overhead electrical power  distribution, and vehicles. Major cost items include vehicle storage and maintenance facilities, Modern Streetcar $15,000,000 - $40,000,000  overhead electrical power  distribution, and vehicles. No maglev system is currently operational within the U.S.; Baltimore – Washington, D.C. MagLev vehicles, tracks, and maintenance  concept: $110,000,000+  facilities are some major cost concerns. Major cost items include grade separation, vehicle storage and Heavy Rail $50,000,000 - $120,000,000  maintenance facilities, electrical  power distribution, and vehicles. Capital costs need to balance with annual operating and maintenance Conventional $5,000,000 - $20,000,000 costs, especially where freight  Commuter Rail  railroads are involved in operations. Capital costs need to balance with annual operating and maintenance DMU Commuter Rail $5,000,000 - $20,000,000 costs, especially where freight  railroads are involved in operations. Systems operating in the U.S. People Mover $40,000,000 - $60,000,000  utilize elevated trackways  Systems operating in the U.S. Monorail $40,000,000 - $60,000,000  utilize elevated trackways  Morgantown, WV is the only PRT $25,000,000 system operating in the U.S., and  operates on elevated trackway.

Source: Based on transit agency experience and professional estimates

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-3 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Rating Definition  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion

Discussion

Bus Conventional Bus Conventional bus service has among the lowest conceptual unit capital costs because buses operate on existing roadways and typically require the lowest level of infrastructure investment. Capital costs vary based on the type and size of fleet: the purchase of vehicles is the most capital-intensive investment in providing conventional bus service. Conventional bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Trolley The catenary infrastructure required to electrify trolley buses adds approximately $900,000 to $1.4 million in capital costs per mile on top of fleet costs that are associated with conventional bus service. Trolley bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Bus Rapid Transit Conventional The conceptual costs of conventional BRT service depend upon the mixture of street-running and exclusive bus lanes. Capital costs will typically be higher for exclusive bus lanes because of the infrastructure that is typically required to maintain operational exclusivity. Like conventional bus service, costs are also affected by the size and type of fleet: the passenger amenities associated with BRT buses vary greatly from comparatively minimalist to luxury vehicles. The capital costs of these vehicles range accordingly. Conventional BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Guided The infrastructure and equipment required for bus guidance add capital costs on top of the cost associated with conventional BRT. Guided BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Light Rail Transit The system electrification, utility relocation, vehicles, and storage and maintenance facilities that are required for LRT service would result in per unit capital costs that are approximately double those for BRT service. LRT systems pass when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Modern Streetcar While streetcar systems require infrastructure investment that is similar to LRT service, the comparatively smaller scale of service translates into less capital-intensive construction activities. Specifically, the comparatively lighter vehicle weight of streetcars means that, unlike LRT, streetcar

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-4 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

service may not require the relocation of utilities that are located underneath tracks. Streetcars also typically require less station infrastructure and amenities than is associated with LRT service. Streetcar systems pass when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Magnetic Levitation There are currently no MagLev systems operating within the United States. While there are systems operating in Asia, vast differences in the regulatory, political, and economic environment would invalidate the direct translation of capital costs from these projects to a potential MagLev project in the United States. Of the three MagLev systems that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is currently evaluating for potential implementation within the U.S., one potential project, between Baltimore, MD and Washington, D.C. has identified a potential per mile unit capital cost of $110 million. This unit cost exceeds what is feasible for the Michigan/Grand River Corridor. MagLev fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Heavy Rail Major capital cost items required for heavy rail service include grade separation, electrification (typically through a third rail), vehicle storage and maintenance facilities, track infrastructure, and vehicles. Like MagLev, the per-mile unit capital cost projected for heavy rail service exceeds what is feasible within the Michigan/Grand River Avenue Corridor. Heavy rail fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Commuter Rail Conventional The capital cost estimates for both conventional and DMU commuter rail service could fall within a comparatively wide range because of the potential involvement of freight rail operators. The potential use of existing freight rights-of-way and trackage for commuter rail service could decrease capital costs. Conventional commuter rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) DMU commuter rail service is subject to similar capital considerations as conventional commuter rail service. DMU commuter rail service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) People Mover The comparatively high conceptual capital costs associated with People Mover service are largely a function of the elevated trackway on which existing U.S. systems operate; it is significantly more expensive to construct elevated or subway rail transit systems than at-grade. People Movers pass when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Monorail Like People Movers, the comparatively high conceptual capital costs associated with monorail service are largely a function of the elevated trackway on which existing U.S. systems operate. Monorails pass when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-5 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) The only PRT system currently operating in the United States is at West Virginia University in Morgantown, WV. Due to this unique operating environment, the capital costs were comparatively low, but it is unclear that would be easily transferable to a PRT system operating within the Michigan/Grand River Corridor. PRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion, but caution should be used in using this measure to evaluate its feasibility within the Corridor because of the small sample size used in the analysis.

Conceptual Operating and Maintenance Cost

Conceptual operating and maintenance costs have been projected on a per revenue hour basis for each of the modes under evaluation. The cost unit used to facilitate cross-mode comparison is the national average of each mode’s operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour. This information was obtained from the FTA’s National Transit Database; 2007 data is the most recent available for analysis. For modes that do not report to the FTA, operating and maintenance costs were derived from available transit agency data. Table 2-2 outlines the average operating and maintenance costs and compares them to CATA’s current operating and maintenance expenses per revenue hour:  Modes that exceeded CATA’s current operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour by under a factor of 1.5 were given a high passing rating  Modes that exceeded CATA’s costs by a factor of 1.5 to 2.5 were given a low passing rating  Modes that exceeded CATA’s costs by over a factor of 2.5 were designated as failing to meet this sub-criterion.

Table 2-2: Relative Operating and Maintenance Costs

Relative O&M Cost per Mode Revenue Hour Rating Conventional Bus 1.00  (Baseline is CATA’s cost = $102) 

Trolley Bus 1.27 

Conventional BRT 1.16 

Guided BRT 1.25 

Light Rail 2.10  Modern Streetcar 1.32  (Portland, OR)

MagLev 7.92 

Heavy Rail 1.81 

Conventional Commuter Rail 4.16 

DMU Commuter Rail 4.16 

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-6 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Relative O&M Cost per Mode Revenue Hour Rating People Mover 2.25  Monorail 17.31  (Seattle and Las Vegas)  PRT 0.29  (Morgantown, WV) 

Source: Based on FTA’s National Transit Database 2007 data and transit agency experience and professional estimates.

Rating Definition  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion

Discussion

Bus Conventional Bus The operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour for CATA’s existing service ($102 in 2007) was used as the baseline for the evaluation of this sub-criterion. Trolley The electrification of trolley bus service results in a comparatively higher operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour than conventional bus service. Trolley bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Bus Rapid Transit Conventional A premium of 15 percent was applied to the operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour of Conventional Bus service to estimate BRT operating and maintenance costs. This premium is associated with additional costs for maintaining a more expensive vehicle and facilities for BRT service (e.g. stations and park-and-rides). In conclusion, Conventional BRT service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Guided Similarly, to estimate the operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour of Guided BRT, a premium of 25 percent was applied to the operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour. The premium would is associated with additional operating and maintenance cost for more expensive vehicles, guidance, and facilities. Guided BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-7 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Light Rail Transit The infrastructure and electrification required by LRT service results in an operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour that exceeds that of conventional bus service by slightly more than a multiplier of two. LRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Modern Streetcar As compared to LRT service, the smaller scale of service and infrastructure required results in a comparatively lower operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour. Streetcar passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. The operating and maintenance cost used in this analysis is based on Portland, OR’s system. Therefore, some care should be used in the interpretation of this information because of limited application in the United States. Magnetic Levitation MagLev’s operating characteristics and scale of required infrastructure results in a conceptual operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour that far exceeds CATA’s baseline cost. MagLev service fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion Heavy Rail Similar to light rail, the infrastructure and electrification associated with heavy rail service results in an operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour that exceeds that of conventional bus service by a factor of 1.8. Heavy rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Commuter Rail Conventional The comparatively limited service schedule, scale of infrastructure required to support conventional commuter rail service coupled with lease payments to railroads, result in an operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour that exceeds CATA’s baseline cost by over a factor of 4.0. Conventional commuter rail fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Like conventional commuter rail service, the comparatively limited service schedule and scale of infrastructure required to support DMU commuter rail service, coupled with lease payments to railroads, result in an operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour that exceeds CATA’s baseline cost by over a factor of 4.0. DMU commuter rail fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) People Mover The elevated trackway associated with existing People Mover systems results in an operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour that exceeds the baseline by slightly more than a multiplier of two. People movers pass when evaluated for his sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-8 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Monorail While monorails have capital costs that can be similar to light rail and heavy rail systems, the typically smaller capacities and comparatively reduced service hours of existing monorail service result in a operating and maintenance cost by revenue hour that exceeds CATA’s baseline by a factor of 17. The two systems included in this analysis are Seattle and Las Vegas, whose operating and maintenance costs span a wide range. For example, in 2007, Las Vegas purchased transportation expense was approximately $41 million for the operation of its system, while Seattle’s expenditure was $2.5 million. Because of monorail’s limited application in the United States, it is not recommended for further analysis. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) The operating and maintenance cost per revenue hour of the West Virginia University system in Morgantown is approximately a third of CATA’s baseline. The unique operational context of this system—low wages in West Virginia—may result in a unit cost that may be lower than if a similar system were implemented in an urban environment. PRT passes when evaluated for this sub- criterion, although caution should be used in considering PRT for further analysis based on this one performance measure.

Summary of Conceptual Cost Analysis

The table below summarizes the results of the conceptual cost analysis for the modes under evaluation.

Table 2-3: Summary Results of Conceptual Cost Analysis

Conceptual Conceptual Capital Operating and Mode Costs Maintenance Costs Conventional Bus  

Trolley Bus  

Conventional BRT  

Guided BRT  

Light Rail   Modern Streetcar   (Portland, OR)

MagLev  

Heavy Rail  

Conventional Commuter Rail  

DMU Commuter Rail  

People Mover   Monorail   (Seattle and Las Vegas)  

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-9 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Conceptual Conceptual Capital Operating and Mode Costs Maintenance Costs PRT   (Morgantown, WV)  

Rating Definition  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion

2.3 Transit Ridership

As discussed in “Technical Memorandum #2: Existing / Future Conditions Analysis,” a variety of housing and development trends may limit the region’s ability to realize its growth and transportation objectives over the next 20 to 30 years unless these trends are slowed or reversed. These trends directly impact the population and employment densities within the Corridor: lower density patterns of land use will result in less transit-supportive pattern of land use and fewer residents and employees to use potential transportation system improvements. Trends include:  Low-density suburban development that often occurs in areas which are geographically removed from employment opportunities,  Housing that is affordable to households earning the average median income is increasingly unavailable,  New urban housing stock that is unaffordable to lower- and middle-income residents because of the high costs and regulatory complexity associated with infill development, and  A general trend toward a comparatively low-density suburban pattern of development that does not support pedestrian or alternative transportation usage. Transit system investment within the context of transit-supportive policies, planning, and regulation can focus development along an urban spine (such as the Michigan/Grand River Avenue Corridor ) and help to achieve the region’s growth and transportation objectives through the creation of coordinated and sustainable development and transportation patterns. During the course of this Fatal Flaw Analysis, the consulting team has evaluated the existing (2005) and projected (2035, based on TCRPC projections) employment and residential population within the Corridor and compared it to industry standard minimum thresholds needed to support the various transit mode alternatives. This preliminary analysis will be significantly refined during the final part of the analysis and will include the creation and use of detailed ridership modeling and forecasting tools. This initial level of analysis is meant to identify any modes that will most likely not attain adequate ridership based on existing and forecasted levels of employment and population density. Data that was used to support this analysis can be found in Appendix B.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-10 Final March 5, 2010 d

d R

n o

ing t N t s an w Gr S L Birch Row Dr e

r N and T ake u a L rn Ri d G e r e r v a e S n r A t C ke Lansing Rd d E La R v d N iv e d er R

n t

£127 o o

¤ d

S E g North St H

d i

W C W Willow St d

R Haslett Rd

E Saginaw St e k La

r Raby Rd

t a E Oakland Ave S P W Oakland Ave E Grand River Av inaw e Sag W East Lansing E Saginaw St W Saginaw St e Burcham Dr

R v

v S e S

n w

a e

h s

d B

G r

g r

N i

p H

N K G

N ra W Ottawa St S nd N ve Ri W Michigan Ave E Michigan Ave n A ve Tihart Rd Michiga r Av W Allegan St e Re

d e Lansing d R

v t C

s A

d o d

t n a

u E Kalamazoo St r m R o R

n s

l i i v k sh

a n e r

r O

e a

W J

P M

S S

9 496 r 1 ¨¦§ W Shaw Ln

: D

2 k

S r

Michigan State University

9 a es

0 m

a r

2 o

R t

l n H

8 e

S C

P e Trowbridge Rd t Gr a an d R W D iv Grand er

d River

x n L A

Rd v m Hamilton e

a e

0 v

i n

T a

v l

n y

W Mount Hope Ave s

n E Mount Hope Ave

D n

p e

d S

i i

r e 127 r £ ¤ a

A d

e S R

A n

R d

E Greenlawn Ave r

R o

P Forest Rd

\ d Hatch Rd

gton e

i a

b g

o k a

B e

D H

ashin e d

r 0 r W R

S S C ett 8 l

r e g

r d

n a o Hu R

m s

o e a

N c

k h Sy

u t W Holmes Rd Bennett Rd d

r R

t d

ege R

s n

C i

Co l

l o

S C

U Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Miles I 0 0.25 0.5 1 Legend 2005 Population per Sq. Mile 6,001 - 10,000 2005 Population Density 25,001 + 3,001 - 6,000 15,001 - 25,000 < 3,000 10,001 - 15,000 Figure 2.1 d

d R

n o

ing t N t s an w Gr S L Birch Row Dr e

r N and T ake u a L rn Ri d G e r e r v a e S n r A t C ke Lansing Rd d E La R v d N iv e d er R

n t

£127 o o

¤ d

S E g North St H

d i

W C W Willow St d

R Haslett Rd

E Saginaw St e k La

r Raby Rd

t a E Oakland Ave S P W Oakland Ave E Grand River Av inaw e Sag W East Lansing E Saginaw St W Saginaw St e Burcham Dr

R v

v S e S

n w

a e

h s

d B

G r

g r

N i

p H

N K G

N ra W Ottawa St S nd N ve Ri W Michigan Ave E Michigan Ave n A ve Tihart Rd Michiga r Av W Allegan St e Re

d e Lansing d R

v t C

s A

d o d

t n a

u E Kalamazoo St r m R o R

n s

l i i v k sh

a n e r

r O

e a

W J

6 496 § W Shaw Ln r

2 ¨¦

: D

3 k S

Michigan State University a

es P

l m

a r o

R t

l n H

e S

/ C

e Trowbridge Rd t Gran a d R W Grand D iver

d River

n x L A ilton Rd ve m Ham

. m

a e v

3 F A

a i

A n

T a

v l

n y

W Mount Hope Ave s

n E Mount Hope Ave

D n e

p P

d S

i i

e C 127 r £ ¤ a

J d

e S

O v

A n

d r

R E Greenlawn Ave

R o

Forest Rd P

d Hatch Rd

gton e

i a

b g

o k a

B e

D H

ashin 6 e d

t r r R 0 W

1 S C lett

r 8 e g

r d

1 a o Hu R

\ m

o e a

r c

h n Sy

i u W Hol t mes Rd Bennett Rd d

t d

r ege

r R

s n

M i Co

l l

S C

U Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Miles I 0 0.25 0.5 1 Legend 2035 Population per Sq. Mile 6,001 - 10,000 Projected 2035 Population Density 25,001 + 3,001 - 6,000 15,001 - 25,000 < 3,000 10,001 - 15,000 Figure 2.2 d

d R

n o

ing t N t s an w Gr S L Birch Row Dr e

r N and T ake u a L rn Ri d G e r e r v a e S n r A t C ke Lansing Rd d E La R v d N iv e d er R

n t

£127 o o

¤ d

S E g North St H

d i

W C W Willow St d

R Haslett Rd

E Saginaw St e k La

r Raby Rd

t a E Oakland Ave S P W Oakland Ave E Grand River Av inaw e Sag W East Lansing E Saginaw St W Saginaw St e Burcham Dr

R v

v S e S

n w

a e

h s

d B

G r

g r

N i

p H

N K G

N ra W Ottawa St S nd N ve Ri W Michigan Ave E Michigan Ave n A ve Tihart Rd Michiga r Av W Allegan St e Re

d e Lansing d R

v t C

s A

d o d

t n a

u E Kalamazoo St r m R o R

n s

l i i v k sh

a n e r

r O

e a

W J

S S

3 496

5 § W Shaw Ln r

: ¨¦ D

S r

Michigan State University

9 a

0 m

l a

2 r o

R t

l n H

S C

e t G Trowbridge Rd a r and W

D R Grand iver d River

x n L A

v m ilton Rd e . Ham

a e

0 v

a i

n a

v l

n y

W Mount Hope Ave s

n E Mount Hope Ave

D n

e P

d S

i i

e C 127 r £ ¤ a

J d

e S

O v

A n

d r

R E Greenlawn Ave

R o

Forest Rd P

d Hatch Rd

gton e

i a

b g

o k a

B e

D H

ashin 6 e d

t r r R 0 W

1 S C lett

r 8 e g

r d

1 a o Hu R

\ m

o e a

r c

h n Sy

i u W Hol t mes Rd Bennett Rd d

t d

r ege

r R

s n

M i Co

l l

S C

U Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Miles I 0 0.25 0.5 1 Legend 2005 Employment per Sq. Mile 5,001 - 15,000 2005 Employment Density 100,001 - 364,050 2,501 - 5,000 30,001 - 100,000 0 - 2,500 15,001 - 30,000 Figure 2.3 d

d R

n o

ing t N t s an w Gr S L Birch Row Dr e

r N and T ake u a L rn Ri d G e r e r v a e S n r A t C ke Lansing Rd d E La R v d N iv e d er R

n t

£127 o o

¤ d

S E g North St H

d i

W C W Willow St d

R Haslett Rd

E Saginaw St e k La

r Raby Rd

t a E Oakland Ave S P W Oakland Ave E Grand River Av inaw e Sag W East Lansing E Saginaw St W Saginaw St e Burcham Dr

R v

v S e S

n w

a e

h s

d B

G r

g r

N i

p H

N K G

N ra W Ottawa St S nd N ve Ri W Michigan Ave E Michigan Ave n A ve Tihart Rd Michiga r Av W Allegan St e Re

d e Lansing d R

v t C

s A

d o d

t n a

u E Kalamazoo St r m R o R

n s

l i i v k sh

a n e r

r O

e a

W J

S S

1 496

3 § W Shaw Ln r

: ¨¦ D

S r

Michigan State University

9 a

0 m

l a

2 r o

R t

l n H

S C

e t G Trowbridge Rd a r and W

D R Grand iver d River

x n L A

v m ilton Rd e . Ham

a e

3 v

a i

n a

v l

n y

W Mount Hope Ave s

n E Mount Hope Ave

D n

e P

d S

i i

e C 127 r £ ¤ a

J d

e S

O v

A n

d r

R E Greenlawn Ave

R o

Forest Rd P

d Hatch Rd

gton e

i a

b g

o k a

B e

D H

ashin 6 e d

t r r R 0 W

1 S C lett

r 8 e g

r d

1 a o Hu R

\ m

o e a

r c

h n Sy

i u W Hol t mes Rd Bennett Rd d

t d

r ege

r R

s n

M i Co

l l

S C

U Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Miles I 0 0.25 0.5 1 Legend 2035 Employment per Sq. Mile 5,001 - 15,000 Projected 2035 Employment Density 100,001 - 374,350 2,501 - 5,000 30,001 - 100,000 0 - 2,500 15,001 - 30,000 Figure 2.4 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Employees in Ridershed

The Corridor-wide average employment densities per square mile in both 2005 and as projected in 2035 are not likely to meet the best practices average density thresholds. However, a more detailed analysis of population distribution and density, as shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2, reveals pockets of employment density that far exceed the typical minimum typical thresholds and may improve the feasibility of transit service implementation. While this level of analysis is not designed to project potential ridership based on employment density, it can be used to assess which modes of transportation, based on typical station spacing and population captured within this ridershed, may more closely meet or exceed this industry ridership threshold standards. Those modes that clearly will not meet industry standard ridership thresholds will be designated as failing to meet the minimum requirements for this criterion. Maps illustrating potential transit station spacing are included on the following pages.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-15 Final March 5, 2010

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! 15 ! !

! ! ! ! 14 ! !

! % ! !

! ! ! !

% ! 1 !

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

% ! ! ! !

! % % % % % % % % % % % % ! !! %

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! 17 ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! %

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 18 !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! % !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! 19

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! %

! !

! ! !

M ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! 20 !

A !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! % ! ! !

4 ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! 4 !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

: ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

5 ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! 21 ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Michigan State University !

: ! !

! ! ! ! !

! %

! !

! ! ! 22

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! % !

9 ! ! !

! ! 23

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

0 ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! %

0 ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! 24 ! !

! ! ! !

2 ! ! ! !

! !

/ ! !

! !

! % !

! ! !

! ! 2 ! !

! ! / ! ! 25 !

! !

! ! !

2 !

! !

! %

! !

! ! ! !

: !

! !

e ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! D ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! m !

. ! !

T ! !

! !

g ! !

i ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

r !

o !

w ! \

! ! ! S ! ! !

T !

! !

C ! ! !

! !

JE !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

R ! ! ! !

P ! !

\ ! !

8 ! ! ! !

2 ! ! !

6 ! ! ! ! !

0 ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! !

! !

8 !

! ! ! !

1 ! ! ! !

3 ! !

\ !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

N ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! n ! ! ! ! !

o ! ! ! ! !

i ! ! !

t ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

a ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

r ! ! !

! !

! S ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

R ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

U ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Leg! end ! Miles ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0 0.25 0.5 1 ! Prim! ary Road - Limited Access Existing Trail Conceptual Streetcar/Bus Station I ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

Primary! Road Proposed Trail !

! and 0.5 Mile Buffer

! Secon! dary Road Railroad

! !

Loca! l and Rural Road Water Feature

! !

! MSU ! Figure 2.5 ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! 8 ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! % ! !

! !

! 1 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

% ! ! ! ! ! % % % % % % ! !!

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! 9 ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! %

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! 10

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! %

! !

! ! !

M ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

A !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

4 ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! 4 !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

: ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

5 ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! 11 ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Michigan State University !

: ! !

! ! ! ! !

! % ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

9 ! ! !

! ! 12

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

0 ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! %

0 ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

2 ! ! ! !

! !

/ ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! 2 ! !

! ! / ! ! 13 !

! !

! ! !

2 !

! !

! %

! !

! ! ! !

: !

! !

e ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! D ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! m !

. ! !

T ! !

! !

g ! !

i ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

r !

o !

w ! \

! ! ! S ! ! !

T !

! !

C ! ! !

! !

JE !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

R ! ! ! !

P ! !

\ ! !

8 ! ! ! !

2 ! ! !

6 ! ! ! ! !

0 ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! !

! !

8 !

! ! ! !

1 ! ! ! !

3 ! !

\ !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

N ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! n ! ! ! ! !

o ! ! ! ! !

i ! ! !

t ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

a ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

r ! ! !

! !

! S ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

R ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

U ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Leg! end ! Miles ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0 0.25 0.5 1 ! Prim! ary Road - Limited Access Existing Trail I ! Conceptual BRT/LRT/People Mover/PRT Station ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

Primary! Road Proposed Trail !

! and 0.5 Mile Buffer

! Secon! dary Road Railroad

! !

Loca! l and Rural Road Water Feature

! !

! MSU

! ! Figure 2.6 ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! 5 ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! % ! !

! !

! 1 ! 2 3 4 !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

% ! ! ! ! ! % % % ! !!

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! 6

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! %

! !

! ! !

M ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

A !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

4 ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! 4 !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

: ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

5 ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! 7 ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Michigan State University !

: ! !

! ! ! ! !

! % ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

9 ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

0 ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

0 ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

2 ! ! ! !

! !

/ ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! 2 ! !

! ! / ! ! 8 !

! !

! ! !

2 !

! !

! %

! !

! ! ! !

: !

! !

e ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! D ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! m !

. ! !

T ! !

! !

g ! !

i ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

r !

o !

w ! \

! ! ! S ! ! !

T !

! !

C ! ! !

! !

JE !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

R ! ! ! !

P ! !

\ ! !

8 ! ! ! !

2 ! ! !

6 ! ! ! ! !

0 ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! !

! !

8 !

! ! ! !

1 ! ! ! !

3 ! !

\ !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

N ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! n ! ! ! ! !

o ! ! ! ! !

i ! ! !

t ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

a ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

r ! ! !

! !

! S ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

R ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

U ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Leg! end ! Miles ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0 0.25 0.5 1 ! Prim! ary Road - Limited Access Existing Trail Conceptual Heavy Rail/Monorail Station I ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

Primary! Road Proposed Trail !

! and 0.5 Mile Buffer

! Secon! dary Road Railroad

! !

Loca! l and Rural Road Water Feature

! !

! MSU ! Figure 2.7 ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! 1 ! 2 !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

% ! ! ! ! ! % ! !! 3

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

% !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

M ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

A !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

4 ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! 4 !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

: ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

5 ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Michigan State University !

: ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

9 ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

0 ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

0 ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

2 ! ! ! !

! !

/ ! ! 4 !

! !

! ! !

! ! 2 ! !

! ! / ! ! % !

! !

! ! !

2 !

! !

! ! ! !

: !

! !

e ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! D ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! m !

. ! !

T ! !

! !

g ! !

i ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

r !

o !

w ! \

! ! ! S ! ! !

T !

! !

C ! ! !

! !

JE !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

R ! ! ! !

P ! !

\ ! !

8 ! ! ! !

2 ! ! !

6 ! ! ! ! !

0 ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! !

! !

8 !

! ! ! !

1 ! ! ! !

3 ! !

\ !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

N ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! n ! ! ! ! !

o ! ! ! ! !

i ! ! !

t ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

a ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

r ! ! !

! !

! S ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

R ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

U ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Leg! end ! Miles ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0 0.25 0.5 1 ! Prim! ary Road - Limited Access Existing Trail Conceptual Commuter Rail Station I ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

Primary! Road Proposed Trail !

! and 1.0 Mile Buffer

! Secon! dary Road Railroad

! !

Loca! l and Rural Road Water Feature

! !

! MSU ! Figure 2.8 ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! 1 ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

% ! ! ! !

! !! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

M ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

A !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

4 ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! 4 !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

: ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

5 ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Michigan State University !

: ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

9 ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

0 ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

0 ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

2 ! ! ! !

! !

/ ! ! 2 !

! !

! ! !

! ! 2 ! !

! ! / ! ! % !

! !

! ! !

2 !

! !

! ! ! !

: !

! !

e ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! D ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! m !

. ! !

T ! !

! !

g ! !

i ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

r !

o !

w ! \

! ! ! S ! ! !

T !

! !

C ! ! !

! !

JE !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

R ! ! ! !

P ! !

\ ! !

8 ! ! ! !

2 ! ! !

6 ! ! ! ! !

0 ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! !

! !

8 !

! ! ! !

1 ! ! ! !

3 ! !

\ !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

N ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! n ! ! ! ! !

o ! ! ! ! !

i ! ! !

t ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

a ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

r ! ! !

! !

! S ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

R ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

U ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Leg! end ! Miles ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0 0.25 0.5 1 ! Conceptual MagLev Station Prim! ary Road - Limited Access Existing Trail I ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! Primary! Road Proposed Trail ! and 3.0 Mile Buffer

! Secon! dary Road Railroad

! !

Loca! l and Rural Road Water Feature

! !

! MSU

! Figure 2.9

! ! ! !

! ! Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Bus Buses and streetcars have the greatest number of potential stations within the Corridor (25) because the operating characteristics of these modes typically results in a ridership draw from the smallest geographic area: typically a 0.25 radius from each station. It is important to note, however, that, as shown in Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.5, the comparatively small ridersheds capture among the densest employment concentrations in the Corridor. The ridersheds of these modes will capture the fewest employees of the modes being compared, but they also experience the highest projected rate of growth in employment population between 2005 and 2035. Bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Conventional Bus The propulsion mechanism of the bus service within the Corridor (conventional versus trolley) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this criterion. Trolley The propulsion mechanism of the bus service within the Corridor (conventional versus trolley) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this criterion. Bus Rapid Transit LRT, BRT, People Movers, and PRT each typically have a station area ridershed radius of 0.5 miles. Like buses and streetcars, this comparatively small ridershed captures among the densest clusters of employment density in the Corridor, as shown in Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6. Based on projections, the area captured within the ridershed of this grouping of modes will experience the second-highest rate of employment population growth between 2005 and 2035, after buses and streetcars. BRT systems pass when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Conventional The propulsion mechanism of the BRT service within the Corridor (conventional versus guided) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Guided The propulsion mechanism of the BRT service within the Corridor (conventional versus guided) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Light Rail Transit LRT, BRT, People Movers, and PRT each typically have a station area ridershed radius of 0.5 miles. Like buses and streetcars, this comparatively small ridershed captures among the densest clusters of employment density in the Corridor, as shown in Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6. Based on projections, the area captured within the ridershed of this grouping of modes will experience the second-highest rate of employment population growth between 2005 and 2035, after bus and streetcars. LRT systems pass when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-21 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Modern Streetcar Buses and streetcars have the greatest number of potential stations within the Corridor (25) because the operating characteristics of these modes typically results in a ridership draw from the smallest geographic area: typically a 0.25 radius of each station. The comparatively small ridersheds that are associated with streetcars will capture among the densest employment concentrations in the Corridor. Based on projections, the ridersheds of these modes will capture the fewest employees of the modes being compared, but they also experience the highest projected rate of growth in employment population between 2005 and 2035. Streetcar systems pass when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Magnetic Levitation Due to MagLev’s operating characteristics, its stations are typically spaced at least 50 miles apart. Because the Corridor is approximately eight miles long, a potential MagLev alignment would include only two terminus stations. The ridershed of these stations would be the largest of the modes being compared, again due to operating characteristics, but because the densest areas of development are clustered along the Michigan/Grand River Avenue spine, the employment densities and projected growth trends within these ridersheds is the lowest of the modes under evaluation (See Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.9). MagLev fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Heavy Rail While heavy rail and monorail would have a similar ridershed station area radius (0.5 miles) as LRT, BRT, People Mover, and PRT, typical station area spacing would most likely result in comparatively fewer heavy rail and monorail stations within the Corridor. Fewer stations would result in a marginally smaller number of employees captured in ridersheds than for LRT, BRT People Mover or PRT, and a comparatively smaller rate of ridershed employee population growth than for those modes (See Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.7). Heavy rail fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Commuter Rail Commuter rail service would attract riders within a one mile radius of four potential stations within the Corridor (see Figure 2.8). This comparatively geographically large ridershed would result in a correspondingly high employee population, but, as shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2, the increased number of employees are drawn from ridersheds whose employee population density dramatically decreases as its outer boundaries are approached (See Figures 2.1 and 2.2). Nevertheless, commuter rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Conventional The propulsion system associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub- criterion. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) The propulsion system associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub- criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-22 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) While People Movers and PRT have similar operating characteristics that enable each mode to be evaluated under the same guidelines, the operating characteristics of monorail make it more comparable to heavy rail for the purposes of evaluation under this criterion. People Mover LRT, BRT, People Movers, and PRT each typically have a station area ridershed radius of 0.5 miles. Like buses and streetcars, this comparatively small ridershed captures among the densest clusters of employment density in the Corridor, as shown in Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6. Based on projections, the area captured within the ridershed of this grouping of modes will experience the second-highest rate of employment population growth between 2005 and 2035, after bus and streetcars. People Movers pass when evaluated under this sub-criterion. Monorail While heavy rail and monorail would have a similar ridershed station area radius (0.5 miles) as LRT, BRT, People Mover, and PRT, typical station area spacing would result in comparatively fewer heavy rail and monorail stations within the Corridor. Fewer stations would result in a marginally smaller number of employees captured in ridersheds than for LRT, BRT People Mover or PRT, and a comparatively smaller rate of ridershed employee population growth than for those modes (See Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.7). Monorail service fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) LRT, BRT, People Movers, and PRT each typically have a station area ridershed radius of 0.5 miles. Like buses and streetcars, this comparatively small ridershed captures among the densest clusters of employment density in the Corridor, as shown in Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6. Based on projections, the area captured within the ridershed of this grouping of modes will experience the second-highest rate of employment population growth between 2005 and 2035, after bus and streetcars. PRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Residents in Ridershed

The Corridor-wide average residential population density per square mile in both 2005 and as projected in 2035 is not likely to meet the best practice average density thresholds. However, a more detailed analysis of population distribution and density, as shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2 reveals pockets of residential density that far exceed typical thresholds. While this level of analysis is not designed to project potential ridership based on residential density, it can be used to assess which modes of transportation, based on typical station spacing and population captured within this ridershed, may more closely meet or exceed this industry ridership threshold standards. Those modes that clearly will not meet industry standard ridership thresholds will be designated as failing to meet the minimum requirements for this criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-23 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Bus Buses and streetcars have the greatest number of potential stations within the Corridor (25) because the operating characteristics of these modes typically results in a ridership draw from the smallest geographic area: typically a 0.25 radius of each station. It is important to note, however, that, as shown in Figures 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5, the comparatively small ridersheds capture among the densest residential concentrations in the Corridor. Based on projections, the ridersheds of these modes will capture the fewest residents of the modes being compared, but they also experience the highest projected rate of growth in residential population between 2005 and 2035. Bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Conventional Bus The propulsion mechanism of the bus service within the Corridor (conventional versus trolley) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Trolley The propulsion mechanism of the bus service within the Corridor (conventional versus trolley) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Bus Rapid Transit LRT, BRT, People Movers, and PRT each typically have a station area ridershed radius of 0.5 miles. Like buses and streetcars, this comparatively small ridershed captures among the densest clusters of residential population density in the Corridor, as shown in Figures 2.3, 2.4, and 2.6. Based on projections, the area captured within the ridershed of this grouping of modes will experience the third-highest rate of residential population growth between 2005 and 2035. BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Conventional The propulsion mechanism of the BRT service within the Corridor (conventional versus guided) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Guided The propulsion mechanism of the BRT service within the Corridor (conventional versus guided) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Light Rail Transit LRT, BRT, People Movers, and PRT each typically have a station area ridershed radius of 0.5 miles. Like buses and streetcars, this comparatively small ridershed captures among the densest clusters of residential population density in the Corridor, as shown in Figures 2.3, 2.4, and 2.6. Based on projections, the area captured within the ridershed of this grouping of modes will experience the third-highest rate of residential population growth between 2005 and 2035. LRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-24 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Modern Streetcar Buses and streetcars have the greatest number of potential stations within the Corridor (25) because the operating characteristics of these modes typically results in a ridership draw from the smallest geographic area: typically a 0.25 radius of each station. The comparatively small ridersheds, as shown in Figures 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5, capture among the densest residential concentrations in the Corridor. Based on projections, the ridersheds of these modes will capture the fewest residents of the modes being compared, but they also experience the highest projected rate of growth in residential population between 2005 and 2035. Modern streetcar service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Magnetic Levitation Due to MagLev’s operating characteristics, its stations are typically spaced at least 50 miles apart. Because the Corridor is approximately eight miles long, a potential MagLev alignment would include only two terminus stations. The ridershed of these stations would be the largest of the modes being compared, again due to operating characteristics, but because the densest areas of development are clustered along the Michigan/Grand River Avenue spine, the residential densities and projected growth trends within these ridersheds is the lowest of the modes under evaluation (See Figures 2.3, 2.4, and 2.9). MagLev service fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Heavy Rail While heavy rail and monorail would have a similar ridershed station area radius (0.5 miles) as LRT, BRT, People Mover, and PRT, typical station area spacing would result in comparatively fewer heavy rail and monorail stations within the Corridor. Fewer stations would result in a smaller number of residents captured in ridersheds than for LRT, BRT People Mover or PRT, but a marginally higher rate of ridershed residential population growth than for those modes (See Figures 2.3, 2.4, and 2.7). Heavy rail fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Commuter Rail Commuter rail service would attract riders within a one-mile radius of four potential stations within the Corridor (see Figure 2.8). This comparatively geographically large ridershed would result in a correspondingly high residential population, but, as shown in Figures 2.3 and 2.4, the increased number of residents are drawn from ridersheds whose residential population density dramatically decreases as its outer boundaries are approached, particularly along the eastern end of the Corridor (See Figures 2.3 and 2.4). Commuter rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Conventional The technology associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) The technology associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-25 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) While People Movers and PRT have similar operating characteristics that enable each mode to be evaluated under the same guidelines, the operating characteristics of monorail make it more comparable to heavy rail for the purposes of evaluation under this sub-criterion. People Mover LRT, BRT, People Movers, and PRT each typically have a station area ridershed radius of 0.5 miles. Like buses and streetcars, this comparatively small ridershed captures among the densest clusters of population density in the Corridor, as shown in Figures 2.3, 2.4, and 2.6. Based on projections, the area captured within the ridershed of this grouping of modes will experience the third-highest rate of residential population growth between 2005 and 2035. People Movers pass when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Monorail While heavy rail and monorail would have a similar ridershed station area radius (0.5 miles) as LRT, BRT, People Mover, and PRT, typical station area spacing would result in comparatively fewer heavy rail and monorail stations within the Corridor. Fewer stations would result in a smaller number of residents captured in ridersheds than for LRT, BRT People Mover or PRT, but a marginally higher rate of ridershed residential population growth than for those modes (See Figures 2.3, 2.4, and 2.7). Monorail fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) LRT, BRT, People Movers, and PRT each typically have a station area ridershed radius of 0.5 miles. Like buses and streetcars, this comparatively small ridershed captures among the densest clusters of population density in the Corridor, as shown in Figures 2.3, 2.4, and 2.6. Based on projections, the area captured within the ridershed of this grouping of modes will experience the third-highest rate of residential population growth between 2005 and 2035. PRT passes when evaluated for this sub- criterion.

Suitability of Mode in Meeting Corridor Travel Needs

The Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study has been undertaken to:  Develop additional transportation options for residents, workers and visitors within the context of limited roadway expansion possibilities,  Improve transportation system efficiency through upgraded service that would reduce travel times and decrease traffic congestion,  Catalyze economic development and opportunity through improved connections to existing employment opportunities and supporting ongoing revitalization efforts within the Corridor,

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-26 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

 Support the scale and character of development that has been envisioned by local communities, all of which have promoted the need for multi-modal transportation solutions, and  Build a true public consensus around a locally-preferred alternative. The modal alternatives under evaluation have been developed to address the following four goals, which were developed in collaboration with the project Steering Committee: 1. Improve the Corridor’s safety, mobility, and accessibility, 2. Improve multi-modal transportation that supports, sustains, and grows economic value in the Corridor, 3. Contribute to improvements to the overall environment (natural, social, and physical) in the region, and minimize any direct negative impacts in the Corridor, and 4. Complement or enhance the character of the Corridor.

Associated objectives and criteria, including transportation, social equity, community and local planning, environmental, socio-economic, conceptual engineering, and public outreach criteria, have been developed to help define the criteria and create a framework for the systematic evaluation of each of the modes. Each of the potential transportation modes has been evaluated for its suitability in meeting the Corridor travel needs outlined above. This level of analysis will identify modes that clearly do not address Corridor travel needs and designate them as failing to meet the minimum requirements for this criterion. Bus The existing bus route that currently operates within the Corridor is CATA’s most heavily used route. Expanded bus service would meet Corridor travel needs by strengthening east-west connections, improving travel time and reducing congestion by removing cars from the road, increasing connections to employment through increased frequency of service, and supporting the scale of development as envisioned by the community through investments in the existing transit system. Bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Conventional Bus The propulsion mechanism of the bus service within the Corridor (conventional versus trolley) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Trolley The electrification equipment used for trolley buses is designed to provide a power source for buses operating in hilly terrain (e.g. in San Francisco). There is no advantage to using this comparatively more expensive technology on a relatively flat alignment such as the Michigan/Grand Avenue Corridor. Trolley bus fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-27 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Bus Rapid Transit BRT would meet travel needs within the Corridor by strengthening east-west connections; improving transit travel times through rapid elements such as off-board fare collection, level boarding and bus-only lanes; reducing congestion by reducing single-occupant vehicles from the Corridor; increasing connections to employment through increased frequency of service; and supporting the scale of development as envisioned by the community. BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Conventional BRT’s propulsion system has no bearing on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Guided Guided BRT has not been implemented in the U.S., and the comparatively costly guideway infrastructure is unlikely to provide a proportional service advantage over conventional BRT. Guided BRT fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Light Rail Transit LRT would also meet the Corridor’s travel needs, and would most likely be even more effective than BRT at improving travel times (through operations on a fixed guideway), reducing congestion (by attracting even more choice riders), and supporting infill development and revitalization (as evidenced in cities across the country). LRT would also strengthen east-west connections and strongly support the community’s vision for a nodal pattern of development. LRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Modern Streetcar Modern streetcars can be considered a hybrid of conventional bus and light rail. The combination of these operational characteristics means that streetcars, like LRT and BRT, could also strengthen east-west connections, improve travel time, reduce congestion by attracting choice riders; increase connections to employment through increased frequency of service; and support the scale of development as envisioned by the community. Modern streetcar passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Magnetic Levitation Based on the average trip lengths indicated in the transit origin-destination survey (approximately 3 miles), MagLev is ill-suited to serve the Corridor’s travel patterns and needs. As defined, MagLev is a high-speed rail service along a corridor that is typically hundreds of miles long, with stations spaced far apart to take full advantage of its high-speed characteristics. The siting of only two terminal stations within the Michigan/Grand River Corridor is unlikely to result in MagLev strengthening east-west connections. If the level of existing bus service along the Corridor route was decreased to reflect the introduction of MagLev service, east-west connections would most likely weaken. While travel times would be greatly enhanced for MagLev patrons, it is likely that the limited number of stations and limited service schedule would not attract a significant enough number of Corridor users to significantly decrease traffic volumes. While MagLev service would

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-28 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

potentially improve employment connections between users at the far edges of the Corridor, the lack of stations along the center of the route would result in missed opportunities for the creation of additional connections. MagLev has not been shown to support infill development and redevelopment, and the scale of equipment and service would most likely not complement the scale of development envisioned by the community. MagLev service fails when evaluated for this sub- criterion. Heavy Rail Heavy rail would be likely to strengthen east-west connections within the Corridor through the siting of multiple stations, and could be expected to improve travels times and reduce congestion by drawing choice riders out of their cars and onto trains. The multiple station sites would improve connections between residents and employees, and heavy rail is a mode that has been shown to be extremely effective in supporting adjacent redevelopment activity. The equipment and scale of service may be slightly disproportionate to the existing pattern of development, but it can be expected that, with proper planning, policy, regulatory, and market support, heavy rail service would catalyze a transit-supportive, nodal pattern of development that complements the community’s ultimate development vision for the Corridor. Heavy rail passes when evaluated for this sub- criterion. Commuter Rail Commuter rail would meet travel needs within the Corridor in a manner similar to heavy rail due to commonalities in their operating characteristics. One difference may be that the typically more limited service hours of commuter rail would be marginally less supportive of nodal patterns of development than heavy rail has proven to be. Commuter rail service would, however, also strengthen east-west connections within the Corridor, improve travel times, reduce congestion (particularly at peak commuting times), and could complement the scale of development that in envisioned for the Corridor. Commuter rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Conventional The technology associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) The technology associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) The three types of AGT under consideration can be expected to perform similarly when evaluated under this criterion, although some unique operating characteristics may result in performance differentiation by mode. People Mover A People Mover could be expected to improve east-west connections and improve travel times in the Corridor. Depending on the capacity of the vehicles and scheduled headways, a People Mover

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-29 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

may be successful in attracting enough choice riders to decrease levels of traffic congestion. The number of potential station sites within the Corridor may increase access by residents to employment opportunities. Because AGTs, including People Movers, are typically on elevated tracks, it is unlikely that they would effectively catalyze adjacent revitalization activity. The presence of elevated tracks is also unlikely to complement the community’s vision for development within the Corridor. People Movers fail when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Monorail A monorail could be expected to improve east-west connections and reduce travel times for users in the Corridor. Monorail’s operational similarities to heavy rail mean that, like heavy rail, it may be successful in attracting enough choice riders to decrease levels of traffic congestion. The number of potential station sites within the Corridor would increase access by residents to employment opportunities. Unlike the heavy rail under consideration for this Corridor, however, monorail runs on elevated tracks, so it is unlikely to catalyze adjacent revitalization activity at a comparable level to heavy rail. The presence of elevated tracks is also unlikely to complement the community’s vision for development within the Corridor. Monorail fails when evaluated for sub-criterion. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) While PRT could be expected to strengthen east-west connections and improve travel times, the limited capacity of PRT service means that it may not be able to get enough choice riders our of their cars to decrease levels of traffic congestion. Because PRT would likely run on elevated track, it is unlikely to catalyze adjacent revitalization activity at a comparable level to at-grade rail service. The likely presence of elevated tracks is also unlikely to complement the community’s vision for development within the Corridor. PRT fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Summary

The table below summarizes the results of the ridership analysis. While heavy rail, MagLev, and monorail fared poorly, the remainder of the alternatives demonstrated some ability to capture the areas of greatest project employment and/or residential growth and a measure of suitability in meeting the Corridor’s travel needs.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-30 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 2-4: Ridership Evaluation Summary

Suitability of Mode in Meeting Corridor Travel Mode Employees in Ridershed Residents in Ridershed Needs

Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating These ridersheds These ridersheds Expanded bus capture among the capture among the service would densest employment densest residential strengthen Corridor concentrations concentrations east-west (although the fewest (although the connections, improve number of fewest number of travel times, reduce Conventional employees) and will residents) and will    congestion, increase  experience the experience the connections to highest rate of highest projected employment, and projected growth in rates of residential support the employment population growth envisioned scale of population between between 2005 and development. 2005 and 2035. 2035. Bus The electrification equipment used for trolley buses is designed to provide a power source for buses operating in Same as conventional Same as Trolley hilly terrain. There is  bus.  conventional bus.   no advantage to using this comparatively more expensive technology on flat surfaces. BRT would meet Corridor travel needs These ridersheds These ridersheds will in a manner similar will capture among capture among the to conventional bus the densest densest employment service, but could population clusters clusters, and will more effectively and are projected experience the improve travel times Conventional to experience the  second-highest rate of   through signal  third-highest rates projected employment prioritization, reduce of residential population growth congestion by population growth between 2005 and attracting choice between 2005 and 2035. riders, and potentially 2035. BRT better support infill development. Guided BRT has not been implemented in the U.S.; the comparatively costly Same as conventional Same as guideway Guided  BRT.  conventional BRT.  infrastructure is  unlikely to provide a proportional service advantage over conventional BRT.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-31 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Suitability of Mode in Meeting Corridor Travel Mode Employees in Ridershed Residents in Ridershed Needs

Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating LRT would meet Corridor travel needs These ridersheds in a manner similar These ridersheds will will capture among to BRT service, but capture among the the densest could more densest employment population clusters effectively improve clusters, and will and are projected travel times through experience the Light Rail to experience the fixed guideway  second-highest rate of    third-highest rates operations, reduce projected employment of residential congestion by better population growth population growth attracting choice between 2005 and between 2005 and riders, and strongly 2035. 2035. supporting a nodal pattern of infill development.

These ridersheds These ridersheds Streetcars, like BRT capture among the capture among the and LRT, would densest employment densest residential strengthen east-west concentrations concentrations connections, improve (although the fewest (although fewest travel times, reduce employees) and will residents) and will Modern Streetcar congestion, increase  experience the  experience the   employment highest rate of highest projected connections, and projected growth in rates of residential support the employment population growth envisioned scale of population between between 2005 and development. 2005 and 2035. 2035.

These ridersheds MagLev is not likely MagLev ridersheds would be the to strengthen east- would be the largest largest of the west connections, of the modes modes compared, decrease traffic MagLev compared, but their but their residential    volumes, or support  employment density density and infill development and projected growth projected growth that supports the rates are the lowest. rates are the community's vision. lowest.

While capturing While capturing Heavy rail would similar ridersheds as similar ridersheds strengthen east-west other modes, the as other modes, connections, improve comparatively fewer comparatively travel times, reduce stations that are Heavy Rail fewer stations congestion, support  typical of heavy rail    would result in adjacent systems would result usage by redevelopment, and in usage by proportionally fewer improve employment proportionally fewer residents. connections. employees.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-32 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Suitability of Mode in Meeting Corridor Travel Mode Employees in Ridershed Residents in Ridershed Needs

Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating Commuter rail would strengthen east-west Commuter rail's Commuter rail's connections, improve comparatively comparatively larger travel times, and larger ridersheds ridersheds would reduce congestion. would capture a capture a large Commuter rail's large number of number of employees, comparatively Conventional residents, but the  but the employment   restricted service  residential densities Commuter densities within hours may not be as within ridersheds Rail ridersheds are supportive of are comparatively comparatively lower adjacent lower than other than other modes. redevelopment as modes. other modes under evaluation.

Same as Same as Same as conventional DMU conventional conventional  commuter rail.    commuter rail. commuter rail.

These ridersheds Ridersheds will will capture among A People Mover capture among the the densest could improve east- densest employment population clusters west connections clusters, and will and are projected and improve travel experience the People Mover to experience the times in the Corridor,  second-highest rate of    third-highest rates but would be unlikely projected employment of residential to support adjacent population growth population growth redevelopment between 2005 and between 2005 and activity. 2035. 2035.

AGT A monorail could While capturing While capturing improve east-west similar ridersheds similar ridersheds as connections and as other modes, other modes, reduce travel times, comparatively comparatively fewer and may reduce Monorail fewer stations  stations would result   traffic congestion. It  would result in in usage by is unlikely, however, usage by proportionally fewer to support adjacent proportionally fewer employees. redevelopment residents. activity. Same as People Same as people Same as People PRT  Mover.  Mover.  Mover. 

Rating Definition

 Mode meets criterion very well

 Mode meets criterion sufficiently

 Mode does not meet criterion

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-33 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

2.4 Irresolvable Environmental Issues

Aesthetic Impacts

Any of the build transportation options will impact the aesthetics of the Corridor because each, by its presence, would introduce new visual elements into the existing landscape. The degree to which Corridor aesthetics will be impacted, and the positive or negative character of this impact, has been considered during the course of the Fatal Flaw Analysis. Additional considerations include the degree to which existing viewsheds are maintained and the degree to which the potential transit service fits into the scale of the Corridor. Bus Conventional Bus Because buses currently operate within the Corridor, it is unlikely that additional conventional bus service would strongly impact Corridor aesthetics. Existing viewsheds would be maintained, and expanded service would continue to fit into the scale of the Corridor. Conventional bus service passes when evaluated against this sub-criterion. Trolley The electrification equipment that connects trolley buses to overhead power sources would introduce a new visual element into the Corridor. The required overhead power lines would need to be installed throughout the Corridor and could potentially detract from the visual character of the Corridor and interfere with viewsheds. While the vehicles would fit into the existing scale of the Corridor, the overhead electrification equipment may not. Trolley bus service passes when evaluated against this sub-criterion. Bus Rapid Transit Conventional BRT’s operating characteristics and aesthetics are typically similar to those of a conventional bus, although newer model buses, distinctive decorative motifs/branding, and the construction of comparatively-higher quality bus shelters could impact the aesthetics of the Corridor. These impacts would be negligible, however, and could be considered an upgrade from the existing conventional bus service. The aesthetics of the Corridor would be more strongly influenced by the choice between implementing curb-running or center-running BRT. BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Guided Guided BRT operates on a specialized fixed guideway with vehicles that are retrofitted with lateral guide wheels. Operation within a grade-separated guideway can allow the BRT to achieve speeds that are comparable to rail; because operations within the Corridor would not be fully grade- separated, it is not expected that guided BRT would achieve these speeds. Guided BRT is also able, however, to operate off the guideway, which allows for operational and route flexibility. This subtype of BRT would have a similar aesthetic impact to conventional BRT, although the guideway infrastructure would introduce an additional visual element into the Corridor. It is unlikely that this

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-34 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

transportation option would negatively impact the Corridor’s view shed or conflict with the scale of the Corridor. Guided BRT passes when evaluated against this sub-criterion. Light Rail Transit Light rail transit entails construction of tracks, overhead power lines, and platform stations. Each of these elements would be new to the Corridor. The construction of a light rail system would impact the aesthetics of the Corridor. However, the design of platforms/stations and ancillary infrastructure improvements (including lighting, signage, pavement upgrades, etc.) could contribute to a unified visual palette, enhancing the Corridor’s overall aesthetics. Viewsheds may be impacted by the installation of a light rail system, and the overhead power lines in particular, but appropriate station siting and design could complement the scale of the Corridor and could contribute to an improved sense of place. Light rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Modern Streetcar While modern streetcar systems operate on tracks in a manner similar to light rail, distinctions in operating characteristics are reflected in the equipment and infrastructure needed to support service. Because streetcars are designed to accommodate smaller capacities and are designated to operate at more frequent headways to more comparatively closely-spaced stops in comparatively smaller car trains, streetcars may be a more frequent, but less noticeable, contributor to the Corridor’s aesthetics than light rail. While streetcar systems typically do not include the stations and platforms necessary for light rail operations, they are, like light rail, electrified through an overhead power source. While these overhead wires may also, as in the case of light rail, impact viewsheds, the comparatively smaller train cars and reduced station requirements could result in a smaller impact on the existing aesthetics of the Corridor. Streetcar passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Magnetic Levitation Magnetic levitation, or MagLev, is a technology that is designed for operation within a fully-graded separated corridor that connects destinations which are hundreds of miles apart. The long-haul orientation of the mode, in combination with its capacity for operating at over 200 miles per hour, requires highly specialized infrastructure to be installed within a fully grade-separated right-of-way. In addition to the installation of the track infrastructure within the Corridor, MagLev’s trains are significantly wider and longer than any of the other rail transportation options under consideration, and could be expected to have a proportionately greater negative impact on the aesthetics of the Corridor. MagLev fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Heavy Rail As compared to BRT, streetcars, or LRT, heavy rail is designed to accommodate a comparatively higher volume of passengers in comparatively larger cars along fully grade-separated tracks. The cost of installing grade-separated tracks greatly increases the overall cost of the project. Unlike electric trolley, streetcar, and LRT, heavy rail is not electrified by an overhead power source, but receives power through a track-level electrified third rail. This third rail is necessary because heavy rail cars are comparatively heavier than LRT/streetcar and subsequently need a higher-voltage power source. While this absence of overhead power lines may give heavy rail an advantage in a comparison with LRT and BRT, the comparatively larger rail cars and the more substantial

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-35 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

platforms and stations required by heavy rail may result in a larger, more negative impact on the aesthetics of the Corridor. Existing viewsheds may not be adversely affected, but the scale of a heavy rail transit system does not complement the existing character of the Corridor. Heavy rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Commuter Rail Conventional Commuter rail has a similar operating profile to heavy rail, except that it is designed to operate at peak commuting times to carry workers into a central business district or comparable center of employment in the morning, and then return these workers to residential neighborhoods in the evening. Unlike heavy rail or LRT, stations are typically spaced more than a mile apart, and the service typically operates in mixed rail traffic in existing freight rail corridors. Because they operate in mixed freight traffic, the Federal Railroad Administration requires that commuter rail cars be “crash worthy” to case of an accident between freight and commuter trains. This results in cars that are comparatively heavier than other mass transit modes, with subsequently slower rates of acceleration and deceleration. Commuter rail cars are typically pushed/pulled by a locomotive, which means that no overhead wires would interfere with the existing Corridor aesthetics. The scale of equipment required for commuter rail service, however, is disproportionate to the existing scale of the Corridor. Conventional commuter rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) This subset of commuter rail has similar operating characteristic to conventional commuter rail, but rather than a push/pull locomotive, DMUs are self-propelled by a diesel engine. While this lightens the train and increase rates of acceleration and deceleration, the scale of the equipment and service still exceeds the scale of the existing Corridor. DMU commuter rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) Automated guideway transit (AGT) includes steel wheel, steel rail or rubber-tired vehicles that operate under automated control on an exclusive guideway that is grade-separated from vehicular traffic. Very short headways balance the lower passenger capacity that is accommodated within these vehicles. Three AGTs are under consideration for installation within the Corridor. Because AGTs are driverless, the guideway is typically elevated to ensure that there is no potential for conflict with other mode types. People Mover People Movers are fully automated trains that connect centers of employment and entertainment within an activity center, such as a downtown. While the scale of the service may complement the scale of the Corridor, the elevated right-of-way would interfere with viewsheds and negatively impact the existing aesthetics of the Corridor. People Movers fail when evaluated for this sub- criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-36 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Monorail Monorail is a combination of AGT and rapid transit that employs a single, relatively narrow beam that supports the vehicles and contains the power source. Vehicles may either straddle the beam or be suspended from it; vehicles may travel as single units or be linked together in trains of one to six vehicles. The design of monorail allows the guideway to be smaller, lighter, less obtrusive, and potentially less expensive than other fully elevated transit systems. While the scale of the service may complement the scale of the Corridor, the elevated right-of-way would interfere with viewsheds and negatively impact the existing aesthetics of the Corridor. Monorail fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) Personal rapid transit (PRT) is a technology currently under development that would provide automated, private party point-to-point transportation along a grade-separated guideway. Headways would be very short, and service could be operated on demand, with vehicles being summoned to a stop by the passenger. This technology is envisioned to compete with the automobile by providing a direct, non-stop trip between origin and destination in private vehicles for up to three passengers. Stops could be designated at close intervals since users would not be subject to intermediate stops after boarding. While the scale of the service may complement the scale of the Corridor, the elevated right-of-way would interfere with viewsheds and negatively impact the existing aesthetics of the Corridor. PRT fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Environmental Justice / Social Equity Issues

This criterion evaluates the degree to which (if any) the build transportation options that are under consideration may disproportionately negatively impact the health or environment of minority and low-income populations. This criterion also takes into consideration the degree to which the build transportation options may generate opportunities for the development of additional affordable housing units, and the degree to which the transportation options would serve transit-dependent populations. As shown in Figure 3-1 of Technical Memorandum #2: Existing / Future Conditions Analysis, the Corridor is largely comprised of low- to moderate-income households, based on 2000 U.S. Census data and as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In approximately half of the Corridor, more than half of the households can be classified as low- to moderate-income. Areas where less than 35 percent of households can be characterized as low- to moderate-income are clustered along the eastern edge of the Corridor. Within the Corridor, the location of low- to moderate-income households is a good indication of the location of the transit dependant population. As of 2000, this population was clustered along the western half of the Corridor, with pockets of transit dependency along the eastern half.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-37 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Bus Conventional Bus The introduction of expanded bus service within the Corridor is not likely to disproportionately negatively affect the health or environment of minority and low-income populations. It is not anticipated that expanded bus service who spur the creation of additional affordable housing units, either, but it could improve mobility options for the existing transit-dependent population. Conventional bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Trolley Like conventional buses, the introduction of trolley bus service within the Corridor is not likely to disproportionately negatively affect the health or environment of minority and low-income populations. The electrification of buses may very marginally improve air quality by reducing the amount of diesel exhaust that is emitted by comparable bus systems, including conventional buses. It is not anticipated that expanded bus service who spur the creation of additional affordable housing units, either, but it could improve mobility options for the existing transit-dependent population. Trolley bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Bus Rapid Transit Conventional The introduction of bus rapid transit service within the Corridor is not likely to disproportionately negatively affect the health or environment of minority and low-income populations. It is not anticipated that BRT service would spur the creation of a large number of additional affordable housing units, however, industry research has shown that some BRT systems, in certain circumstances, have had a catalytic effect on adjacent development patterns. As has occurred in rail- based TOD, this type of development demand can be leveraged to encourage private developers to include affordable housing units within new residential developments. The operating characteristics of BRT would most likely result in improved access and mobility for the Corridor’s transit- dependant population. Conventional BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Guided It is unlikely that the presence of a fixed guideway BRT would result in significantly different impacts than conventional BRT on environmental justice populations, low- to moderate-income households, or residents of the Corridor that are transit-dependant. Guided BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Light Rail Transit Light rail service is not likely to disproportionately negatively affect the health or environment of minority and low-income populations. Because of real estate market demand that can be catalyzed by proximity to light rail, it can be anticipated that, with appropriate policy and regulatory support, additional units of affordable housing may be created within the Corridor. Market factors, public sector actions, and light rail operating characteristics will play a significant role in determining the degree to which light rail service catalyzes affordable housing development. Light rail service would

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-38 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

improve the mobility of the Corridor’s transit-dependent population. Light rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Modern Streetcar Streetcar service is not likely to disproportionately negatively affect the health or environment of minority and low-income populations. Because of real estate market demand that can be generated for properties adjacent to streetcar service, it can be anticipated that, with appropriate policy and regulatory support, additional units of affordable housing may be created within the Corridor. Market factors, public sector actions, and streetcar operating characteristics will play a significant role in determining the degree to which streetcar service catalyzes affordable housing development. Streetcars would improve the mobility of the Corridor’s transit-dependent population. Streetcars pass when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Magnetic Levitation The scale and nature of the infrastructure and equipment required to support MagLev service is not likely to disproportionately negatively affect the health and environment of minority and low-income populations. It is unlikely that MagLev will result in the creation of affordable housing because it is a technology that does not support the development of adjacent residential uses. The long-haul operating characteristics of MagLev will not positively impact the needs of the Corridor’s existing transit-dependant population because it would not serve a wide variety of employment, education, recreation, and residential activity centers. MagLev passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Heavy Rail Heavy rail service is not likely to disproportionately negatively affect the health or environment of minority and low-income populations. Because of real estate market demand that can be generated for properties adjacent to a heavy rail, it can be anticipated that, with appropriate policy and regulatory support, additional units of affordable housing may be created within the Corridor. Market factors, public sector actions, and heavy rail operating characteristics will play a significant role in determining the degree to which it catalyzes affordable housing development. Heavy rail service would improve the mobility of the Corridor’s transit-dependent population. Heavy rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Commuter Rail Commuter rail service is not likely to disproportionately negatively affect the health or environment of minority and low-income populations. Because of its operating characteristics, commuter rail is not anticipated to catalyze the creation of affordable housing. Commuter rail service may improve the overall mobility of the Corridor’s transit-dependent population. Commuter rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Conventional The technology associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-39 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) The technology associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) The introduction of AGT service within the Corridor is not likely to disproportionately negatively affect the health or environment of minority and low-income populations. It is not anticipated that AGT service would spur the creation of a large number of additional affordable housing units, but the limited pool of relevant operating AGT systems available for analysis results in generalizations about market performance that are largely based on professional judgment. The operating characteristics of AGT would most likely result in improved access and mobility for the Corridor’s transit-dependant population. All three AGT systems pass when evaluated for this sub-criterion. People Mover The technology associated with AGT considered for operation within the Corridor (People Mover, Monorail, or PRT) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Monorail The technology associated with AGT considered for operation within the Corridor (People Mover, Monorail, or PRT) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) The technology associated with AGT considered for operation within the Corridor (People Mover, Monorail, or PRT) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Impacts on Historical/Cultural Resources

This criterion determines the degree to which the build transportation options would impact historic properties and preserve the historic character and scale of the Corridor. This criterion is especially important because several structures and facilities of historic significance, including the State Capitol Building and the campus of Michigan State University, are located within the Corridor, in addition to multiple museums and cultural attractions. Bus Conventional Bus Because buses currently operate within the Corridor, it is unlikely that additional conventional bus service would strongly impact existing Corridor historic or cultural resources. Expanded conventional bus service would preserve the historic character and scale of the Corridor. Conventional bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-40 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Trolley The electrification equipment that connects trolley buses to overhead power sources would not strongly impact existing Corridor historic or cultural resources. Like conventional buses, the introduction of electric trolley bus service would preserve the historic character and scale of the Corridor. Trolley bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Bus Rapid Transit Conventional Because of similarities in the operating characteristics of BRT and conventional bus service, it is unlikely that BRT service would strongly impact existing Corridor historic of cultural resources. BRT service would preserve the historical character and scale of the Corridor. Conventional BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Guided This subtype of BRT would have a similarly minimal impact on historic and cultural resources within the Corridor as BRT; the presence of the guideway infrastructure would not directly result in any additional impacts, although it does not fit into the scale of the Corridor. Guided BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Light Rail Transit The operational requirements of light rail would necessitate the installation of rail tracks, overhead power lines, and platform stations, but none of these elements would necessarily contribute to a negative impact on the Corridor’s existing historic or cultural resources. The operating characteristics of light rail would not negatively impact the historic character and scale of the Corridor. LRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Modern Streetcar The operational requirements of streetcars would necessitate the installation of rail tracks, overhead power lines, and platform stations, but none of these elements would contribute to a negative impact on the Corridor’s existing historic or cultural resources. The operating characteristics of streetcars would not negatively impact the historic character and scale of the Corridor. Streetcar passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Magnetic Levitation The specialized equipment and infrastructure necessary for the operation of MagLev service may not more negatively impact the existing historical and cultural resources that are within the Corridor than any other mode type that is under evaluation. The operational characteristics of MagLev (scale of equipment and service) would, however, contrast with the historical character and scale of the Corridor. MagLev service fails when evaluated for the sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-41 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Heavy Rail Like MagLev, the equipment and infrastructure necessary to support heavy rail service would not necessarily negatively impact existing historical and cultural resources within the Corridor, but the operating characteristics of this mode (scale of equipment and service) do not complement the historical character and scale of the Corridor. Heavy rail fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Commuter Rail Conventional The installation of the tracks and stations that are necessary to support commuter rail within the Corridor may not negatively impact existing historic and cultural resources, but the equipment and operating characteristics of commuter rail (scale of equipment and service) do not complement the historic character and scale of the Corridor. Conventional commuter rail fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) The technology associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this criterion. DMU commute rail service also fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) The introduction of AGT service is not likely to negatively impact the existing historical and cultural resources within the Corridor, but the operating characteristics of the modes (elevated guideway) do not complement the historical character and scale of the Corridor. All three AGT systems fail when evaluated for this sub-criterion. People Mover The technology associated with AGT considered for operation within the Corridor (People Mover, Monorail, or PRT) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this criterion. Monorail The technology associated with AGT considered for operation within the Corridor (People Mover, Monorail, or PRT) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this criterion. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) The technology associated with AGT considered for operation within the Corridor (People Mover, Monorail, or PRT) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-42 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Summary

Of all the modes under evaluation, MagLev and the three AGT modes performing most poorly against the three Irresolvable Environmental Impacts sub-criterion. BRT was the best-performing mode when evaluated against the three sub-criterion. The results on the evaluation are summarized in the table below.

Table 2-5: Irresolvable Environmental Issues Evaluation Summary

Environmental Justice / Impacts on Historic / Cultural Mode Aesthetic Impacts Social Equity Issues Resources

Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating Bus service is not likely to disproportionately It is unlikely that negatively impact expanded It is unlikely that minority or low- conventional bus expanded income service would conventional bus populations. It may strongly impact Conventional    service would strongly improve mobility for historic/cultural impact Corridor transit-dependent resources. It would aesthetics. populations, but is preserve the historic unlikely to spur the scale and character Bus creation of of the Corridor. additional affordable housing.

The electrification The electrification equipment required equipment makes for trolley buses may trolley service less minimally detract from Same as complementary to Trolley the visual character of    conventional bus. the historic character the Corridor; trolley of the Corridor than service would fit into conventional bus the existing scale of service. the Corridor.

BRT is not likely to BRT would not disproportionately strongly impact negatively impact It is unlikely that Corridor aesthetics or minority or low- conventional BRT affect viewsheds. income service would Median alterations populations. It may strongly impact required by center- BRT Conventional  improve mobility for  historic/cultural  running BRT may transit-dependent resources. It would require tree removal, populations, and preserve the historic but this is not may spur the scale and character expected to disrupt creation of of the Corridor. viewsheds or the additional scale of the Corridor. affordable housing.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-43 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Environmental Justice / Impacts on Historic / Cultural Mode Aesthetic Impacts Social Equity Issues Resources

Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating Despite its guideway infrastructure, curb- running guided BRT is BRT is not likely to not expected to disproportionately negatively impact the negatively impact While it is unlikely Corridor viewshed or minority or low- that guided BRT scale. Like center- income would strongly running BRT, guided populations. It may impact center-running BRT Guided  improve mobility for  historic/cultural  may require median transit-dependent resources, it would alterations in addition populations, and not necessarily fit to the guideway may spur the into the scale of the infrastructure that creation of Corridor. guided BRT requires. additional It is not expected to affordable housing. negatively impact the Corridor's viewshed or scale.

LRT is not likely to Infrastructure for disproportionately electrification (poles, negatively impact wires, and It is unlikely that LRT minority or low- substations) may service would income impact Corridor strongly impact populations. It may aesthetics; however, historic/cultural Light Rail  improve mobility for   higher quality transit resources. It would transit-dependent vehicles and station preserve the historic populations, and facilities and scale and character may spur the amenities may of the Corridor. creation of mitigate these additional impacts. affordable housing.

Streetcar service is Infrastructure for not likely to electrification (poles, disproportionately It is unlikely that wires, and negatively impact curb-running substations) may minority or low- streetcar service impact Corridor income would strongly aesthetics; however, populations. It may impact Modern Streetcar    higher quality transit improve mobility for historic/cultural vehicles and station transit-dependent resources. It would facilities and populations, and preserve the historic amenities may may spur the scale and character mitigate these creation of of the Corridor. impacts. additional affordable housing.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-44 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Environmental Justice / Impacts on Historic / Cultural Mode Aesthetic Impacts Social Equity Issues Resources

Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating MagLev is not likely to disproportionately MagLev may not negatively impact negatively impact The highly specialized minority or low- existing infrastructure required income historic/cultural by this mode would populations. It is resources, but it MagLev not fit the scale of the  unlikely to improve   does not Corridor and would mobility for transit- complement the negatively impact dependent historic scale or Corridor aesthetics. populations, and is character of the unlikely to spur the Corridor. creation of additional affordable housing.

Heavy rail is not likely to disproportionately Heavy rail may not While heavy rail may negatively impact negatively impact not adversely affect minority or low- existing existing viewsheds, income historic/cultural the required populations. It may resources, but it Heavy Rail infrastructure and    improve mobility for does not scale of service do transit-dependent complement the not complement the populations, and historic scale or existing character of may spur the character of the the Corridor. creation of Corridor. additional affordable housing.

Commuter rail is not likely to disproportionately Commuter rail may negatively impact not negatively impact While the scale of minority or low- existing commuter rail service income historic/cultural is disproportionate to populations. It may resources, but it Conventional the Corridor, it does    improve mobility for does not not negatively impact Commuter transit-dependent complement the the aesthetics of the Rail populations, but is historic scale or Corridor. unlikely to spur the character of the creation of Corridor. additional affordable housing.

Same as Same as Same as conventional DMU  conventional  conventional  commuter rail. commuter rail. commuter rail.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-45 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Environmental Justice / Impacts on Historic / Cultural Mode Aesthetic Impacts Social Equity Issues Resources

Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating Evaluation Rating A People Mover is not likely to disproportionately A People Mover may negatively impact not negatively impact The elevated right-of- minority or low- existing way would interfere income historic/cultural with viewsheds and populations. It may resources, but it People Mover    negatively impact the improve mobility for does not existing aesthetics of transit-dependent complement the AGT the Corridor. populations, but is historic scale or unlikely to spur the character of the creation of Corridor. additional affordable housing.

Same as People Same as People Same as People Monorail    Mover. Mover. Mover. Same as People Same as People Same as People PRT    Mover. Mover. Mover.

Rating Definition  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-46 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

2.5 Agency and Public Opposition

The Study developed several ways for members of the public and agency representatives to explore and express opinions about Corridor transportation options. These included two meetings targeted to Corridor business and developers, three meetings targeting the general public, and a public web site that included online preference surveys. Business and Developer Meetings  Over 500 invitations were sent to Corridor business owners and developers to attend one of two information and input meetings.  The first Business and Developer’s Meeting was held on Friday December 11th, 2009 from 8:30 to 10:00 am at the Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce.  The second Business and Developer’s Meeting was held on Monday December 14th from 1:30 to 3:30 pm at the Hannah Community Center in East Lansing.  Each session began with an explanation of the Purpose and Need for the Study, the timeline, explanation of FTA planning requirements including the Fatal Flaw Analysis, and information about the Study’s web site. Participants were encouraged to view information on different transit technologies that the Study was considering. Participants were also encouraged to visit the six stations that each represented one of the Corridor segments, each of which included aerial photography and a series of segment options for center-running rail, curb-running rail, center-lane BRT and curb-lane BRT. Participants were asked to complete comment cards, including indicating preferences and concerns.  Participants at these two meetings submitted 38 general comments that related to access and affordability, bicycle and pedestrian issues, mode preferences and support, streetscape and right-of-way issues, business and parking impacts, transit service area and connections, transit operational details, and study process-related questions. There were also 20 expressions of support for individual segment options and two expressions of opposition. There were also 15 other segment-based comments related to right-of-way, alignment, bicycle accommodation and the like. Public Stakeholder Meetings  Three public stakeholder meetings were held to provide information and receive input from the public. A variety of means were used to communicate about these opportunities. They include the web site, e-mail lists, meeting notices in neighborhood bulletins, and advertisements in the Lansing State Journal, City Pulse, State News, The Towne Courier, and the New Citizens Press.  The first Public Stakeholder Meeting was held at the Hannah Community Center on Tuesday January 12th, 2010 from 5:00 to 7:00 pm. There were 22 participants.  The second Public Stakeholder Meeting was held at the Foster Community Center on Wednesday January 13th, 2010. There were 30 participants.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-47 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

 The third Public Stakeholder Meeting was held at the Meridian Township Hall on Thursday January 14th, 2010. There were 35 participants.  Each session began with an explanation of the Purpose and Need for the Study, the timeline, explanation of FTA planning requirements including the Fatal Flaw Analysis, and information about the Study’s web site. Participants were encouraged to view information on different transit technologies that the Study was considering. Participants were also encouraged to visit each six stations representing six Corridor segments, each of which included aerial photography and a series of segment options for center-running rail, curb- running rail, center-lane BRT and curb-lane BRT. Participants were asked to complete comment cards, including indicating preferences and concerns.  Participants at these two meetings submitted 37 comments related to mode preferences and 60 general comments that related to access and affordability, bicycle and pedestrian issues, mode preferences and support, streetscape and right-of-way issues, business and parking impacts, transit service area and connections, transit operational details, planning and policy concerns, and study process-related questions. There were also 54 expressions of support for individual segment options. Participants also made 37 segment-related comments related to right-of-way, alignment, bicycle accommodation and the like. Web Site  The web site for the Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study is www.migrtrans.org.  Two online interactive exercises were created: 1) Transit Preference Survey and 2) Build Your Own Corridor. These exercises have been online since January 5th, 2010.  The online Transit Preference Survey was designed to provide information to participants on the range of possible transit investments in the Michigan/Grand River Corridor. The Survey included two images and information on operating characteristics, typical applications, and costs. Participants were able to select their first, second and third choices. Anonymous responses were forwarded to project staff.  The “Build Your Own Corridor” exercise was designed to provide members of the public an opportunity to explore how surface transit operations might operate along the Michigan/ Grand River Avenue Corridor. Participants were guided through a series of choices that included mode (LRT, streetcar and BRT). The second choice involved picking a general alignment for the mode, either in the middle of the right-of-way or along the curb. The next choices took participants through each of the six Corridor segments where they chose between a number of different options for use of the right-of-way (e.g., configuration of sidewalk, parking, bike lanes, auto lanes, and boulevards/medians). Upon completion, the unique configuration of choices was forward to project staff.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-48 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Results from Business and Developer Meetings

Each of the modes has undergone an evaluation to determine the degree of business and developer support or opposition to each mode at this phase of the Study. The results of this evaluation are summarized in the table below.

Table 2-6: Business and Developer Meeting Results

Mode Rating Comments

Conventional  No comments in support of use Bus Trolley Bus  No comments in support of use Conventional  9 of 11 mode comments in support of BRT or express bus BRT Guided  No comments in support of use LRT  One of 11 mode comments in support of LRT Modern Streetcar  One of 11 mode comments in support of streetcar MagLev  No comments in support of use Heavy Rail  No comments in support of use Conventional  No comments in support of use Commuter Rail DMU  No comments in support of use People Mover  No comments in support of use AGT Monorail  No comments in support of use PRT  No comments in support of use

Rating Definition  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion

Bus

Conventional Bus The continued or increased use of conventional buses was not a significant topic of discussion. There were suggestions for use of advertising and ensuring that buses are clean, user-friendly and accessible. Electric Trolley Bus Electric trolley bus was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it the subject of written comments.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-49 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Bus Rapid Transit Conventional BRT was the subject of nine generally positive comments as well as inquiries into operational and implementation details like Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technology, the use of electric buses and questions related to express versus local service. In the review of segment options between rail and BRT, participants identified 11 segment options with a BRT component versus 10 segment options with a rail component. No one expressed opposition to BRT, with the exception that one individual expressed opposition to any BRT curb-lane option for Corridor Segment C. Guided BRT Guided BRT was not the subject of specific comments, though in the review of segment options between rail and BRT, participants identified 11 segment options with a BRT component versus 10 segment options with a rail component. Light Rail Transit LRT was not a subject of specific comments, though in the review of segment options between rail and BRT, participants identified 10 segment options with a rail component versus 11 segment options with a BRT component. No one expressed opposition to LRT, with the exception that one individual expressed opposition to any rail curb-running option for Corridor Segment A. Modern Streetcar Streetcar was the subject of one general comment, which suggested center-running to avoid interruption of right-turning vehicles. In the review of segment options between rail and BRT, participants identified 10 segment options with a rail component versus 11 segment options with a BRT component. MagLev MagLev was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it the subject of written comments. Heavy Rail Heavy Rail was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it the subject of significant written comments. One comment expressed positive feeling for a subway, but recognized its expense. Commuter Rail Conventional Conventional Commuter Rail was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it the subject of written comments. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) DMU was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it the subject of written comments.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-50 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) People Mover People Mover was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it the subject of written comments. Monorail Monorail was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it the subject of written comments. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) PRT was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it the subject of written comments.

Results from Public Stakeholder Meetings

Each of the modes has undergone an evaluation to determine the degree of general public support or opposition to each mode at this phase in the Study. The results of this evaluation are summarized in the table below. With regard to preferred mode choices, participants sometimes indicated more than one.

Table 2-7: Public Stakeholder Meeting Results

Mode Rating Comments

Conventional  No comments in support of increased use Bus Trolley Bus  No comments in support of use Conventional  12 comments in support; 4 opposed BRT Guided BRT  One comment in support of use LRT  14 comments in support, with one opposed to “rail” Modern Streetcar  17 comments in support, with one opposed to “rail” Maglev  No comments in support of use Heavy Rail  No comments in support of use Conventional  No comments in support of use Commuter Rail DMU  No comments in support of use People Mover  No comments in support of use AGT Monorail  Two comments in support of use PRT  No comments in support of use

Rating Definition  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-51 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Bus Conventional Bus Conventional Bus was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it a preferred mode choice of any participant, nor was it the subject of written comments. Electric Trolley Bus Electric Trolley Bus was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it a preferred mode choice of any participant, nor was it the subject of written comments. Bus Rapid Transit Conventional Among participants who indicated preferred modes, BRT was mentioned 12 out of 57 times. On the other hand, five stated that this did not want BR.T. In the review of segment options between rail and BRT, participants identified 35 segment options with a BRT component versus 20 segment options with a rail component. Guided BRT Guided BRT was a preferred mode choice for one participant, and was not otherwise a source of comment. Light Rail Transit Among participants who indicated preferred modes, LRT was mentioned 16 out of 57 times. In the review of segment options between rail and BRT, participants identified 20 segment options with a rail component versus 35 segment options with a BRT component. In the review of segment options between rail and BRT, participants identified 20 segment options with a rail component versus 35 segment options with a BRT component. Modern Streetcar Among participants who indicated preferred modes, streetcar was mentioned the most, with 19 out of 57 times. In the review of segment options between rail and BRT, participants identified 20 segment options with a rail component versus 35 segment options with a BRT component. In the review of segment options between rail and BRT, participants identified 20 segment options with a rail component versus 35 segment options with a BRT component. MagLev MagLev was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it a preferred mode choice of any participant, nor was it the subject of written comments. Heavy Rail Heavy Rail was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it a preferred mode choice of any participant, nor was it the subject of written comments.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-52 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Commuter Rail Conventional Conventional commuter rail was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it a preferred mode choice of any participant, nor was it the subject of written comments. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) DMU was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it the subject of written comments. Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) People Mover People Mover was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it the subject of written comments. Monorail Among participants who indicated preferred modes, Monorail was mentioned two of out 57 times. One individual stated that it would be too expensive at present. Otherwise, Monorail was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it the subject of written comments. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) PRT was not a significant topic of discussion, nor was it the subject of written comments.

Input from Web Site

Results to date from the online Transit Preference Survey are shown in Table 2-8 below. To create a weighted score given the variation of responses, each first choice selection was given a weight of three, each second choice was given a weight of two, and each third choice was given a weight of one.

Table 2-8: Web Site Input

Weighted Mode Rating 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice Score

Conventional  5 0 2 1 Bus Trolley Bus  14 3 1 3 Conventional  BRT 21 2 3 9 Guided BRT  22 1 6 7 LRT  36 7 5 5 Modern Streetcar  68 13 13 3 MagLev  7 1 2 0 Heavy Rail  23 6 1 3 Conventional  23 6 1 3 Commuter Rail DMU  0 0 0 0

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-53 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Weighted Mode Rating 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice Score

People Mover  17 3 3 2 AGT Monorail  19 4 3 1 PRT  8 1 1 3

Rating Definition  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion

2.6 Consistency with Local Plans and Policies

Regional and local transportation, land use and economic development goals have been developed during the course of planning activities undertaken by the TCRPC, CATA, and local communities (Technical Memorandum #1 summarized many of the previous planning efforts in the Michigan/Grand River Avenue Corridor). Following are some of the major goals from relevant planning documents. Transportation and Mobility Goals  Improved transit service efficiency along the corridor currently served by CATA’s Route 1 (Transit Development Plan, TCRPC, 2008)  Reduced traffic congestion (Regional 2035 Transportation Plan, TCRPC, 2008)  Improved transportation safety on MSU’s campus, in particular pedestrian safety by reducing automobile trips on the main campus (MSU, 2007)  Reduced parking in downtown East Lansing (Parking System Master Plan, City of East Lansing, 2006)  Additional non-motorized pathways along the Michigan - Grand River Avenue Corridor to make bicycling and walking safe (Non-motorized Master Plan, City of East Lansing, 2006)  Expanded use of alternate modes of transportation (Regional 2035 Transportation Plan, TCRPC)

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-54 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Land Use and Development Goals  Improvements to the walkability and economic vitality of the Michigan Avenue business district through the City of Lansing, Lansing Township, and City of East Lansing (Michigan Avenue Corridor Conceptual Development Plan, 2009)  Better and safer pedestrian/bike connections along the Michigan - Grand River corridor, with a particular focus on connections across the Corridor between the MSU campus and off-campus (Comprehensive Plan, City of East Lansing, 2006)  Targeted growth within existing urban areas of the region, including the preservation of agricultural land and open space (Long Range Transportation Plan, TCRPC, 2008) Economic Development Goals  Revitalization of the urban commercial corridor through Lansing and East Lansing (Michigan Avenue Corridor Conceptual Development Plan, 2009)  Broader customer base for businesses along the Michigan - Grand River Avenue Corridor (Michigan Avenue Corridor Conceptual Development Plan, 2009)  Investment in the downtown and East Village areas as key development nodes (Comprehensive Plan and East Village Master Plan, City of East Lansing, 2006)  Support of the region’s educational, cultural, tourism, and governmental institutions, which continue to drive employment and growth in the region (LEAP, 2009)

Transportation & Mobility Goals

Each of the modes has undergone an evaluation to determine the degree to which each would meet the stated transportation and mobility goals for the Corridor, which include improvements to traffic congestion, transit efficiency, and pedestrian/bicycle safety. The results of this evaluation are summarized in the chart below.

Table 2-9: Transportation & Mobility Goals

Mode Rating Comments

Conventional  Unlikely to significantly change mobility Bus Trolley Bus  Unlikely to significantly change mobility Conventional  Would improve travel times for trips BRT Guided  Would improve travel times for key trips LRT  Would improve travel times for key trips Modern Streetcar  Unlikely to improve travel times Corridor-wide MagLev  Unlikely to meet travel demands throughout Corridor Heavy Rail  Would improve travel times for key trips Commuter Rail Conventional  Would link key nodes but not entire Corridor

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-55 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Mode Rating Comments

DMU  Would link key nodes but not entire Corridor People Mover  Unlikely to improve service Corridor-wide AGT Monorail  Would improve travel times for key trips PRT  Would improve travel times for key trips

Rating Definition  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion

Bus

Conventional Bus Conventional bus service currently operates regularly along the Corridor with short headways during both its weekday and weekend service periods. While additional bus service may improve the level of service in the Corridor through shortened headways and the addition of routes, it is unlikely to significantly change mobility levels or attract riders away from other modes. Conventional bus service passes the evaluation for this sub-criterion. Electric Trolley Bus It is unlikely that the propulsion equipment required for trolley bus service would more significantly impact mobility patterns more than expanded and improved conventional bus service. Trolley bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Bus Rapid Transit Conventional BRT service is typically considered an upgrade from conventional bus service. Implementation of BRT would be likely to result in decreased average trip times, more comfortable vehicles, and higher passenger capacity than existing conventional bus service. These service enhancements would help to advance transportation and mobility goals because BRT implementation would improve the efficiency of transit and provide an alternative mode that is more competitive with the automobile than conventional bus service. BRT services passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Guided BRT Guided BRT operates in a specialized fixed guideway that allows comparatively higher-speed operations. Similar to conventional BRT, this mode would be considered an upgrade from existing transit service in the Corridor, and would improve the efficiency of transit while providing an alternative mode that is more competitive with the automobile than conventional bus service. Guided BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-56 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Light Rail Transit LRT vehicles are powered by a catenary and would operate on at-grade tracks that are primarily separated from the roadway. This mode would provide comparatively faster travel times than bus service, would improve passenger comfort, and increase passenger capacity. This would achieve Corridor goals for improved transit efficiency and upgraded alternative transportation modes. LRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Modern Streetcar Streetcars, like LRT, are powered by an overhead wire. As compared to LRT, however, streetcars are comparatively smaller capacity vehicles that operate at comparatively shorter headways to more closely-spaced stations. Streetcars operate on at-grade tracks that can run in mixed-traffic. This mode makes frequent stops and travels at low speeds, making its operations more similar to bus service than LRT (but with more comfortable and reliable service than conventional bus service). This would achieve Corridor goals for improved transit efficiency and upgraded alternative transportation modes. Streetcars pass when evaluated for this sub-criterion. MagLev MagLev service would operate along a fully grade-separated right-of-way within the Corridor. Although this service would operate at high speeds, it would likely not service a sufficient number of stations at key Corridor destinations to allow for a significant ridership improvement over the current local bus service. It is also unlikely that a MagLev service would attract a wide customer base. MagLev fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Heavy Rail Heavy rail service would operate along fully grade-separated tracks, which would decrease Corridor transit trip travel time and improve the attractiveness of transit to choice riders. This would help to achieve the transportation goal of improving transit efficiency and providing upgraded alternative modes in the Corridor. Heavy rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Commuter Rail Commuter rail, like heavy rail, operates on grade-separated tracks, but typically has fewer stops and operates at higher speeds than heavy rail, with service structured around peak-period commuter travel demand. Commuter rail service would meet the stated goals of increasing transit travel speeds within the Corridor while reducing auto congestion. Commuter rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Conventional The technology associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) The technology associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-57 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Automated Guideway Transit AGT systems are typically composed of driverless, automated transit vehicles that operate on specialized guideways that are grade-separated and typically elevated. People Mover A People Mover would operate on an elevated guideway, with low average speeds and frequent stops at multiple destinations. This mode would likely improve the attractiveness of transit for short trips between close destinations, but not significantly improve the attractiveness of transit for travel the length of the Corridor. People Movers fail when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Monorail A monorail would operate on a specialized elevated guideway with similar operating characteristics to heavy rail service. This service would improve the effectiveness of transit by reaching multiple key destinations throughout the Corridor with travel times that are shorter than those experienced on a conventional bus. Monorail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) PRT would provide point-to-point trips along a separate guideway within the Corridor. The service would operate on demand, which, when combined with the point-to-point service characteristic, would result in reduced travel times, as compared to conventional bus service. PRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Land Use and Development Goals

Key land use and development goals for the Corridor include a focus on the redevelopment of existing urban areas within the Corridor, as well as a focus on the creation of new patterns of development that encourage a walkable, pedestrian-oriented environment. In cities across the country, transit system investment has proven to be a powerful tool in guiding a higher-density, mixed-use pattern of land use and development activity. The project participants within the Corridor are presented with a unique opportunity to fundamentally shape the future growth and development patterns of the Corridor for decades to come through the transit system planning and implementation process. Each of the modes has been evaluated for its ability to meet the stated land use and development goals of the municipalities and key planning stakeholders within the Corridor.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-58 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 2-10: Land Use and Development Goals

Mode Rating Comments

Conventional  Unlikely to impact land use/development Bus Trolley Bus  Unlikely to impact land use/development Conventional  May support land use goals BRT Guided BRT  May support land use goals LRT  Would support land use goals Modern Streetcar  Would support land use goals in some portions Maglev  Unlikely to support land use goals Heavy Rail  Typically supports higher urban densities Conventional  May support land use goals Commuter Rail DMU  May support land use goals People Mover  Unlikely to support land use goals throughout Corridor AGT Monorail  May support land use goals PRT  Unlikely to support land uses

Rating Definition  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion

Bus Conventional Bus Conventional bus service currently operates regularly within the Corridor with short headways during both its weekday and weekend service periods. While additional bus service may improve the level of service in the Corridor, it is a mode that has not proven successful in significantly altering land use and development trends. Conventional bus service passes when evaluated for this sub- criterion. Electric Trolley Bus It is unlikely that the propulsion equipment required for trolley bus service would more significantly impact land use and development patterns more than expanded and improved conventional bus service. Trolley bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Bus Rapid Transit Conventional BRT service would be an upgrade from existing conventional bus service within the Corridor, and could support the continued development of a mixed-use commercial district at key nodes through

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-59 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

the Corridor. Because BRT is a comparatively new technology, it has a smaller track record of success in catalyzing transit-oriented development than heavy rail and LRT, but may hold potential to guide land use and development patterns. Conventional BRT service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Guided BRT Guided BRT operates in a specialized fixed guideway that allows comparatively higher-speed operations. Similar to conventional BRT, this mode would be considered an upgrade from existing transit service in the Corridor, and could likely be used to guide land use and development patterns. Guided BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Light Rail Transit LRT vehicles are powered by a catenary and would operate on at-grade tracks that are primarily separated from the roadway. LRT has an extensive track record of success in catalyzing transit- oriented development, and could be expected to support infill development and redevelopment around station locations throughout the Corridor. LRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Modern Streetcar Streetcars, like LRT, are powered by an overhead wire. As compared to LRT, however, streetcars are comparatively smaller capacity vehicles that operate at comparatively shorter headways to more closely-spaced stations. Streetcars operate on at-grade tracks that can run in mixed-traffic. This mode makes frequent stops and travels at low speeds, but has catalyzed significant development activity within existing urban districts, particularly in Portland, OR and Seattle, WA. Streetcars pass when evaluated for this sub-criterion. MagLev MagLev service would operate along a fully grade-separated right-of-way within the Corridor. Due to the heavy infrastructure and long distances between stations, this service would likely be inconsistent with the redevelopment goals that are focused on urban infill redevelopment. MagLev fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Heavy Rail Heavy rail service would operate along fully grade-separated tracks through the Corridor. Heavy rail transit service supports the high-density land uses in major cities such as New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. The implementation of heavy rail service within the Corridor would support some of the land use and development goals, but may not foster as active a street life as an at-grade, smaller-scale transit investment such as BRT, LRT, and streetcar. Heavy rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Commuter Rail Commuter rail operates on a grade-separated railway similar to heavy rail, but would have comparatively fewer stops and operate at comparatively higher speeds. Also, service would be specifically structured to meet peak-period commuter travel demands. Commuter rail has been shown to foster transit-oriented development patterns in some locations, even though the heavy

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-60 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

equipment involved with this mode and its typical location within existing freight rail corridors can discourage investment in parcels directly adjacent to the rail right-of-way. Commuter rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Conventional The technology associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) The technology associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) AGT systems are typically comprised of driverless, automated transit vehicles that operate on specialized guideways that are grade-separated and typically elevated. People Mover A People Mover would operate on an elevated guideway, with low average speeds and closely- spaced stations. Due to its elevated trackage, this transit mode is not typically associated with street- level redevelopment, and would not necessarily support the land use and development patterns that have been planned for the Corridor. People Movers fail when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Monorail A Monorail system would operate on a specialized elevated guideway with similar operating characteristics to heavy rail service. Like heavy rail, the introduction of an elevated guideway may detract from the creation of a vibrant street life that supports a walkable pedestrian district. Monorail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) PRT would provide point-to-point trips along a separate guideway within the Corridor. The service would operate on demand, which, when combined with the point-to-point service characteristic, would result in reduced travel times, as compared to conventional bus service. This service would not be expected to support land use and development. PRT fails when evaluated for this sub- criterion.

Economic Development Goals

Transit system investment can be leveraged for broader economic development by connecting key economic clusters in a region, linking residents with jobs, and by directing job growth to major development nodes. Within the Corridor, the key economic development goals are to revitalize existing commercial areas, direct investment to high-density nodes, and support continued growth in key industries (education, health care, government services). Each of the modes has been evaluated for their ability to meet the stated economic development goals for the Corridor.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-61 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 2-11: Economic Development Goals

Mode Rating Comments

Conventional  Unlikely to impact economic development Bus Trolley Bus  Unlikely to impact economic development Conventional  May support economic development BRT Guided BRT  May support economic development LRT  Would support economic development Modern Streetcar  Would support economic development in some portions MagLev  Unlikely to support economic development Heavy Rail  Would support economic development Conventional  May support economic development Commuter Rail DMU  May support economic development People Mover  Unlikely to support economic growth corridor-wide AGT Monorail  May support economic development PRT  Unlikely to support economic development

Rating Definition  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion

Bus Conventional Bus Conventional bus service currently operates regularly within the Corridor with short headways during both its weekday and weekend service periods. While additional bus service may improve the level of service in the Corridor, it is unlikely to significantly change broader economic development trends because it will not affect existing mobility patterns to better link residents with jobs or effectively catalyze private sector investment. Conventional bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Electric Trolley Bus It is unlikely that the propulsion equipment required for trolley bus service would more significantly impact economic development patterns more than expanded and improved conventional bus service. Trolley bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-62 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Bus Rapid Transit Conventional BRT service would be an upgrade from existing conventional bus service within the Corridor, and could support the continued development of a mixed-use commercial district at key nodes through the Corridor. The improved levels of service that would result from BRT would also foster improved connections to jobs for the residents and students within the Corridor. BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Guided BRT Guided BRT operates in a specialized fixed guideway that allows comparatively higher-speed operations. Similar to conventional BRT, guided BRT service could support the continued development of a mixed-use commercial district at key nodes through the Corridor. The improved levels of service that would result from BRT would also foster improved connections to jobs for the residents and students within the Corridor. Guided BRT passes when evaluated for this sub- criterion. Light Rail Transit LRT vehicles are powered by a catenary and would operate on at-grade tracks that are primarily separated from the roadway. LRT has an extensive track record of success in catalyzing transit- oriented development, and could be expected to support infill development and redevelopment around station locations throughout the Corridor. LRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Modern Streetcar Streetcars, like LRT, are powered using an overhead wire. The vehicles would likely operate on rails installed at-grade and would be likely to operate in mixed traffic through much of the alignment. Streetcars have been part of a successful central business district revitalization strategy in many cities, and can function as circulators that link major employers, tourist sites and entertainment districts. Streetcars pass when evaluated for this sub-criterion. MagLev MagLev service would operate within a fully grade-separated right-of-way along the Corridor. Although this service may improve the attractiveness of downtown Lansing as an employment center, the heavy infrastructure, high rates of speed, and long distances between stations are inconsistent with current redevelopment goals that focus on catalyzing urban infill redevelopment activity. MagLev service fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Heavy Rail Heavy rail service would operate in fully grade-separated tracks through the Corridor. Heavy rail transit supports the high-density land uses in major cities such as New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. Because economic development for the corridor is focused on continuous, smaller-scale redevelopment nodes, the density of scale and development that is associated with heavy rail service would not necessarily correspond to the patterns of development envisioned for

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-63 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

the Corridor. Because it could be used to catalyze economic development, however, heavy rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Commuter Rail Commuter rail operates on a grade-separated railway similar to heavy rail, but would have comparatively fewer stops and operate at comparatively higher speeds. Also, service would be specifically structured to meet peak-period commuter travel demand. These operating characteristics may not be best suited to support the smaller-scale, nodal pattern of development that has been envisioned for the Corridor, but commuter rail service could connect residents to employment opportunities and encourage investment at high-density nodes. Commuter rail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Conventional The technology associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Diesel Multiple Unit The technology associated with commuter rail within the Corridor (conventional versus DMU) does not have an impact on the performance of this mode when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Automated Guideway Transit AGT systems are typically comprised of driverless, automated transit vehicles that operate on specialized guideways that are grade-separated and typically elevated. People Mover A People Mover would operate on an elevated guideway, with low average speeds and closely- spaced stations. While this type of system typically functions as a circulator, the scale of service within the Corridor would not be sufficient enough to drive economic development. People Movers fail when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Monorail A Monorail system would operate on a specialized elevated guideway, with similar operating characteristics to heavy rail service. The operating characteristics and scale of service would connect residents with employment opportunities and may encourage development at higher-density nodes. Monorail passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) PRT would provide point-to-point trips along a separate guideway within the Corridor. The service would operate on demand, which, when combined with the point-to-point service characteristic, would result in reduced travel times, as compared to conventional bus service. While this type of system typically functions as a circulator, the scale of service within the Corridor would not be sufficient enough to drive economic development. PRT fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 2-64 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

3.0 PART TWO: SEGMENT/ALIGNMENT EVALUATION

3.1 Introduction

For the purposes of this Study, the Corridor has been divided into six segments to facilitate the development of conceptual options that could achieve the study’s Goals and Objectives. (Segment options are illustrated on the following pages.) Within each of the transit options, multiple configurations for accommodating autos, transit, pedestrians and bicyclists have been developed for each of the six segments to allow for the consideration of the broadest range of alternatives during this Fatal Flaw Analysis. Following this part of analysis, the remaining modes and alignments will be subjected to a more refined level of analysis during the Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives phase. The best-performing mode resulting from that level of analysis will be designated as the Locally Preferred Alternative. Based on the outcome of Part 1 of this Fatal Flaw Analysis, three Build alternatives are recommended to be carried forward into evaluation in Part 2: BRT, streetcar, and LRT. Part 2 of the Fatal Flaw Analysis has evaluated each of the segment options against the following criteria: impact on potential traffic volumes, impacts on potential traffic flow, and stakeholder feedback. These three criteria were chosen because the Corridor’s unique characteristics—the fluctuating width of the right-of-way, variety of land use and development patterns, and its role as a major east- west connector. These characteristics require a transit system investment that is particularly sensitive to the environment in which it is operating, and the resulting evaluation criteria were defined for their ability to help differentiate between alignments and determine which would be most feasible and appropriate to implement within the unique environment of the Corridor. As in Part 1, these alignments were evaluated against a three-tier scale:

Rating Definition  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion Modes that scored in the highest category (“mode meets criterion very well”) were awarded two points, modes that scored in the middle category (“mode meets criterion sufficiently”) were awarded one point, while modes that scored in the lowest category (“modes does not meet criterion”) were awarded no points. Following the completion of the evaluation, points were tallied, and those modes that were awarded at 50 percent of the possible points (7 out of 14 possible points) are recommended to be carried forward into the Detailed Evaluation of Alternative stage. Details of Part 2 Fatal Flaw evaluation are discussed in Sections 3.2 through 3.4 of this report, and summary evaluations with scoring results are available in Appendix A: Evaluation Matrix. The Corridor segments and alignment options are shown below in Figures 3-1 through 3-6.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-1 Final March 5, 2010 ROW Source: MDOT Official Right-of-Way Mapping Capitol • 4 au • Bike lanes n • No pa • No bike lane • • 4 au cu P c e a EXISTING n r r OPTION 1 b k Cedar/Larch t t t ing on both side er tu o lane o lanes plus r k in Segment AOptions: Downtown Lansing r g n s

e s x • Bike lanes n • No pa • 4 au t Pennsylvania cu t o

r OPTION 1 b 99’ R.O eg t o lane s r men T k in ypical CENTER R M g t A s e ichigan A CENTER LANE x t t .W o • Bike lanes on pa • • 2 au

IMPR P r e oad( a . x NON-MO c r OPTION 2 k ept rush hou • • • Bikes di t ing both sides O M se pa o lane s ) ther enhan o r r O vi r v allel e f c VED B e e s r . UNNING eque v • Bike lanes on pa • • 4 au r oad e P r onl oad( r T a t r r r ed allel OPTION 2 ORIZED k n y ( c s t ing on south side

t bus eme o lane ) s US AND t US-127 ) o

t s s B r US RAPIDTRANSIT • Bike lanes on pa • • 4 au allel P r onl b Segment AOptions: Downtown Lansing oad(s a et r

k y OPTION 3

t ing on south side ● ● Segment Option Key: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● Please note… w o lane ) LR Bus lanes (highlightedy V ▪ ▪ Bik Center turning lanes (black pa the existing right Medians and boulev Sidew Curbs (thickwhite line) P That the location oftr That bik That segment options ha een C Off On-stree arking lane (black pa ehicle lanes (blac T/Stree s e lanes Harrison -stree apit alks (gr r allel ol andU e lanes/paths notshownare proposed for near RAIL

t t t stripedlane (solid white striping with bik car tr path next tosidew a y with pedestrian symbol) S -127 ac -of • Bike lanes n • No pa • 4 au • Bike lanes n • No pa • 4 au ks (highlighted salmon colorwithtr k pa bus lane -w ard (green) OPTION 1 OPTION 1 t ansit (curb/center) impacts other uses of the roadw t o lane v a o lane r v r k ement withwhite hash marks) k y of all segments. ement withdashed white striping)

in Bogue ellow with diamond symbol) in s v g g e different tr s s e e x x t t t t o L o alk (gr v

ement withy Hagadorn

r CURB R G

a R and CURB LANE y with bik

adeoffs. Notallusescan fit within

v i

A er ellow striping)

UNNING v

e symbol)

e . e symbol) ac b ks) y pa r allel road(s).

F Okemos ig u

r M

e arsh

3 a . y 1 . Segment BOptions: E.Lansing/LansingTwp. ROW Source: MDOT Official Right-of-Way Mapping Capitol OPTION 1 • 4 au • Bike lanes n • No pa • 6 au • No bike lane • No pa cu EXISTING r

b Cedar/Larch t t o lane o lane r r k k in in g g s s e s OPTION 1 x • Bike lanes n • No pa • 4 au t Pennsylvania cu t o

r b t o lane r k in CENTER R M g s e ichigan A CENTER LANE x OPTION 2 • Bike lanes n • No pa • 2 au t cu t o

r IMPR b t o lane NON-MO r k • • • Bike lane in O M enh bus se g ther o O s r v e a e f x VED B e n

t OPTION 2 r r c . UNNING eque vi t e • Bike lanes n • No pa • 4 au b Segment BOptions: E.Lansing/Lansing Twp. o m c s cu

et e T e r n ORIZED w n b t t t s o lane

een U US AND US-127 r k in 200’ R.O g OPTION 3 S • Bike lanes n • No pa • 4 au • Na s eg f e or po T B S x ypical men -127 andHarrison t r r t t o o o lane US RAPIDTRANSIT w median p r

t k e t B in n tial de g .W ● ● Segment Option Key: ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● Please note… s e x LR Bus lanes (highlightedy V ▪ ▪ Bik Center turning lanes (blac P the existing right Medians and boulev Sidew Curbs (thickwhite line) That the location oftr That bik That segment options ha t . Off On-stree arking lane (black pa ehicle lanes (black pa t v o cu elopme T/Stree r e lanes o Harrison vides a -stree r b alks (gr n t e lanes/paths notshownare proposed for near RAIL r ea t t t

stripedlane (solid white striping with bik car tr pat a h next to sidew y with pedestrian symbol) ac OPTION 1 • Bike lanes n • No pa • 4 au -of lan ks (highlighted salmon colorwithtr e -w ard (green) t o lane r ansit (curb/center) impacts other uses of the roadw k v a v in ement withwhite has y of all segments. ement withda g

ellow with diamond symbol) Bogue v s e e different tr k pa x OPTION 1 • Bike lanes n • No pa • 4 au t t o bus alk (gr t v o lane r ement withy

k Hagadorn in

r G g OPTION 2 CURB R

e • • Bike lanes n • No pa • 4 au R and x R a t e t CURB LANE v y with bik o L ersible lane in media s adeoffs. Notallusescan fit within t o lane hed white striping)

r R

k v i

A er g s e x ellow striping)

h marks)

t UNNING v t

o bus lan OPTION 2 e e symbol) . • • Bike lanes n • No pa • 4 au R e v ersible lane in media t o lane n e symbol) r e k in ac g b OPTION 3 s • Na • Bike lanes n • No pa • 4 au e ks) y pa a x r t ea r t r o L t o f o lane or po w r r R k ed median p allel road(s). T in g t s e n e F n x Okemos t tial de ig t o bus lan u r

v M o r elopme arsh vides e

e 3 a

y . n 2 . t Segment C Options: East Lansing

Michigan Ave.

120’ R.O.W. Grand River Ave. US-127 Harrison Harrison

Capitol Typical Bogue Pennsylvania Cedar/Larch Hagadorn Segment C

Okemos Marsh

F IMPROVED BUS AND Segment Option Key: EXISTING NON-MOTORIZED ● Bus lanes (highlighted yellow with diamond symbol) ● LRT/Streetcar tracks (highlighted salmon color with tracks) ● Vehicle lanes (black pavement with dashed white striping) ● Center turning lanes (black pavement with yellow striping) ● Bike lanes ▪ On-street striped lane (solid white striping with bike symbol) ▪ Off-street path next to sidewalk (gray with bike symbol) ● Parking lane (black pavement with white hash marks) ● Curbs (thick white line) ● Sidewalks (gray with pedestrian symbol) ● Medians and boulevard (green)

• 5 auto lanes • Bike lanes Please note… • No parking • More frequent ● That segment options have different tradeoffs. Not all uses can fit within • No bike lanes bus service the existing right-of-way of all segments. • Other enhancements ● That bike lanes/paths not shown are proposed for nearby parallel road(s). ● That the location of transit (curb/center) impacts other uses of the roadway.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT CENTER LANE CURB LANE OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3

• 4 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • No parking • No parking • No parking • No parking • No parking • No parking • Bike lanes next • Bike lanes next • Shared bike / ped path • Bike lanes next to • Bike lanes next to • Shared bike/ped to curb to curb on south side bus lanes bus lane path on south side • Reversible lane in median RAIL CENTER RUNNING CURB RUNNING OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 5 OPTION 6 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3

• 4 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • No parking • No parking • No parking • No parking • No parking • No parking • No parking • No parking • No parking • Bike lanes next • Bike lanes next • Bike lanes next • Shared bike / • Shared bike / • Bike lanes next • Bike lanes next • Bike lanes next • Shared bike / to curb to curb to curb ped path on ped path on to curb to curb to curb ped path on south side south side • Reversible lane south side in median

Segment C Options: East Lansing between Harrison and Bogue ROW Source: MDOT Official Right-of-Way Mapping Figure 3.3 Segment D Options: E. Lansing

Michigan Ave.

Grand River Ave. US-127 Harrison Harrison Capitol Bogue Pennsylvania Cedar/Larch Hagadorn

Segment D

Okemos Marsh 71’ R.O.W. Typical IMPROVED BUS AND Segment Option Key: EXISTING NON-MOTORIZED ● Bus lanes (highlighted yellow with diamond symbol) ● LRT/Streetcar tracks (highlighted salmon color with tracks) ● Vehicle lanes (black pavement with dashed white striping) ● Center turning lanes (black pavement with yellow striping) ● Bike lanes ▪ On-street striped lane (solid white striping with bike symbol) ▪ Off-street path next to sidewalk (gray with bike symbol) ● Parking lane (black pavement with white hash marks) ● Curbs (thick white line) ● Sidewalks (gray with pedestrian symbol) ● Medians and boulevard (green)

• 4 auto lanes plus • Bikes diverted to Please note… center turn lane parallel road(s) ● That segment options have different tradeoffs. Not all uses can fit within • No parking • More frequent the existing right-of-way of all segments. • No bike lanes bus service • Other ● That bike lanes/paths not shown are proposed for nearby parallel road(s). enhancements ● That the location of transit (curb/center) impacts other uses of the roadway.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT CENTER LANE CURB LANE OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 1 OPTION 2

• 2 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes plus center • 2 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes plus center turn • No parking turn lane • No parking lane • Bike lane next to curb • No parking • Bike lane next to curb • No parking • Bus lanes shared with • Bike lane next to bus lane • Bus lanes shared with • Bike lane next to bus lane left turns • Additional R.O.W. needed right turns • Additional R.O.W. needed RAIL CENTER RUNNING CURB RUNNING OPTION 1 OPTION 1 OPTION 2

• 2 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes plus center • No parking • No parking turn lane • Bike lanes next to curb • Bike lane next to LRT • No parking • Additional R.O.W. needed • Additional R.O.W. needed • Bike lane next to LRT • May require roundabouts • Additional R.O.W. needed Segment D Options: E. Lansing between Bogue and River ROW Source: MDOT Official Right-of-Way Mapping Figure 3.4 Segment E Options: E. Lansing

Michigan Ave.

Grand River Ave. US-127 Harrison Harrison Capitol Bogue Pennsylvania Cedar/Larch Hagadorn

Segment E

Okemos Marsh 100’ R.O.W. Typical

IMPROVED BUS AND Segment Option Key: EXISTING NON-MOTORIZED ● Bus lanes (highlighted yellow with diamond symbol) ● LRT/Streetcar tracks (highlighted salmon color with tracks) ● Vehicle lanes (black pavement with dashed white striping) ● Center turning lanes (black pavement with yellow striping) ● Bike lanes ▪ On-street striped lane (solid white striping with bike symbol) ▪ Off-street path next to sidewalk (gray with bike symbol) ● Parking lane (black pavement with white hash marks) ● Curbs (thick white line) ● Sidewalks (gray with pedestrian symbol) ● Medians and boulevard (green)

• 4 auto lanes plus • Bikes lanes Please note… center turn lane • More frequent ● That segment options have different tradeoffs. Not all uses can fit within • No parking bus service the existing right-of-way of all segments. • No bike lanes • Other enhancements ● That bike lanes/paths not shown are proposed for nearby parallel road(s). ● That the location of transit (curb/center) impacts other uses of the roadway.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT CENTER LANE CURB LANE OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 1 OPTION 2

• 2 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes plus center • No parking • No parking • No parking • No parking turn lane • Bike lanes next to • Bike lanes next to • Bike lanes next to • Bike lanes next to • No parking curb curb curb curb • Bike lanes next to bus • Bus lanes shared with • Bus lanes shared with lane left turns right turns RAIL CENTER RUNNING CURB RUNNING OPTION 1 OPTION 1 OPTION 2

• 4 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • 2 auto lanes plus • No parking • No parking center turn lane • Bike lanes next to • Bike lanes next to • No parking curb LRT • Bike lanes next to LRT

Segment E Options: E. Lansing between River and Hagadorn ROW Source: MDOT Official Right-of-Way Mapping Figure 3.5 Segment F Options: Meridian Township

Michigan Ave.

Grand River Ave. US-127 Harrison Harrison Capitol Bogue Pennsylvania Cedar/Larch Hagadorn

110’ R.O.W. Typical

Okemos Marsh

Segment F

• 4 auto lanes plus • Bikes lanes Please note… center turn lane • More frequent ● That segment options have different tradeoffs. Not all uses can fit within • No parking bus service the existing right-of-way of all segments. • Bike lanes shared • Other path enhancements ● That bike lanes/paths not shown are proposed for nearby parallel road(s). ● That the location of transit (curb/center) impacts other uses of the roadway.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT CENTER LANE CURB LANE OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3

• 4 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes in • 4 auto lanes center shared with • No parking • No parking • No parking • No parking turn lane • No parking • Bike lanes next to • Bike lanes next to • Shared bike / ped • Bike lanes next to • Shared bike / ped curb curb path bus lane • No parking path • Shared bike / ped path RAIL CENTER RUNNING CURB RUNNING OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3

• 4 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes • 4 auto lanes plus • 4 auto lanes plus • No parking • No parking • No parking center turn lane center turn lane • Bike lanes next to • Shared bike / ped • Shared bike / ped • No parking • No parking curb path path • Bike lanes next to • Shared bike / ped LRT path

Segment F Options: Meridian Township

ROW Source: MDOT Official Right-of-Way Mapping Figure 3.6 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

3.2 Potential Traffic Volumes

Three different government agencies have jurisdiction over the study Corridor: the City of Lansing has jurisdiction of Michigan Avenue from Capital Avenue to Highland Avenue, the City of East Lansing has jurisdiction of Michigan Avenue from Highland Avenue to M-43 (Grand River Avenue), and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has jurisdiction of all of M-43 (Grand River Avenue) within the study Corridor. Parts of this Corridor have a narrow right-of-way (ROW), so some of the possible transit options involve replacing vehicular travel lane(s) with transit- only travel lane(s). Additionally, some of the options impact on-street parking and include separate facilities for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The purpose of this section is to analyze the roadway capacity of the various segments of the study Corridor to determine if the implementation of the cross-section options for the various segments would cause the vehicular traffic to operate at a poor Level of Service (defined below in “Existing (2005) Traffic Conditions”). This analysis will help determine if any of the cross-section options put forth for the various Corridor segments should be removed from further levels of analysis. In future phases of this Corridor study, after the number of options is narrowed down, left-turning vehicular movements and parcel access along the Corridor will be more thoroughly investigated. Pedestrian facilities will also be discussed during a future phase of the Corridor study, as there are a particularly high number of pedestrians adjacent to the Michigan State University (MSU) campus (Segments C, D, and E). In addition, transit ridership will be discussed during a future phase because it is expected that there will be some amount of travel mode shift from vehicles to transit and non-motorized modes in the future along the study Corridor.

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Comparison by Segment

The study area for this project was Michigan Avenue in Lansing, from Capitol Avenue to M-43 (Grand River Avenue), as well as M-43 (Grand River Avenue) from Michigan Avenue to Marsh Road. The study Corridor was divided into six different segments, as follows:  Segment A: Michigan Avenue from Capitol Avenue to US-127  Segment B: Michigan Avenue from US-127 to Harrison Avenue  Segment C: Michigan Avenue from Harrison Avenue to M-43 (Grand River Avenue) and M- 43 (Grand River Avenue) from Michigan Avenue to Bogue Street  Segment D: M-43 (Grand River Avenue) from Bogue Street to River Street  Segment E: M-43 (Grand River Avenue) from River Street to Hagadorn Road  Segment F: M-43 (Grand River Avenue) from Hagadorn Road to Marsh Road

The study Corridor segments are also shown below in Figure 3-7.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-8 Final March 5, 2010 Corridor Segment Map Figure 3.7 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Existing (2005) Traffic Conditions The methods of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 were used to perform a capacity analysis along Michigan Avenue and M-43 (Grand River Avenue). Conventional analysis of roadway segments and intersections involves the determination of a “Level-of-Service” (LOS). LOS range from “A” to “F”, similar to an alphabetic grading system, with each level describing a different set of operational characteristics. LOS “A” describes operational performance under light traffic volumes (roadway segments) or with minimal delay (at intersections). LOS “F” describes a high density of roadway congestion or intersection failure with extensive delays and long vehicular queues. LOS “D” is considered acceptable for traffic operation of roadway segments and at intersections in urbanized areas. Each of the study Corridor segments was analyzed based on the average ADT for the segment. The analysis considered the speed limit of the segment, the number of lanes, the traffic signal patterns along the segment, the amount of traffic that occurs during the afternoon peak hour, and the amount of peak-hour traffic that occurs in the peak direction of travel, and was completed based on Exhibit 21-2 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Each of the study Corridor segments was found to operate acceptably (LOS “D” or better) with existing (2005) traffic volumes and the current roadway cross-section. Segment F operates at capacity with existing (2005) traffic volumes and the current roadway cross-section. The existing (2005) ADT, percent utilization, and LOS for each of the study area segments are shown in Figure 3-8. Future (2035) Traffic Conditions The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission transportation model was used to develop future (2035) traffic volumes. Traffic volumes are anticipated to increase by an average of two to four percent over the six study Corridor segments, or approximately 0.1 percent per year over 30 years. The study Corridor segments were analyzed based on Exhibit 21-2 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, similar to the Existing (2005) analysis.  Segment A: This segment is anticipated to operate acceptably with future traffic volumes and all options.  Segment B: This segment is anticipated to operate acceptably with future traffic volumes and the Existing Option, Improved Bus and Non-Motorized Option, BRT Curb Lane Option 2, and Rail Curb Running Option 2. The roadway is anticipated to be approximately 10 percent over capacity for the four-lane options (BRT Center Lanes Option 1 through 3, BRT Curb Lanes Options 1 and 3, Rail Center Running Option 1 and 2, and Rail Curb Running Option 1).

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-10 Final March 5, 2010 Existing Segment ADT and LOS Figure 3.8 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

 Segment C: This segment is anticipated to operate acceptably with future traffic volumes and the Existing Option, Improved Bus and Non-Motorized Option, BRT Center Lane Options 1 and 3, BRT Curb Lane Option 3, Rail Center Running Options 1, 3, 4, and 5, and Rail Curb Running Option 1 and 3. The roadway is anticipated to be approximately 35 percent over capacity for the three-lane options (BRT Curb Lane Option 2, and Rail Curb Running Option 2). The roadway is anticipated to be approximately 100 percent over capacity for the two-lane options (BRT Center Lane Option 2, BRT Curb Lane Option 1, and Rail Center Running Option 2 and 6).  Segment D: This segment is anticipated to operate acceptably with future traffic volumes and the Existing Option and Improved Bus and Non-Motorized Option. The roadway is anticipated to be approximately two percent over capacity for BRT Center Lane Option 1 and 2, approximately 20 percent over capacity for the three-lane options (BRT Curb Lane Option 2 and Rail Curb Running Option 2), and more than 100 percent over capacity for the two-lane options (BRT Curb Lane Option 1, Rail Center Running Option 1, and Rail Curb Running Option 1).  Segment E: This segment is anticipated to operate acceptably with future traffic volumes and Existing and Improved Bus and Non-Motorized. The roadway is anticipated to be between 20 percent and 140 percent over capacity for the remaining options.  Segment F: This segment is anticipated to operate approximately one percent over capacity with future traffic volumes and the four-lane options with a median and the five-lane options (Existing, Improved Bus and Non-Motorized, BRT Center Lane Option 2, BRT Curb Lane Option 1, 2, and 3, and Rail Curb Running Option 2 and 3). The roadway is anticipated to be approximately 35 percent over capacity for the four-lane options without a median (BRT Center Lane Option 1 and 3, Rail Center Running Option 1 and 2, and Rail Curb Running Option 1). The future (2035) ADT, percent utilization, and anticipated LOS for each of the study area segments are shown in Figure 3-9.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-12 Final March 5, 2010 Future Segment ADT and LOS Figure 3.9 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Peak Hour Evaluation of Select Intersections

This section has detailed the segmental utilization of the study Corridor under existing (2005) and future (2035) traffic volume conditions, but it was determined that three intersections within the study Corridor should also be analyzed during this part of the Corridor study. The intersections studied were the Michigan Avenue/Pennsylvania Avenue, M-43 (Grand River Avenue)/Abbott Road, and M-43 (Grand River Avenue)/Hagadorn Road intersections. The Michigan Avenue/ Pennsylvania Avenue intersection was chosen because Pennsylvania Avenue has an interchange with I-496 (south of the study Corridor) and features a large amount of side- street traffic. The M-43 (Grand River)/Abbott Road intersection was chosen because of its close proximity to the Michigan Avenue/M-43 (Grand River Avenue) signalized intersection and the future development potential for the Abbott Road corridor north of M-43 (Grand River Avenue). The M-43 (Grand River Avenue)/Hagadorn Road intersection was chosen because of its proximity to the MSU campus and because it has historically been a congested intersection. Existing (2005) Traffic Volume Conditions The overall LOS values for the three intersections were determined under existing (2005) morning and afternoon peak-hour conditions using the methodology of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 and are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Existing (2005) Intersection Level of Service

AM Peak Hour Level of PM Peak Hour Level of Intersection Service Service

Michigan Avenue/Pennsylvania Avenue C D

M-43 (Grand River Avenue)/Abbott Road B B

M-43 (Grand River Avenue)/Hagadorn Road D E

The three intersections operate at LOS “D” or better under existing (2005) morning and afternoon peak-hour conditions, except for the M-43 (Grand River Avenue)/ Hagadorn Road intersection, which operates at LOS “E” in the afternoon peak hour. Future (2035) Traffic Volume Conditions The highest volume/critical intersections in the study Corridor were examined to identify the intersection Level-of-Service for the future (2035) conditions, without the transit corridor improvements. The intersection Level-of-Service will be examined more closely during the next phase of the study. The overall LOS values for the three intersections were determined under future (2035) morning and afternoon peak-hour conditions and are shown in Table 3-2.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-14 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 3-2: Future (2035) Intersection Level of Service

AM Peak Hour Level of PM Peak Hour Level of Intersection Service Service

Michigan Avenue/Pennsylvania Avenue D D

M-43 (Grand River Avenue)/Abbott Road C B

M-43 (Grand River Avenue)/Hagadorn Road D F

The three intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS “D” or better under future (2035) morning and afternoon peak-hour conditions, except for the M-43 (Grand River Avenue)/Hagadorn Road intersection, which is anticipated to operate at LOS “F” in the afternoon peak hour.

Conclusions and Recommendations

General Conclusions It is expected that a mode shift will occur from vehicles to transit and/or non-motorized uses in the future condition, which will be quantified and reflected in the traffic analysis during future phases of the Corridor study. Left-turning vehicular movements and parcel access along the study Corridor will be more thoroughly investigated after the number of options is narrowed down. In addition, non-motorized facilities and intersection Level-of-Service will be evaluated after the number of options is narrowed down, as part of the future phase of the Corridor study. Study Corridor Segment Conclusions Based on the study Corridor segment analyses, the following conclusions were made:  All of the study Corridor segments operate acceptably (LOS “D” or better) with existing (2005) traffic volumes and with the current roadway cross-section. Segment F operates at capacity.  All of the study Corridor segments operate acceptably (LOS “D” or better) with future (2035) traffic volumes and with the current roadway cross-section, except for Segment F, which is anticipated to operate approximately one percent over capacity at LOS “E”.  Segment B is anticipated to be approximately 10 percent over capacity (LOS “E”) with future (2035) traffic volumes and the four-lane options (BRT Center Lane Option 1, 2, and 3, BRT Curb Lane Option 1 and 3, and Rail Center Running Option 1 and 2, and Rail Curb Running Option 1).  Segment C is anticipated to operate acceptably (LOS “D”) with future (2035) traffic volumes and the four-lane options (BRT Center Lane Option 1 and 3, BRT Curb Lane Option 3, and Rail Center Running Option 1, 3, 4, and 5, and Rail Curb Running Option 1 and 3).

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-15 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

 Segment D is anticipated to operate approximately two percent over capacity (LOS “E”) with future (2035) traffic volumes and the four-lane option (BRT Center Lane Option 2).  Segment E is anticipated to operate acceptably (LOS “D”) with future (2035) traffic volumes and the five-lane options (the Existing Option and Improved Bus and Non-Motorized Option).  Segment F is anticipate to operate approximately one percent over capacity (LOS “E”) with future (2035) traffic volumes and the four-lane options with a median and the five-lane options (the Existing Option and Improved Bus and Non-Motorized Option, BRT Center Lane Option 2, BRT Curb Lane Option 1, 2, and 3, and Rail Curb Running Option 2 and 3). Signalized Intersection Conclusions Based on the signalized intersection analyses of the Michigan Avenue/Pennsylvania Avenue, M-43 (Grand River Avenue)/Abbott Road and M-43 (Grand River Avenue)/Hagadorn Road intersections, the following conclusions were made:  The signalized intersections operate acceptably with existing (2005) peak-hour traffic volumes, and are anticipated to operate acceptably with future (2035) peak-hour traffic volumes, except for the M-43 (Grand River Avenue)/Hagadorn Road intersection, which operates at LOS “E” with existing (2005) afternoon peak-hour traffic volumes and is anticipated to operate at LOS “F” with future (2035) afternoon peak-hour traffic volumes. Recommendations Based on the analysis of the existing (2005) and future (2035) traffic volumes and the conclusions listed above, it is recommended that all proposed options with two auto lanes and/or three auto lanes be eliminated from additional analysis. It is further recommended that only options with four auto lanes and/or five auto lanes be considered for additional analysis. This recommendation is based solely on the results of the vehicular traffic analyses. It does not consider the mode transfer from vehicles to transit and non-motorized modes that could occur throughout the study Corridor if additional transit alternatives were available. This recommendation also does not consider the possibility of a policy shift, which could lead to the study Corridor being primarily a transit and non- motorized corridor, with vehicular through traffic encouraged to use alternative roadway corridors. While LOS E or F is considered undesirable, transportation segment options that accumulated more than seven points during the process were carried forward, even if they were designated only as a LOS E or F. These options will be refined during conceptual engineering.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-16 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 3-3: Summary of Traffic Volume Analysis by Segment/Alignment: Rail

Impact on 2005 Impact on 2035 Segment Alignment LOS Rating LOS Rating Center Lane B B  Option 1  

Center Lane A B B  Option 2  

Curb Lane B B  Option 1  

Center Lane E E  Option 1  

Center Lane E E  Option 2   B Curb Lane E E  Option 1  

Curb Lane D D  Option 2  

Center Lane C D  Option 1  

Center Lane F F  Option 2  

Center Lane C D/C  Option 3  

Center Lane C D/C Option 4  

Center Lane C C D/C Option 5  

Center Lane F F Option 6  

Curb Lane C D  Option 1  

Curb Lane E E  Option 2  

Curb Lane C D  Option 3  

Center Lane F F  Option 1  

Curb Lane D F F  Option 1  

Curb Lane E E  Option 2  

Center Lane E E E  Option 1  

Curb Lane E E  Option1  

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-17 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Impact on 2005 Impact on 2035 Segment Alignment LOS Rating LOS Rating Curb Lane E F  Option 2  

Center Lane F F  Option 1  

Center Lane F F  Option 2  

Curb Lane F F F  Option 1  

Curb Lane D E  Option 2  

Curb Lane D E  Option3  

Table 3-4: Summary of Traffic Volume Analysis by Segment/Alignment: BRT

Impact on 2005 Impact on 2035 Segment Alignment LOS Rating LOS Rating Center Lane B B  Option 1  

Center Lane B B  Option 2   A Center Lane B B  Option 3  

Curb Lane B B  Option 1  

Center Lane E E  Option 1  

Center Lane E E  Option 2  

Center Lane E E  Option 3   B Curb Lane E E  Option 1  

Curb Lane D D  Option 2  

Curb Lane E E  Option 3  

Center Lane C C D/C  Option 1  

Center Lane F F  Option 2  

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-18 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Impact on 2005 Impact on 2035 Segment Alignment LOS Rating LOS Rating Center Lane C D/C  Option 3  

Curb Lane F F  Option 1  

Curb Lane E E  Option 2  

Curb Lane C D/C  Option 3  

Center Lane D E  Option 1  

Center lane D E  Option 2   D Curb Lane F F  Option 1  

Curb Lane E E  Option 2  

Center Lane F F  Option 1  

Center Lane F F  Option 2  

Center Lane E E E  Option 3  

Curb Lane F F  Option1  

Curb Lane E E  Option 2  

Center Lane F F  Option 1  

Center Lane D E  Option 2  

Center Lane F F  Option 3   F Curb Lane D E  Option 1  

Curb Lane D E  Option 2  

Curb Lane D E  Option3  

Rating Definition  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-19 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

3.3 Potential Traffic Flow Impacts

Each of the modes under evaluation would operate within a busy Corridor that includes cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, and existing bus transit service. It is critical that each potential mode and alignment be evaluated for its ability to safely operate within this multi-user environment in a manner that does not negatively impact existing traffic flow. One goal of transit system design is to minimize system operating conflicts while maximizing system operating speeds. Conflicts typically occur between transit vehicles, drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists, and the incidence of conflict are increased by confusion over traffic signals and mode prioritization. Transit system safety and speed, then, are supported by system planning and design decisions that reduce the number of potential conflict points among the universe of roadway users. The Transit Cooperative Research Program outlined a series of five basic light rail system planning principles1 that can be applied to system planning for each of the rail modes under evaluation within this report: 1. LRT system design and control should respect the urban environment that existed before LRT implementation. 2. LRT system design and control should comply with motorist, pedestrian, and LRV operator expectancy. 3. LRT system design and control should strive to simplify decisions that drivers and pedestrians make as they interact in the LRT system environment. 4. Traffic control devices that are installed specifically to warn and protect motorists and pedestrians who interact with the LRT system should clearly transmit the level of risk associated with the LRT system environment. 5. Designs, controls, and operating practices should provide recovery opportunities for errant motor vehicle and/or pedestrian movements. These planning principles were then translated into the following system-planning guidelines for roadway geometry and traffic control system design for LRT systems, although, like the principles, they are applicable to each of the rail modes under evaluation:2  Unless a specific urban design change is desired (e.g., converting a street to a pedestrian mall), attempt to maintain existing traffic and travel patterns.

1 Korve, Hans W., et al., Transit Cooperative Research Program, “Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets,” National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.: 1996, p. 65. 2 Ibid, p. 67-68.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-20 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

 If the LRT operates within a street right-of-way, locate the LRT trackway in the median of a two-way street, where possible. If LRT is designed to operate on a one-way street, LRVs should only operate on a side alignment in the direction of motor vehicle traffic.  If the LRT operates within a street right-of-way, separate LRT operations from motor vehicle operations by a more substantial element than striping.  Provide LRT signals that are clearly distinguishable from traffic signals and whose indications are meaningless to motorists and pedestrians without the provision of supplemental signs.  Coordinate traffic signal phasing and timing near LRT crossings to preclude cars stopping on and blocking the LRT tracks.  Use active, standard control devices to control motor vehicle turns that conflict with LRT operations.  Provide adequate storage areas (turn bays or pockets) for turning traffic and provide separate turn signal indications.  When left turns can be made across median LRT tracks, provide active, internally illuminated signs displaying the front or side view LRV symbol at left-turn pockets controlled by left-arrow signal indications to warn motorists of the increased risk associated with potential violations of the signal indication.  Create separate, distinct pedestrian crossing experiences.  Channel pedestrian flows on sidewalks, at intersections, and at stations to minimize errant or random pedestrian crossings of the LRT track environment.  At unsignalized crossings, use pedestrian gates and barriers (pedestrian automatic gates, swing gates, bedstead barriers, Z-crossings), as appropriate to the type of LRT alignment, to make pedestrians more alert when they cross the LRT track environment.  Maximize the front-end visual impact of LRVs.  For in-street operations, load/unload LRV passengers from/onto the sidewalk or raised median platforms and not the roadway itself. Each of the modes and their alignments have been evaluated for their ability to minimize operating conflicts (improve safety) while maximizing operating speeds (increase speed). System safety can be achieved through the minimization of conflict points with drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians, the strict management of right turn movements, and the management of potential interference with driveway access and side streets. Transit system speeds can be maximized when the transit mode is operating in a safe environment in which general traffic lane reductions are minimized. Because of the importance of these design criteria to safe and efficient transit operations within the Corridor, this criteria was weighted in the quantitative analysis (see Appendix A).

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-21 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Discussion

Bus Conventional Bus Improved conventional bus service is not expected to significantly impact traffic flow and safety because it would be an expansion of existing service rather than the introduction of new service. Because Corridor drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists are already familiar with conventional bus operations, confusion that can lead to accidents is likely to be minimized. While service levels may be expanded, it is unlikely that there would be a significant expansion of supporting infrastructure that would encroach on traffic operations. Conventional bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Trolley It is unlikely that the propulsion equipment required for trolley bus service would more significantly impact traffic flow and safety than expanded and improved conventional bus service. Therefore, trolley bus service is not expected to significantly impact traffic flow and safety. Trolley bus service passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Bus Rapid Transit A major component of BRT implementation, and one that functions as a differentiator between BRT alternatives under evaluation in this study, is the design of the BRT running way. The “basic goal of the running way is to give BRT an operating environment where buses are free from delays caused by other vehicles and by certain regulations and to provide transit riders with better, more reliable service.”3 Appropriate running way design will ensure that BRT service does not interrupt traffic flow and contributes to a safe environment for all Corridor users. The Transit Cooperative Research Program has published a series of implementation guidelines for BRT in its 2003 report Bus Rapid Transit Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. The report identifies some strengths and weaknesses of curb-running, center-running, and busways for BRT, including:4  Concurrent flow curb lanes are easy to install, their costs are low, and they minimize the space devoted to BRT. However, they are usually difficult to enforce and are the least effective in BRT travel time saved. Conflicts between right-turning traffic and pedestrians may delay buses.  Concurrent flow interior bus lanes remove BRT from curbside frictions, allow curb parking to be retained, and provide far-side bus “bulbs” at stops for passenger convenience. However,

3 Levinson, Herbert S. et al., “Bus Rapid Transit Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines,” Transit Cooperative Research Board, Washington, D.C.: 2003, p. 3-1. 4 Ibid, p. S-5.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-22 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

they generally require curb-to-curb street widths of 60 to 70 feet, and curb parking maneuvers could delay buses.  Median arterial busways physically separate the BRT running ways from general traffic, provide a strong sense of BRT identity, eliminate conflicts between buses and right-turning automobiles, and can enable the busways to be grade separated at major intersections. However, they require prohibiting left turns from the parallel roadways or providing special lanes and signal phases for these turns. Median arterial busways also require wide streets – generally more than 80 feet curb to curb, and their costs can be high. This report also outlines a series of guidelines for planning and implementing on-street running ways, including:5  General traffic improvements and road construction should be coordinated with BRT service to improve the overall efficiency of street use. Typical improvements include prohibiting curb parking, providing turning lanes, prohibiting turns, modifying traffic signal timing, and providing queue bypasses for buses.  Curb parking generally should be prohibited before (curb) bus lanes are established, at least during peak hours. The prohibition (1) provides a bus lane without reducing street capacity for other traffic, (2) reduces delays and marginal frictions resulting from parking maneuvers, and (3) gives buses easier access to stops.  Design and operation of bus lanes must accommodate the service requirements of adjacent land uses. Deliveries should be prohibited from curb bus lanes during the house that the lanes operate; deliveries can be provided from the opposite side of the streets, or, ideally, from off-street facilities.  Access to major parking garages should be maintained. This may require limited local automobile circulation in blocks adjacent to garages.  Bus lanes and streets should provide a strong sense of identity. This can be achieved by using color pavement wherever buses have exclusive use of the lanes. Such treatments are especially important for curb bus lanes when the lanes operate at all times.  Bus lanes in the center of streets should be physically separated from other traffic. These median arterial busways will require curb-to-curb roadway widths of at least 75 to 80 feet. All BRT options that are under evaluation would operate in a semi-exclusive transitway within the Corridor, except for within Segment D between Bogue and River Streets. Within this segment, the geometric constraints within the existing right-of-way may require the operation of a dual BRT and auto lane for both the center- and curb-running options.

5 Ibid, p. S-6.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-23 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Curb-Running From a BRT user safety perspective, curb-running BRT stops would be located in sidewalk areas, so passengers would be able to move easily on and off the buses without needing to cross a lane of traffic to access the stop. Curb-running BRT, as compared to center-running BRT, results in two negative consequences: “(1) the impact on access to adjacent properties and (2) the loss of parking if parking is currently allowed during the period of operation. Both impacts can be mitigated by the use of either interior or median lanes, among other techniques.”6 Both access and circulation issues and loss of on-street parking (potentially at then western end of the Corridor) would disrupt the existing traffic flow and increase the potential for conflicts between all Corridor users, which would result in the creation of a comparatively less-safe travel environment. Conventional curb-running BRT fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Center-Running Center-running BRT within the Corridor would be accommodated by a combination of an interior- running bus lane and a median busway. Interior bus lanes “remove buses from curb lane conflicts with often illegally parked vehicles, provide for unrestricted access to adjacent properties, and do not affect left-turn access.”7 Median arterial busways “eliminate the passenger loading, curb access, and right-turn problems associated with curb lanes. They can be readily enforced and provide a strong sense of identity in running ways (preferably specially colored pavement) and stations.”8 In a center- running operation, BRT stops would be located in the middle of the street and passengers would be required to cross traffic to access them. This usually is not a safety consideration, however, as the stops are typically located at an intersection where traffic and pedestrian movements are controlled by signals. It is more difficult to control interactions between buses and cars in curb-running lanes because cars are allowed to turn right at red lights. The potential for conflict between turning cars and center- running BRT is reduced because left turning movements are more strictly regulated than right turns: cars are not allowed to turn left on red. Signalized movements reduce the need for driver judgment, which can reduce the incidence of conflict. Center-running BRT is a better choice for the Corridor than curb-running BRT because it maintains unrestricted access to adjacent parcels and eliminates curb lane conflicts, two characteristics that better support traffic movement and circulation within a safe environment. Conventional center- running BRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

6 Kittelson & Associates, Inc., et al., “Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide,” Transit Cooperative Research Program, Washington, D.C.: 2007, p. 4-21. 7 Ibid, p. 3-14. 8 Ibid, p. 3-18.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-24 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Light Rail Transit Introducing street-running LRT into an existing urban street environment poses unique planning and design challenges. The finished rail transit system should maintain the quality of the street and the fabric of the communities served as well as become an accepted community amenity. Often, transit is treated as a separate piece of infrastructure that becomes spatially separated from other elements of the street when operational goals are not balanced with community goals. Determining the best method of operation requires careful consideration of a number of design elements including platform location, vehicle circulation and conflicts, pedestrian queuing and flow, turning movements across tracks, and impacts to off-street and on-street parking. Curb-Running A curb-running alignment would be semi-exclusive, with minimal separation (i.e. striping, pavement treatments, etc.) between adjacent auto lanes and shared use restricted to right turn movements and at-grade crossings. Curb-running operations can confuse motorists and pedestrians as to which way the LRT vehicle is approaching and right turn restrictions are not as effective and are harder to control. Permanently prohibiting a traffic movement that was previously allowed disrupts normal, expected travel patterns Parking lanes would not be possible in this configuration and all driveway access and side streets should be eliminated. Intersections where vehicle and pedestrian crossings occur should be signalized. Other considerations for side-running include installation of a barrier along the curb outside of station areas to protect pedestrians on the sidewalk. Because curb-running rail, as compared to center-running rail, would restrict access to adjacent parcels and disrupt expected travel patterns, it is comparatively less effective in creating a Corridor in which all users operate within a safe environment. Curb-running LRT fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Center-Running Center-running two-way double track LRT is typically the preferred configuration of transit planners and engineers because it reduces the incidence of curb lane conflicts and respects the urban environment that existed before the implementation of the transit system. Center running double track alignments are typically semi-exclusive and separated from pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic by barriers or fences. Pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles cross only at signalized intersections. In a center-running operation platforms would be located in the middle of the street and passengers would be required to cross traffic to get to the platform. This usually is not a safety consideration as the platforms are typically located at an intersection where traffic and pedestrian movements are controlled by signals. Because this configuration simplifies the decisions that drivers and pedestrians make as they interact with the LRT system, it can be considered a superior alternative to curb-running LRT. Unlike curb- running LRT, it will also maintain existing traffic patterns and access to adjacent land use parcels, which will be important as the Corridor looks to leverage economic development from its transit system investment. Center-running LRT passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-25 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Modern Streetcar Because of the operational and equipment similarities of streetcar and LRT systems, an evaluation of a streetcar system’s impact on traffic flow results in similar outcomes to the LRT traffic flow evaluation: curb-running streetcar systems can interfere with access to adjacent parcels, require the elimination of on-street parking, and disrupt expected travel patterns; center-running rail performs better when evaluated against this sub-criterion. Curb-Running Like LRT, a curb-running streetcar alignment would be semi-exclusive, with minimal separation (i.e. striping, pavement treatments, etc.) between adjacent auto lanes and shared use restricted to right turn movements and at-grade crossings. Curb-running operations can confuse motorists and pedestrians as to which way the streetcar vehicle is approaching and right turn restrictions are not as effective and are harder to control. Permanently prohibiting a traffic movement that was previously allowed disrupts normal, expected travel patterns Parking lanes would not be possible in this configuration and all driveway access and side streets should be eliminated. Intersections where vehicle and pedestrian crossings occur should be signalized. Other considerations for side-running include installation of a barrier along the curb outside of station areas to protect pedestrians on the sidewalk. Because curb-running rail, as compared to center-running rail, would restrict access to adjacent parcels and disrupt expected travel patterns, it is comparatively less effective in creating a Corridor in which all users operate within a safe environment. Curb-running streetcar fails when evaluated for this sub-criterion. Center-Running Like LRT, a center-running two-way streetcar system is typically the preferred configuration of transit planners and engineers because it reduces the incidence of curb lane conflicts and respects the urban environment that existed before the implementation of the transit system. In a center-running operation platforms would be located in the middle of the street and passengers would be required to cross traffic to get to the platform. This usually is not a safety consideration as the platforms are typically located at an intersection where traffic and pedestrian movements are controlled by signals. Because this configuration simplifies the decisions that drivers and pedestrians make as they interact with the streetcar system, it can be considered a superior alternative to curb-running streetcar. Unlike curb-running streetcars, center-running will also maintain existing traffic patterns and access to adjacent land use parcels, which will be important as the Corridor looks to leverage economic development from its transit system investment. Center-running streetcar passes when evaluated for this sub-criterion.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-26 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

3.4 Agency and Public Opposition

Table Key 1 Number expressing support for option Number expressing support for segment alignment, (1) but without an option preference  Mode meets criterion very well  Mode meets criterion sufficiently  Mode does not meet criterion

Results from Business and Developer Meetings

At the Business and Developer Meetings, there were 20 expressions of support for individual segment options and two expressions of opposition. There were also 15 other segment-related comments related to right-of-way, alignment, bicycle accommodation and the like. The following pages summarize the results of this input.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-27 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 3-5: Business and Development Meeting Results – Rail

Segment Segment Option Pro Con Rating Center Running Option 1 1  Segment A Center Running Option 2 0  Curb Running Option 1 1 1  Center Running Option 1 0  Center Running Option 2 1  Segment B Curb Running Option 1 0  Curb Running Option 2 1  Center Running Option 1 0  Center Running Option 2 0  Center Running Option 3 0  Center Running Option 4 1  Segment C Center Running Option 5 0  Center Running Option 6 0  Curb Running Option 1 0  Curb Running Option 2 0  Curb Running Option 3 1  Center Running Option 1 0  Segment D Curb Running Option 1 0  Curb Running Option 2 0  Center Running Option 1 0  Segment E Curb Running Option 1 1  Curb Running Option 2 0  Center Running Option 1 0  Center Running Option 2 1  Segment F Curb Running Option 1 0  Curb Running Option 2 1  Curb Running Option 3 1 

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-28 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 3-6: Business and Developer Meeting Results – BRT

Segment Segment Option Pro Con Rating Center Lane Option 1 0  Center Lane Option 2 0  Segment A Center Lane Option 3 0  Curb Lane Option 1 1  Center Lane Option 1 0  Center Lane Option 2 0  Center Lane Option 3 1  Segment B Curb Lane Option 1 0  Curb Lane Option 2 0  Curb Lane Option 3 1  Center Lane Option 1 0  Center Lane Option 2 0  Center Lane Option 3 1  Segment C Curb Lane Option 1 0 (1) (1)  Curb Lane Option 2 1 (1) 1 (1)  Curb Lane Option 3 0 (1) (1)  Center Lane Option 1 0  Center Lane Option 2 1  Segment D Curb Lane Option 1 0  Curb Lane Option 2 1  Center Lane Option 1 0  Center Lane Option 2 0  Segment E Center Lane Option 3 1  Curb Lane Option 1 0  Curb Lane Option 2 1  Center Lane Option 1 0  Center Lane Option 2 1  Center Lane Option 3 1  Segment F Curb Lane Option 1 0  Curb Lane Option 2 1  Curb Lane Option 3 0 

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-29 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Results from Public Stakeholder Meetings

At the public stakeholder meetings, there were also 54 expressions of support for individual segment options. In some cases, individuals indicated a preference for an alignment, but not a specific option. In the tables below, this is indicating by each of the relevant options with a number in parenthesis.

Table 3-7: Public Stakeholder Meeting Results – Rail

Segment Segment Option Pro Rating Center Running Option 1 2  Segment A Center Running Option 2 0  Curb Running Option 1 0  Center Running Option 1 0  Center Running Option 2 1  Segment B Curb Running Option 1 0 (1)  Curb Running Option 2 0 (1)  Center Running Option 1 0 (1)  Center Running Option 2 0 (1)  Center Running Option 3 0 (1)  Center Running Option 4 1 (1)  Segment C Center Running Option 5 1 (1)  Center Running Option 6 0 (1)  Curb Running Option 1 0 (1)  Curb Running Option 2 0 (1)  Curb Running Option 3 0 (1)  Center Running Option 1 3  Segment D Curb Running Option 1 0  Curb Running Option 2 0  Center Running Option 1 7  Segment E Curb Running Option 1 0  Curb Running Option 2 0  Center Running Option 1 0 (2)  Center Running Option 2 0 (2)  Segment F Curb Running Option 1 0  Curb Running Option 2 0  Curb Running Option 3 0 

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-30 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 3-8: Public Stakeholder Meeting Results - BRT

Segment Segment Option Pro Rating Center Lane Option 1 2 (1)  Center Lane Option 2 1 (1)  Segment A Center Lane Option 3 0 (1)  Curb Lane Option 1 2  Center Lane Option 1 1 (1)  Center Lane Option 2 0 (1)  Center Lane Option 3 1 (1)  Segment B Curb Lane Option 1 1 (1)  Curb Lane Option 2 0 (1)  Curb Lane Option 3 1(1)  Center Lane Option 1 1 (1)  Center Lane Option 2 1 (1)  Center Lane Option 3 2 (1)  Segment C Curb Lane Option 1 1  Curb Lane Option 2 0  Curb Lane Option 3 0  Center Lane Option 1 2 (2)  Center Lane Option 2 1 (2)  Segment D Curb Lane Option 1 0  Curb Lane Option 2 1  Center Lane Option 1 0 (3)  Center Lane Option 2 0 (3)  Segment E Center Lane Option 3 3 (3)  Curb Lane Option 1 0  Curb Lane Option 2 1  Center Lane Option 1 0 (2)  Center Lane Option 2 1 (2)  Center Lane Option 3 1 (2)  Segment F Curb Lane Option 1 0  Curb Lane Option 2 0  Curb Lane Option 3 0 

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-31 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Results from Web Input

On the web site to date, there have been 39 participants, with 234 individual preferences expressed for segment options.

Table 3-9: Web Input Results - Rail

Segment Segment Option Streetcar LRT Total Rating Center Running Option 1 4 10 14  Segment A Center Running Option 2 3 7 10  Curb Running Option 1 1 6 7  Center Running Option 1 5 13 18  Center Running Option 2 2 4 6  Segment B Curb Running Option 1 0 2 2  Curb Running Option 2 1 4 5  Center Running Option 1 4 10 14  Center Running Option 2 0 3 3  Center Running Option 3 3 2 5  Center Running Option 4 0 2 2  Segment C Center Running Option 5 0 0 0  Center Running Option 6 0 0 0  Curb Running Option 1 0 1 1  Curb Running Option 2 1 3 4  Curb Running Option 3 0 2 2  Center Running Option 1 7 17 24  Segment D Curb Running Option 1 0 1 1  Curb Running Option 2 1 5 6  Center Running Option 1 7 17 24  Segment E Curb Running Option 1 0 2 2  Curb Running Option 2 1 4 5  Center Running Option 1 3 10 13  Center Running Option 2 4 7 11  Segment F Curb Running Option 1 0 0 0  Curb Running Option 2 1 3 4  Curb Running Option 3 0 3 3 

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-32 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 3-10: Web Input Results - BRT

Segment Segment Option BRT Rating Center Lane Option 1 2  Center Lane Option 2 0  Segment A Center Lane Option 3 1  Curb Lane Option 1 5  Center Lane Option 1 2  Center Lane Option 2 0  Center Lane Option 3 1  Segment B Curb Lane Option 1 2  Curb Lane Option 2 1  Curb Lane Option 3 2  Center Lane Option 1 2  Center Lane Option 2 1  Center Lane Option 3 0  Segment C Curb Lane Option 1 0  Curb Lane Option 2 1  Curb Lane Option 3 4  Center Lane Option 1 2  Center Lane Option 2 1  Segment D Curb Lane Option 1 2  Curb Lane Option 2 3  Center Lane Option 1 1  Center Lane Option 2 2  Segment E Center Lane Option 3 0  Curb Lane Option 1 2  Curb Lane Option 2 3  Center Lane Option 1 1  Center Lane Option 2 1  Center Lane Option 3 1  Segment F Curb Lane Option 1 1  Curb Lane Option 2 1  Curb Lane Option 3 3 

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 3-33 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

4.0 CONCLUSION

4.1 Summary of Outcomes

Part 1 mode analysis evaluated eight modes against five criteria to determine their feasibility of implementation within the Corridor. This analysis resulted in the elimination of the following modes from further consideration: MagLev, heavy rail, commuter rail, and Automated Transit Guideway. Three Build alternatives, in addition to improved bus service, were carried forward into Part 2 analysis: BRT, streetcar, and LRT. This analysis, which evaluated modal alignment possibilities within the physical context of the Corridor, resulted in the elimination of all curb- running alignments. Therefore, center-running alignments of BRT, streetcar, and LRT will be carried into the Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives stage.

Table 4-1: Summary of Study Outcomes

Part 1: Mode Evaluation Results Part 2: Alignment Evaluation Results Modes Carried into Next Phase

Mode Rating Mode Rating Mode Rating

Conventional  Center- Center-  BRT Bus Running Running  Trolley Bus  BRT Curb-Running  Modern Center- Conventional   BRT Streetcar Running Center- Guided  Modern Running  Light Center-  LRT  Streetcar Rail Running Curb-Running  Modern Streetcar  Center-

MagLev  Light Running 

Heavy Rail  Rail Curb-Running  Conventional  Commuter Rail DMU  People Mover  AGT Monorail  PRT 

In addition to these three Build Alternatives, the FTA requires analysis of the No-Build and Transportation System Management (TSM) alternatives. The No-Build alternative is defined generally to include programmed and planned improvements to the transportation system. The TSM alternative includes all elements of the No-Build, with additional service and facility investments short of a major capital and operating and maintenance expenditures. Because of the high level of transit service and facilities currently within the Michigan/Grand River Corridor, it is probable that the No-Build and TSM alternatives will be combined to define the Baseline alternative, against which each of the Build alternatives will be measured. This will be one of the topics that will need to be discussed with FTA as the project moves forward with detailed evaluation.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 4-1 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

The next level of analysis will have opportunities for the public and stakeholders to provide feedback in defining the alternatives: Station locations will need to be identified and confirmed. Ridership will be coordinated with service plans. Cost estimates will need to be vetted. Another example would be that while the Build alternatives are currently defined as center-running rapid transit, during conceptual engineering, there are likely to be opportunities to make refinements – subtle or otherwise – to the alignment of the transitway in order to best balance ridership, cost, physical impacts and other Corridor priorities to be defined in the form of evaluation criteria. These refinements may include transitioning from a center-running transitway to a side-running transitway for a short distance, or shared lane use within limited rights-of-way.

4.2 Next Steps

The next step of the study is to carry forward the following alternatives into the Detailed Definition and Evaluation of Alternatives:  No-Build Alternative – Likely to be combined with TSM and evolve into the Baseline Alternative  TSM Alternative – See preceding comment on the No-Build Alternative  Center-running BRT  Center-running Modern Streetcar  Center-running LRT.

Major tasks associated with detailed analysis are as follows:  Service planning  Station planning and design  Ridership modeling and User Benefits  Concept design  Cost estimating  Potential environmental impacts  Economic development potential.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 4-2 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Preliminary evaluation criteria for detailed analysis are listed below. These criteria will need to be discussed with the TAC, Steering Committee and the public for their concurrence or approval, as appropriate.  Cost - Capital - Operating and maintenance (O&M) - O&M cost per revenue hour - Cost per rider  Transportation & Mobility - 2035 Ridership - Average weekday - Daily new riders - Travel time - Travel time savings over Baseline - Level of service  Economic Opportunity and Investment - Redevelopment Potential - TOD Potential - Population within ½ mile of stations - Employment within ½ mile of stations - Parking impacts  Communities and Environment - Change in annual regional VMT - Change in annual CO2 emissions - Potential noise and vibration impacts - Cultural and historic resources - Multimodal connections - Right-of-way impacts - Consistency with plans

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 4-3 Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

 Community Sentiment - Public/neighborhood - Businesses and developers - Elected officials The detailed evaluation will result in the identification of the best-performing mode, which will be designated the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) of this Study. To advance to the next step in the New Starts Project Development Process (Preliminary Engineering) and compete for federal funding, the LPA needs to be adopted and a PE Application and New Starts Submission prepared and submitted to the FTA.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation 4-4 Final March 5, 2010

Fatal Flaw Analysis

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Appendix A: Part 1 Evaluation Matrices

0March 201 Final

URS Corporation Fifth Street Towers 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402

Bus Evaluation Criteria Conventional Trolley Value Rating Score Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Conceptual Cost Trolley buses require $900,000 - Conventional bus systems Depends on fleet Capital Cost z 2 extensive infrastructure for $1,400,000 plus 1 use existing roadways. type and size catenary. fleet

Operating and Maintenance Cost (O&M cost per revenue hour; $102 1.00 z 2 $130 1.27 1 multiplier relative to CATA's $102 O&M cost per revenue hour) Transit Ridership

These ridersheds capture among the densest employment concentrations (although the fewest number of employees) and will Employees in Ridershed z 2 Same as conventional bus. z 2 experience the highest rate of projected growth in employment population between 2005 and 2035.

These ridersheds capture among the densest residential concentrations (although the fewest number of residents) and will Residents in Ridershed z 2 Same as conventional bus. z 2 experience the highest projected rates of residential population growth between 2005 and 2035.

Expanded bus service would strengthen The electrification equipment used for trolley Corridor east-west connections, improve buses is designed to provide a power source Suitability of Mode in Meeting Corridor Travel Needs travel times, reduce congestion, increase z 2 for buses operating in hilly terrain. There is { 0 connections to employment, and support the no advantage to using this comparatively envisioned scale of development. more expensive technology on flat surfaces.

Irresolvable Environmental Issues The electrification equipment required for It is unlikely that expanded conventional bus trolley buses may minimally detract from the Aesthetic Impacts service would strongly impact Corridor z 2 visual character of the Corridor; trolley service 1 aesthetics. would fit into the existing scale of the Corridor.

Bus service is not likely to disproportionately negatively impact minority or low-income populations. It may improve mobility for Environmental Justice / Social Equity Issues 1 Same as conventional bus. 1 transit-dependent populations, but is unlikely to spur the creation of additional affordable housing.

It is unlikely that expanded conventional bus The electrification equipment makes trolley service would strongly impact historic/cultural service less complementary to the historic Impacts on Historical/Cultural Resources z 2 1 resources. It would preserve the historic character of the Corridor than conventional scale and character of the Corridor. bus service.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue March 2010 Transportation Study Bus (continued) Evaluation Criteria Conventional Trolley Value Rating Score Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Agency and Public Opposition No one at the business and developer No one at the business and developer Results from Business and Developer Meetings meetings expressed an interest in increasing { 0 meetings expressed an interest in use of { 0 use of conventional buses. electric trolley buses. No one at the public stakeholder meetings No one at the business and developer Results from Public Stakeholder Meetings expressed an interest in increasing use of { 0 meetings expressed an interest in increasing { 0 conventional buses. use of electric trolley buses.

Of 43 participants in the on-line transit mode Of 43 participants in the on-line transit mode preference survey to date, no one indicated preference survey to date, six indicated Input from Web Site Conventional Bus as their first choice, two { 0 Electric Trolley us as their first choice, one 1 indicated it as their second choice and three indicated it as their second choice and three indicated it as their third choice. indicated it as their third choice.

Consistency with Local Plans and Policies

Expanded bus service may shorten Transportation/Mobility Goals headways, but is unlikely to significantly 1 Same as conventional bus. 1 change mobility levels or attract choice riders.

Conventional bus service is unlikely to Land Use and Development Goals significantly alter land use and development 1 Same as conventional bus. 1 trends. Expanded bus service is unlikely to significantly affect economic development trends because it will not affect existing Economic Development Goals 1 Same as conventional bus. 1 mobility patterns or more effectively catalyze private sector development than existing bus service. Total Score (out of possible 28 points) 18 13

Recommended Action Retain for further analysis. Eliminate.

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points)

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue March 2010 Transportation Study Bus Rapid Transit Evaluation Criteria Conventional Guided Value Rating Score Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Conceptual Cost Costs depend on the mix of Capital costs are street-running and comparatively higher than $10,000,000 - $10,000,000 - Capital Cost exclusive bus lanes; cost z 2 conventional BRT because 1 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 also varies by fleet and of infrastructure for bus size. guidance. Operating and Maintenance Cost (O&M cost per revenue hour; multiplier relative to CATA's $102 O&M cost per $118 1.16 z 2 $128 1.25 1 revenue hour) Transit Ridership These ridersheds will capture among the densest employment clusters, and will Employees in Ridershed experience the second-highest rate of 1 Same as conventional BRT. 1 projected employment population growth between 2005 and 2035. These ridersheds will capture among the densest population clusters and are Residents in Ridershed projected to experience the third-highest 1 Same as conventional BRT. 1 rates of residential population growth between 2005 and 2035.

BRT would meet Corridor travel needs in a Guided BRT has not been implemented in manner similar to conventional bus service, the U.S.; the comparatively costly guideway but could more effectively improve travel Suitability of Mode in Meeting Corridor Travel Needs z 2 infrastructure is unlikely to provide a { 0 times through signal prioritization, reduce proportional service advantage over congestion by attracting choice riders, and conventional BRT. potentially better support infill development. Irresolvable Environmental Issues Despite its guideway infrastructure, curb- running guided BRT is not expected to BRT would not strongly impact Corridor negatively impact the Corridor viewshed or aesthetics or affect viewsheds. Median scale. Like center-running BRT, guided alterations required by center-running BRT Aesthetic Impacts z 2 center-running BRT may require median 1 may require tree removal, but this is not alterations in addition to the guideway expected to disrupt viewsheds or the scale of infrastructure that guided BRT requires. It is the Corridor. not expected to significantly negatively impact the Corridor's viewshed or scale.

BRT is not likely to disproportionately BRT is not likely to disproportionately negatively impact minority or low-income negatively impact minority or low-income Environmental Justice / Social Equity Issues populations. It may improve mobility for z 2 populations. It may improve mobility for z 2 transit-dependent populations, and may spur transit-dependent populations, and may spur the creation of additional affordable housing. the creation of additional affordable housing.

It is unlikely that conventional BRT service While it is unlikely that guided BRT would would strongly impact historic/cultural strongly impact historic/cultural resources, it Impacts on Historical/Cultural Resources z 2 1 resources. It would preserve the historic would not necessarily fit into the scale of the scale and character of the Corridor. Corridor.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue March 2010 Transportation Study Bus Rapid Transit (continued) Evaluation Criteria Conventional Guided Value Rating Score Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Agency and Public Opposition Among 11 participants who expressed a Among 11 participants who expressed a mode preference, nine preferred BRT mode preference, nine expressed a Results from Business and Developer Meetings without clarification as to type; of 21 z 2 { 0 preference for BRT; none specifically responses to a review of Corridor segment mentioned guided BRT. options, 11 expressed a preference for BRT.

Of 51 general comments submitted at the Of 51 general comments submitted at the Results from Public Stakeholder Meetings public stakeholder meetings, 12 expressed 1 public stakeholder meetings, one expressed { 0 support for BRT, while four stated opposition. support for guided BRT.

Of 43 participants in the on-line transit mode Of 43 participants in the on-line transit mode preference survey to date, two indicated preference survey to date, one indicated Input from Web Site conventional BRT as their first choice, three 1 guided BRT as their first choice, six indicated 1 indicated it as their second choice and nine it as their second choice and seven indicated indicated it as their third choice. it as their third choice. Consistency with Local Plans and Policies Conventional BRT would likely improve the efficiency of existing transit service and more Transportation/Mobility Goals z 2 Same as conventional BRT. z 2 effectively attract choice riders than conventional bus service.

BRT holds potential for guiding land use and Land Use and Development Goals development patterns in a manner that 1 Same as conventional BRT. 1 supports the community's growth vision.

BRT service may support a nodal pattern of development and foster improved Economic Development Goals 1 Same as conventional BRT. 1 connections between residents and employers. Total Score (out of possible 28 points) 22 13

Recommended Action Retain for further analysis. Eliminate.

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points)

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue March 2010 Transportation Study Evaluation Criteria Light Rail Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Conceptual Cost Major cost items include vehicle storage and maintenance facilities, $30,000,000 - Capital Cost 1 overhead electrification, $80,000,000 power distribution, and vehicles.

Operating and Maintenance Cost (O&M cost per revenue hour; $214 2.10 1 multiplier relative to CATA's $102 O&M cost per revenue hour) Transit Ridership These ridersheds will capture among the densest employment clusters, and will Employees in Ridershed experience the second-highest rate of 1 projected employment population growth between 2005 and 2035. These ridersheds will capture among the densest population clusters and are projected Residents in Ridershed to experience the third-highest rates of 1 residential population growth between 2005 and 2035. LRT would meet Corridor travel needs in a manner similar to BRT service, but could more effectively improve travel times through Suitability of Mode in Meeting Corridor Travel Needs fixed guideway operations, reduce congestion z 2 by better attracting choice riders, and strongly supporting a nodal pattern of infill development. Irresolvable Environmental Issues

Infrastructure for electrification (poles, wires, and substations) may impact Corridor Aesthetic Impacts aesthetics, however, higher quality transit 1 vehicles and station facilities and amenities may mitigate these impacts.

LRT is not likely to disproportionately negatively impact minority or low-income Environmental Justice / Social Equity Issues populations. It may improve mobility for z 2 transit-dependent populations, and may spur the creation of additional affordable housing.

It is unlikely that LRT service would strongly impact historic/cultural resources. It would Impacts on Historical/Cultural Resources z 2 preserve the historic scale and character of the Corridor.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue March 2010 Transportation Study Evaluation Criteria Light Rail (continued) Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Agency and Public Opposition Among 11 participants who expressed a mode preference, no one mentioned LRT; of Results from Business and Developer Meetings 1 21 responses to a review of segment options, ten chose light rail.

Of 51 general comments submitted at the public stakeholder meetings, 14 expressed Results from Public Stakeholder Meetings z 2 support for light rail, second only to streetcar; one expressed opposition.

Of 43 participants in the on-line transit mode preference survey to date, seven indicated Input from Web Site light rail as their first choice, five indicated it z 2 as their second choice and five indicated it as their third choice. Consistency with Local Plans and Policies LRT would likely improve the efficiency of existing transit service and more effectively Transportation/Mobility Goals z 2 attract choice riders than conventional bus or BRT service. LRT has an extensive track record of catalyzing transit-oriented development, and Land Use and Development Goals z 2 could be expected to support infill development and redevelopment. LRT's effectiveness at catalyzing transit- oriented development would support Economic Development Goals z 2 investment and redevelopment at key nodes throughout the Corridor. Total Score (out of possible 28 points) 22

Recommended Action Retain for further analysis.

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points)

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue March 2010 Transportation Study Modern Streetcar Evaluation Criteria Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Conceptual Cost Major cost items include vehicle storage and maintenance facility, $15,000,000 - Capital Cost 1 overhead electrification, $40,000,000 power distribution, and vehicles. Operating and Maintenance Cost (O&M cost per revenue hour; multiplier relative to CATA's $102 O&M cost per $135 1.32 z 2 revenue hour) Transit Ridership These ridersheds capture among the densest employment concentrations (although the fewest employees) and will Employees in Ridershed z 2 experience the highest rate of projected growth in employment population between 2005 and 2035.

These ridersheds capture among the densest residential concentrations (although Residents in Ridershed fewest residents) and will experience the z 2 highest projected rates of residential population growth between 2005 and 2035.

Streetcars, like BRT and LRT, would strengthen east-west connections, improve Suitability of Mode in Meeting Corridor Travel Needs travel times, reduce congestion, increase z 2 employment connections, and support the envisioned scale of development. Irresolvable Environmental Issues

Streetcar service is not likely to disproportionately negatively impact minority or low-income populations. It may improve Environmental Justice / Social Equity Issues z 2 mobility for transit-dependent populations, and may spur the creation of additional affordable housing.

It is unlikely that curb-running streetcar service would strongly impact historic/cultural Impacts on Historical/Cultural Resources 1 resources. It would preserve the historic scale and character of the Corridor.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 Modern Streetcar (continued) Evaluation Criteria Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Agency and Public Opposition Of 32 participants who expressed a mode preference in a review of segment options, Results from Business and Developer Meetings 10 expressed a preference for rail, and one 1 general comment expressed a preference for streetcar. Of 51 general comments submitted at the public stakeholder meetings regarding mode, Results from Public Stakeholder Meetings z 2 17 expressed support for modern streetcar, more than any other mode. Of 43 participants in the on-line transit mode preference survey to date, 13 indicated Input from Web Site streetcar as their first choice, 13 indicated it z 2 as their second choice and three indicated it as their third choice. Consistency with Local Plans and Policies Streetcars would likely improve the efficiency of existing transit service and effectively attract choice riders. Significant travel time Transportation/Mobility Goals 1 savings are unlikely because of the frequency of stops and the typical shared lane configuration with cars.

Streetcar systems have proven capable of Land Use and Development Goals guiding infill transit-supportive development 1 within existing urban districts.

Streetcars have been part of a successful revitalization strategy in many cities and Economic Development Goals 1 could function as a circulator between key destinations within the Corridor. Total Score (out of possible 28 points) 21

Recommended Action Retain for Further analysis.

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points)

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 Magnetic Levitation (MagLev) Evaluation Criteria Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Conceptual Cost

No MagLev system is currently operating in the Baltimore - United States, and vehicles, Washington, Capital Cost { 0 tracks, and maintenance D.C. concept: facilities are some major $110,000,000+ cost concerns.

Operating and Maintenance Cost (O&M cost per revenue hour; $808 7.92 { 0 multiplier relative to CATA's $102 O&M cost per revenue hour) Transit Ridership MagLev ridersheds would be the largest of the modes compared, but their employment Employees in Ridershed { 0 density and projected growth rates are the lowest.

These ridersheds would be the largest of the Residents in Ridershed modes compared, but their residential density { 0 and projected growth rates are the lowest.

MagLev is not likely to strengthen east-west connections, decrease traffic volumes, or Suitability of Mode in Meeting Corridor Travel Needs { 0 support infill development that supports the community's vision. Irresolvable Environmental Issues The highly specialized infrastructure required by this mode would not fit the scale of the Aesthetic Impacts { 0 Corridor and would negatively impact Corridor aesthestics.

MagLev is not likely to disproportionately negatively impact minority or low-income populations. It is unlikely to improve mobility Environmental Justice / Social Equity Issues 1 for transit-dependent populations, and is unlikely to spur the creation of additional affordable housing.

MagLev may not negatively impact existing historic/cultural resources, but it does not Impacts on Historical/Cultural Resources { 0 complement the historic scale or character of the Corridor.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 Magnetic Levitation (MagLev) (continued) Evaluation Criteria Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Agency and Public Opposition

Of the 38 general written comments received Results from Business and Developer Meetings at the meetings, none mentioned either { 0 support for or opposition to MagLev.

Of 51 general comments submitted at the public stakeholder meetings regarding mode, Results from Public Stakeholder Meetings { 0 none expressed support for or opposition to MagLev. Of 43 participants in the on-line transit mode preference survey to date, one indicated Input from Web Site MagLev as their first choice, two indicated it as { 0 their second choice and no one indicated it as their third choice. Consistency with Local Plans and Policies MagLev's operating characteristics mean that it is unlikely to produce a significant transit Transportation/Mobility Goals { 0 mode share increase, decrease congestion, or improve transit efficiency. MagLev's operating characteristics would likely Land Use and Development Goals make the service inconsistent with infill { 0 redevelopment goals.

MagLev's operating characteristics make it Economic Development Goals unlikely to support revitalization or catalyze { 0 investment in key development nodes. Total Score (out of possible 28 points) 1

Recommended Action Eliminate.

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points)

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 Heavy Rail Evaluation Criteria Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Conceptual Cost Major cost items include grade separation, vehicle $50,000,000 - Capital Cost storage, maintenance { 0 $120,000,000 facilities, electrical power distribution, and vehicles. Operating and Maintenance Cost (O&M cost per revenue hour; multiplier relative to CATA's $102 O&M cost per $185 1.81 1 revenue hour) Transit Ridership

While capturing similar ridersheds as other modes, the comparatively fewer stations that Employees in Ridershed { 0 are typical of heavy rail systems would result in usage by proportionally fewer employees.

While capturing similar ridersheds as other modes, comparatively fewer stations would Residents in Ridershed { 0 result in usage by proportionally fewer residents. Heavy rail would strengthen east-west connections, improve travel times, reduce Suitability of Mode in Meeting Corridor Travel Needs congestion, support adjacent 1 redevelopment, and improve employment connections. Irresolvable Environmental Issues While heavy rail may not adversely affect existing viewsheds, the required Aesthetic Impacts infrastructure and scale of service do not 1 complement the existing character of the Corridor.

Heavy rail is not likely to disproportionately negatively impact minority or low-income Environmental Justice / Social Equity Issues populations. It may improve mobility for z 2 transit-dependent populations, and may spur the creation of additional affordable housing.

Heavy rail may not negatively impact existing historic/cultural resources, but it does not Impacts on Historical/Cultural Resources { 0 complement the historic scale or character of the Corridor.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 Heavy Rail (continued) Evaluation Criteria Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Agency and Public Opposition Of the 38 general written comments Results from Business and Developer Meetings received at the meetings, only one { 0 mentioned support for a subway. Of 51 general comments submitted at the public stakeholder meetings regarding Results from Public Stakeholder Meetings { 0 mode, none expressed support for or opposition to heavy rail. Of 43 participants in the on-line transit mode preference survey to date, six indicated Input from Web Site heavy rail as their first choice, one indicated 1 it as their second choice and three indicated it as their third choice. Consistency with Local Plans and Policies Heavy rail service would likely improve the Transportation/Mobility Goals efficiency of existing transit service and z 2 effectively attract choice riders. Heavy rail service may support some land use and development goals, but may not Land Use and Development Goals 1 foster as active a street life as other modes that are under consideration. Heavy rail has an extensive track record of Economic Development Goals supporting redevelopment and investment z 2 within station areas. Total Score (out of possible 28 points) 11

Recommended Action Eliminate.

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points)

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 Commuter Rail

Evaluation Criteria Conventional Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU)

Value Rating Score Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Conceptual Cost

Capital costs need to be Capital costs need to be balanced with annual O&M balanced with annual O&M $5,000,000 - $5,000,000 - Capital Cost costs, especially where 1 costs, especially where 1 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 freight railroads are involved freight railroads are involved in operations. in operations.

Operating and Maintenance Cost (O&M cost per revenue hour; $424 4.16 { 0 $424 4.16 { 0 multiplier relative to CATA's $102 O&M cost per revenue hour) Transit Ridership Commuter rail's comparatively larger ridersheds would capture a large number of Employees in Ridershed employees, but the employment densities 1 Same as conventional commuter rail. 1 within ridersheds are comparatively lower than other modes.

Commuter rail's comparatively larger ridersheds would capture a large number of Residents in Ridershed residents, but the residential densities within 1 Same as conventional commuter rail. 1 ridersheds are comparatively lower than other modes.

Commuter rail would strengthen east-west connections, improve travel times, and reduce congestion. Commuter rail's comparatively Suitability of Mode in Meeting Corridor Travel Needs 1 Same as conventional commuter rail. 1 restricted service hours may not be as supportive of adjacent redevelopment as other modes under evaluation. Irresolvable Environmental Issues While the scale of commuter rail service is disproportionate to the Corridor, it does not Aesthetic Impacts 1 Same as conventional commuter rail. 1 negatively impact the aesthetics of the Corridor.

Commuter rail is not likely to disproportionately negatively impact minority or low-income populations. It may improve Environmental Justice / Social Equity Issues 1 Same as conventional commuter rail. 1 mobility for transit-dependent populations, but is unlikely to spur the creation of additional affordable housing.

Commuter rail may not negatively impact existing historic/cultural resources, but it does Impacts on Historical/Cultural Resources { 0 Same as conventional commuter rail. { 0 not complement the historic scale or character of the Corridor.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 Commuter Rail (continued)

Evaluation Criteria Conventional Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU)

Value Rating Score Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Agency and Public Opposition Of the 38 general written comments received Of the 38 general written comments received at the meetings, none mentioned either Results from Business and Developer Meetings { 0 at the meetings, none mentioned either { 0 support for or opposition to conventional support for or opposition to DMU. commuter rail.

Of 51 general comments submitted at the Of 51 general comments submitted at the public stakeholder meetings regarding mode, public stakeholder meetings regarding mode, Results from Public Stakeholder Meetings { 0 { 0 none expressed support for or opposition to none expressed support for or opposition to conventional commuter rail. DMU.

Of 43 participants in the on-line transit mode Of 43 participants in the on-line transit mode preference survey to date, two indicated preference survey to date, no one indicated Input from Web Site conventional commuter rail as their first 1 DMU as their first choice, no one indicated it { 0 choice, two indicated it as their second choice as their second choice and no one indicated it and three indicated it as their third choice. as their third choice. Consistency with Local Plans and Policies Commuter rail would meet the stated goals of Transportation/Mobility Goals increasing transit travel speed while reducing 1 Same as conventional commuter rail. 1 auto congestion.

Commuter rail service may support some infill Land Use and Development Goals development, but it's operating characteristics 1 Same as conventional commuter rail. 1 will reduce its catalytic development impact.

Commuter rail service could connect residents Economic Development Goals to employment opportunities and encourage 1 Same as conventional commuter rail. 1 investment at higher-density nodes. Total Score (out of possible 28 points) 10 9

Recommended Action Eliminate. Eliminate.

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points)

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 AGT Evaluation Criteria People Mover Monorail PRT Value Rating Score Value Rating Score Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Conceptual Cost Morgantown, WV is the Systems in the United Systems in the United $40,000,000 - $40,000,000 - only operating system in Capital Cost States operate on elevated 1 States operate on elevated 1 $25,000,000 1 $60,000,000 $60,000,000 the U.S.; it operates on trackway. trackway. elevated trackway. Operating and Maintenance Cost (O&M cost per revenue hour; multiplier relative to CATA's $102 O&M cost per $230 2.25 1 $1,766 17.31 { 0 $30 0.29 z 2 revenue hour) Transit Ridership Ridersheds will capture among the densest While capturing similar ridersheds as other employment clusters, and will experience modes, comparatively fewer stations would Employees in Ridershed the second-highest rate of projected 1 { 0 Same as People Mover. 1 result in usage by proportionally fewer employment population growth between employees. 2005 and 2035. These ridersheds will capture among the While capturing similar ridersheds as other densest population clusters and are modes, comparatively fewer stations would Residents in Ridershed projected to experience the third-highest 1 { 0 Same as People Mover. 1 result in usage by proportionally fewer rates of residential population growth residents. between 2005 and 2035. A monorail could improve east-west A People Mover could improve east-west connections and reduce travel times, and connections and improve travel times in the Suitability of Mode in Meeting Corridor Travel Needs { 0 may reduce traffic congestion. It is unlikely, { 0 Same as People Mover. { 0 Corridor, but would be unlikely to support however, to support adjacent redevelopment adjacent redevelopment activity. activity. Irresolvable Environmental Issues The elevated right-of-way would interefere Aesthetic Impacts with viewsheds and negatively impact the { 0 Same as People Mover. { 0 Same as People Mover. { 0 existing aesthetics of the Corridor.

A People Mover is not likely to disproportionately negatively impact minority or low-income populations. It may improve Environmental Justice / Social Equity Issues 1 Same as People Mover. 1 Same as People Mover. 1 mobility for transit-dependent populations, but is unlikely to spur the creation of additional affordable housing.

A People Mover may not negatively impact existing historic/cultural resources, but it Impacts on Historical/Cultural Resources { 0 Same as People Mover. { 0 Same as People Mover. { 0 does not complement the historic scale or character of the Corridor.

Agency and Public Opposition Of the 38 general written comments Of the 38 general written comments Of the 38 general written comments received at the meetings, none mentioned Results from Business and Developer Meetings { 0 received at the meetings, none mentioned { 0 received at the meetings, none mentioned { 0 either support for or opposition to People either support for or opposition to Monorail. either support for or opposition to PRT. Mover. Of 51 general comments submitted at the Of 51 general comments submitted at the Of 51 general comments submitted at the public stakeholder meetings regarding public stakeholder meetings regarding public stakeholder meetings regarding Results from Public Stakeholder Meetings { 0 { 0 { 0 mode, none expressed support for or mode, one expressed support for Monrail; mode, none expressed support for or opposition to People Mover. none expressed opposition. opposition to PRT.

Of 43 participants in the on-line transit mode Of 43 participants in the on-line transit mode Of 43 participants in the on-line transit mode preference survey to date, three indicated preference survey to date, four indicated preference survey to date, one indicated Input from Web Site People Mover as their first choice, three 1 Monorail as their first choice, three indicated 1 PRT as their first choice, one indicated it as { 0 indicated it as their second choice and two it as their second choice and one indicated it their second choice and one indicated it as indicated it as their third choice. as their third choice. their third choice.

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 AGT (continued) Evaluation Criteria People Mover Monorail PRT Value Rating Score Value Rating Score Value Rating Score PART 1: MODE EVALUATION - DRAFT Consistency with Local Plans and Policies

A People Mover may be attractive for short Monorail service would reach multiple key PRT service would offer reduced Corridor trips between close destinations, but is destinations within the Corridor at shorter Transportation/Mobility Goals { 0 1 transit travel times, as compared to 1 unlikely to significantly improve the travel times than those offered by existing conventional bus service. attractiveness of transit within the Corridor. conventional bus service.

Monorail may support some land use and The elevated right-of-way is unlikely to development goals, but may not foster as Land Use and Development Goals support the development pattern envisioned { 0 1 Same as People Mover. { 0 active a street life as other modes that are for the Corridor. under consideration.

The scale of service is unlikely to be The scale of service may connect residents Economic Development Goals { 0 1 Same as People Mover. { 0 sufficient to drive economic development. with employment opportunities. Total Score (out of possible 28 points) 6 6 7

Recommended Action Eliminate. Eliminate. Eliminate.

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points)

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010

Fatal Flaw Analysis

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study Appendix B: Project Ridership Data

March 2010 Final

URS Corporation Fifth Street Towers 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 1: Industry Standard Station Spacing and Mode Operating Characteristics

Ridershed Station Spacing (radius of each station Average Speed Mode (approximate miles) in miles) (miles per hour) Bus / Trolley Bus 0.2 0.25 12 BRT 0.5 0.5 25 Light Rail 0.5 0.5 22 Modern Streetcar 0.25 0.5 15 MagLev two terminal stations 3.0 200 Heavy Rail 1.0 0.5 40 Commuter Rail 3.0 1.0 50 People Mover 0.5 0.5 30 Monorail 1.0 0.5 40 PRT 0.5 0.5 20

Source: Based on Technical Memorandum 3: Transit Technology Inventory, URS Corporation

Table 2: Existing and Forecast Corridor Residential and Employment Population Data (2005, 2035) by Mode Type Station Area Ridershed

Summary Data for the Study Corridor Percent Percent Population Employment Population Employment Change Change 2005 2005 2035 2035 Population Employment Streetcar/Bus (25 stations, 19,455 34,438 25,427 36,897 30.7% 7.1% 0.25 mile radius)

LRT/BRT/People Mover/PRT 34,034 61,520 41,990 65,616 23.4% 6.7% (13 stations, 0.5 mile radius)

Heavy Rail/Monorail (8 stations, 26,046 58,517 32,531 62,071 24.9% 6.1% 0.5 mile radius)

Commuter Rail (4 stations, 52,389 85,007 63,318 90,366 20.9% 6.3% 1.0 mile radius)

MagLev (2 stations, 69,102 90,645 82,603 93,555 19.5% 3.2% 3.0 mile radius)

Source: TCRPC Wise Growth Scenario Forecast, URS GIS-based analysis

Appendix B

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Table 3: Best Practice Minimum Residential Density Thresholds per Mode Type

Minimum Residential Densities for Various Types of Transit Service a

Dwelling Units / Persons / Transit Service Type b Acre b Square Mile c Bus - Minimum Service 4 6,144 Bus - Intermediate Service 7 10,752 Bus - Frequent Service 15 23,040 Light Rail 9 13,824 Rapid Transit 12 18,432

a Analysis based on Mineta Transportation Institute's "Appendix B: History of Transit-Oriented Development"

b Pushkarev and Zupan, "Public Transportation and Land Use Policy," 1977

c Persons per square mile translation of Pushkarev and Zupan densities uses 2.40 persons per housing unit average for Ingham County, Michigan from 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3- Year Estimate and 640 acres per square mile, resulting in a conversion factor of 1,632 from dwelling units per acre to persons per square mile.

Table 4: Minimum Employee Density Thresholds per Mode Type

Minimum Employment Densities by Mode Type a

Employees Employees / Square Transit Service Type / Acre Mile Transit - Basic Service (bus) at least 25 16,000 Transit - Premium Service (rail) at least 50 32,000

a Data based on industry best practices, http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm

Table 5: Existing (2005) and Forecast (2035) Employment and Residential Densities

Existing and Forecast Residential and Employment Densities in the Corridor Note: the Corridor study area is approximately 16 square miles

Average Number of Average Number of Employment Population Employees per Square Residents per Square in Corridor in Corridor Mile in Corridor Mile in Corridor 2005 (existing) 95,926 70,302 5,995 4,394 2035 (forecast) 101,377 83,064 6,336 5,192 Source: TCRPC Wise Growth Scenario Forecast, URS GIS-based analysis

Appendix B

Fatal Flaw Analysis

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study Appendix C: Level of Service Detail

March 2010 Final

URS Corporation Fifth Street Towers 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Appendix C Preliminary

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Appendix C Preliminary

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Appendix C Preliminary

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Appendix C Preliminary

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Appendix C Preliminary

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Appendix C Preliminary

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Appendix C Preliminary

Fatal Flaw Analysis

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study

Appendix D: Part 2 Evaluation Matrices

March0 Final 201

URS Corporation Fifth Street Towers 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402

Bus Rapid Transit PART 2: SEGMENT EVALUATION - DRAFT Potential Traffic Volumes Potential Traffic Flow Impacts Agency and Public Opposition Total Score Recommendation This criteria was weighted to indicate Results from Business and Developer Results from Public Stakeholder Impact on 2005 LOS Impact on 2035 LOS its importance to safe and efficient Input from Web Site Out of 14 Meetings Meetings transit operations.

Center-running BRT would Two of seven participants Of 39 participants to date in maintain access to adjacent None of the four participants who expressed a preference the on-line "build your own Center Lane parcels and eliminate curb- who expressed a preference chose this Segment A option; LOS B z 2 LOS B z 2 z 4 { 0 z 2 corridor" exercise, two { 0 10 Retain. Option 1 lane conflicts, which would among Segment A option One expressed indicated this option as their better support a safe traffic chose this one. undifferentiated support for preference for Segment A. environment. Center Lane.

Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane 1 of 7; 1 undifferentiated LOS B z 2 LOS B z 2 z 4 0 of 4 { 0 1 0 of 39 participants { 0 9 Retain. Option 2 Option 1. Center Lane

Center Lane See Segment A Center 0 of 7; 1 undifferentiated LOS B z 2 LOS B z 2 z 4 1 of 4 { 0 { 0 1 of 39 participants { 0 8 Retain. Option 3 Lane Option 1. Center Lane Segment A

Curb-running BRT, as compared to center-running, would negatively impact access to adjacent parcels, Curb Lane LOS B z 2 LOS B z 2 result in the loss of on-street { 0 1 of 4 { 0 2 of 7 1 5 of 39 participants 1 6 Eliminate. Option 1 parking, disrupt the existing traffic flow, and increase the potential for conflicts between modes.

One of eight participants Of 39 participants to date in who expressed a preference None of the four participants the on-line "build your own Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane chose this Segment B option; LOS E 1 LOS E 1 z 4 who expressed a preference { 0 1 corridor" exercise, two { 0 7 Retain. Option 1 Option 1. One expressed chose this Segment B option. indicated this option as their undifferentiated support for preference for Segment B. Center Lane.

Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane 0 of 8; 1 undifferentiated LOS E 1 LOS E 1 z 4 0 of 4 { 0 { 0 0 of 39 participants { 0 6 Eliminate. Option 2 Option 1. Center Lane

Center Lane See Segment A Center 1 of 8; 1 undifferentiated LOS E 1 LOS E 1 z 4 1 of 4 1 1 1 of 39 participants { 0 8 Retain. Option 3 Lane Option 1. Center Lane

Segment B Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane 1 of 8; 1 undifferentiated LOS E 1 LOS E 1 { 0 0 of 4 { 0 1 2 of 39 participants { 0 3 Eliminate. Option 1 Option 1. Curb Lane

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane 0 of 8; 1 undifferentiated LOS D z 2 LOS D z 2 { 0 0 of 4 { 0 { 0 1 of 39 participants { 0 4 Eliminate. Option 2 Option 1. Curb Lane

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane 1 of 8; 1 undifferentiated LOS E 1 LOS E 1 { 0 1 of 4 1 1 2 of 39 participants { 0 4 Eliminate. Option 3 Option 1. Curb Lane

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points) URS Corporation Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 Bus Rapid Transit (continued) PART 2: SEGMENT EVALUATION - DRAFT Potential Traffic Volumes Potential Traffic Flow Impacts Agency and Public Opposition Total Score Recommendation This criteria was weighted to indicate Results from Business and Developer Results from Public Stakeholder Impact on 2005 LOS Impact on 2035 LOS its importance to safe and efficient Input from Web Site Out of 14 Meetings Meetings transit operations.

One of ten participants who Of 39 participants to date in None of the five participants expressed a preference the on-line "build your own Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane who expressed a preference chose this Segment C LOS C z 2 LOS D/C z 2 z 4 { 0 1 corridor" exercise, two { 0 9 Retain. Option 1 Option 1. chose this Segment C option; one expressed indicated this option as their option. undifferentiated support for preference for Segment C. Center Lane.

Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane 1 of 10; 1 undifferentiated LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 z 4 0 of 5 { 0 1 1 of 39 participants { 0 5 Eliminate. Option 2 Option 1. Center Lane

Center Lane See Segment A Center 2 of 10; 1 undifferentiated LOS C z 2 LOS D/C z 2 z 4 1 of 5 1 z 2 0 of 39 participants { 0 11 Retain. Option 3 Lane Option 1. Center Lane

Segment C 1 undifferentiated Curb Lane; Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 { 0 1 undifferentiated opposition { 0 1 of 10 { 0 0 of 39 participants { 0 0 Eliminate. Option 1 Option 1. to Curb Lane

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane LOS E 1 LOS E 1 { 0 See above. { 0 0 of 10 { 0 1 of 39 participants { 0 2 Eliminate. Option 2 Option 1.

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane LOS C z 2 LOS D/C z 2 { 0 See above. { 0 0 of 10 { 0 4 of 39 participants 1 5 Eliminate. Option 3 Option 1.

Two of nine participants who Of 39 participants to date in Neither of the two expressed a preference the on-line "build your own Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane participants who expressed a chose this Segment D LOS D z 2 LOS E 1 z 4 { 0 z 2 corridor" exercise, two { 0 9 Retain. Option 1 Option 1. preference chose this option; two expressed indicated this option as their Segment D option. undifferentiated support for preference for Segment D. Center Lane.

Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane 1 of 9; 2 undifferentiated LOS D z 2 LOS E 1 z 4 1 of 2 1 1 1 of 39 participants { 0 9 Retain. Option 2 Option 1. Center Lane

Segment D Curb Lane See Segment A Curb LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 { 0 0 of 2 { 0 0 of 9 { 0 2 of 39 participants { 0 0 Eliminate. Option 1 Lane Option 1.

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane LOS E 1 LOS E 1 { 0 1 of 2 1 1 of 9 { 0 3 of 39 participants { 0 3 Eliminate. Option 2 Option 1.

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points)

URS Corporation Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 Bus Rapid Transit (continued) PART 2: SEGMENT EVALUATION - DRAFT Potential Traffic Volumes Potential Traffic Flow Impacts Agency and Public Opposition Total Score Recommendation This criteria was weighted to indicate Results from Business and Developer Results from Public Stakeholder Impact on 2005 LOS Impact on 2035 LOS its importance to safe and efficient Input from Web Site Out of 14 Meetings Meetings transit operations.

None of 14 participants who Of 39 participants to date in None of the three expressed a preference the on-line "build your own Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane participants who expressed a chose this Segment E option; LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 z 4 { 0 1 corridor" exercise, one { 0 5 Eliminate. Option 1 Option 1. preference chose this three expressed indicated this option as their Segment E option. undifferentiated support for preference for Segment E. Center Lane.

Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane 0 of 14; 3 undifferentiated LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 z 4 0 of 3 { 0 1 2 of 39 participants { 0 5 Eliminate. Option 2 Option 1. Center Lane

Center Lane See Segment A Center 3 of 14; 3 undifferentiated LOS E 1 LOS E 1 z 4 1 of 3 1 z 2 0 of 39 participants { 0 9 Retain. Option 3 Lane Option 1. Center Lane Segment E

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 { 0 0 of 3 { 0 0 of 14 { 0 2 of 39 participants { 0 0 Eliminate. Option 1 Lane Option 1.

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane LOS E 1 LOS F { 0 { 0 1 of 3 1 1 of 14 { 0 3 of 39 participants { 0 2 Eliminate. Option 2 Option 1.

None of the six participants Of 39 participants to date in who expressed a preference None of the four participants the on-line "build your own Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane chose this Segment F option; LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 z 4 who expressed a preference { 0 1 corridor" exercise, one { 0 5 Eliminate. Option 1 Option 1. Two expressed chose this Segment F option. indicated this option as their undifferentiated support for preference for Segment F. Center Lane.

Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane 1 of 6; 2 undifferentiated LOS D z 2 LOS E 1 z 4 1 of 4 1 1 1 of 39 participants { 0 9 Retain. Option 2 Option 1. Center Lane

Center Lane See Segment A Center 1 of 6; 2 undifferentiated LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 z 4 1 of 4 1 1 1 of 39 participants { 0 6 Eliminate. Option 3 Lane Option 1. Center Lane

Segment F Curb Lane See Segment A Curb LOS D z 2 LOS E 1 { 0 0 of 4 { 0 0 of 6 { 0 1 of 39 participants { 0 3 Eliminate. Option 1 Lane Option 1.

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb LOS D z 2 LOS E 1 { 0 1 of 4 1 0 of 6 { 0 1 of 39 participants { 0 4 Eliminate. Option 2 Lane Option 1.

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane LOS D z 2 LOS E 1 { 0 0 of 4 { 0 0 of 6 { 0 3 of 39 participants { 0 3 Eliminate. Option 3 Option 1.

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points)

URS Corporation Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 Rail PART 2: SEGMENT EVALUATION - DRAFT Potential Traffic Volumes Potential Traffic Flow Impacts Agency and Public Opposition Total Score Recommendation This criteria was weighted to indicate Results from Business and Developer Results from Public Stakeholder Impact on 2005 LOS Impact on 2035 LOS its importance to safe and efficient Input from Web Site Out of 14 Meetings Meetings transit operations.

Center-running rail would Of 39 participants to date in maintain access to adjacent One of the four participants Two of the seven the on-line "build your own Center Lane parcels and eliminate curb- who expressed a preference participants who expressed a LOS B z 2 LOS B z 2 z 4 1 1 corridor" exercise, 14 z 2 12 Retain. Option 1 lane conflicts, which would chose this Segment A preference chose this indicated this option as their better support a safe traffic option. Segment A option. preference for Segment A. environment.

Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane LOS B z 2 LOS B z 2 z 4 0 of 4 { 0 0 of 7 { 0 10 of 39 participants z 2 10 Retain. Option 2 Option 1.

Curb-running rail, as

Segment A compared to center-running, would negatively impact access to adjacent parcels, Curb Lane LOS B z 2 LOS B z 2 result in the loss of on-street { 0 1 of 4 1 0 of 7 { 0 7 of 39 participants 1 6 Eliminate. Option 1 parking, disrupt the existing traffic flow, and increase the potential for conflicts between modes.

Of 39 participants to date in None of the four participants None of the eight the on-line "build your own Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane who expressed a preference participants who expressed a LOS E 1 LOS E 1 z 4 { 0 { 0 corridor" exercise, 18 z 2 8 Retain. Option 1 Option 1. chose this Segment B preference chose this indicated this option as their option. Segment B option. preference for Segment B.

Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane LOS E 1 LOS E 1 z 4 1 of 4 1 1 of 8 1 6 of 39 participants 1 9 Retain. Option 2 Option 1.

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane 0 of 8; 1 undifferentiated

Segment B LOS E 1 LOS E 1 { 0 0 of 4 { 0 { 0 2 of 39 participants { 0 2 Eliminate. Option 1 Option 1. Curb Lane

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane 0 of 8; 1 undifferentiated LOS D z 2 LOS D z 2 { 0 1 of 4 1 { 0 5 of 39 participants 1 6 Eliminate. Option 2 Option 1. Curb Lane

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points)

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 Rail (continued) PART 2: SEGMENT EVALUATION - DRAFT Potential Traffic Volumes Potential Traffic Flow Impacts Agency and Public Opposition Total Score Recommendation This criteria was weighted to indicate Results from Business and Developer Results from Public Stakeholder Impact on 2005 LOS Impact on 2035 LOS its importance to safe and efficient Input from Web Site Out of 14 Meetings Meetings transit operations.

None of the 10 participants Of 39 participants to date in None of the five participants who expressed a preference the on-line "build your own Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane who expressed a preference chose this Segment C LOS C z 2 LOS D z 2 z 4 { 0 { 0 corridor" exercise, 14 z 2 10 Retain. Option 1 Option 1. chose this Segment C option; One expressed indicated this option as their option. undifferentiated support for preference for Segment C. Center Running.

Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane 0 of 10; 1 undifferentiated LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 z 4 0 of 5 { 0 { 0 3 of 39 participants { 0 4 Eliminate. Option 2 Option 1. Center Lane

Center Lane See Segment A Center 0 of 10; 1 undifferentiated LOS C z 2 LOS D/C z 2 z 4 0 of 5 { 0 { 0 5 of 39 participants 1 9 Retain. Option 3 Lane Option 1. Center Lane

Center Lane See Segment A Center 1 of 10; 1 undifferentiated LOS C z 2 LOS D/C z 2 z 4 1 of 5 1 1 2 of 39 participants { 0 10 Retain. Option 4 Lane Option 1. Center Lane

Center Lane See Segment A Center 1 of 10; 1 undifferentiated LOS C z 2 LOS D/C z 2 z 4 0 of 5 { 0 1 0 of 39 participants { 0 9 Retain. Option 5 Lane Option 1. Center Lane Segment C

Center Lane See Segment A Center 0 of 10; 1 undifferentiated LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 z 4 0 of 5 { 0 { 0 of 39 participants { 0 4 Eliminate. Option 6 Lane Option 1. Center Lane

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane 1 of 10; 1 undifferentiated LOS C z 2 LOS D z 2 { 0 0 of 5 { 0 1 1 of 39 participants { 0 5 Eliminate. Option 1 Option 1. Curb Lane

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane 0 of 10; 1 undifferentiated LOS E 1 LOS E 1 { 0 0 of 5 { 0 { 4 of 39 participants 1 3 Eliminate. Option 2 Option 1. Curb Lane

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane 0 of 10; 1 undifferentiated LOS C z 2 LOS D z 2 { 0 1 of 5 1 { 2 of 39 participants { 0 5 Eliminate. Option 3 Option 1. Curb Lane

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points)

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010 Rail (continued) PART 2: SEGMENT EVALUATION - DRAFT Potential Traffic Volumes Potential Traffic Flow Impacts Agency and Public Opposition Total Score Recommendation This criteria was weighted to indicate its Results from Business and Developer Results from Public Stakeholder Impact on 2005 LOS Impact on 2035 LOS importance to safe and efficient transit Input from Web Site Out of 14 Meetings Meetings operations.

Of 39 participants to date in Neither of the two Three of nine participants the on-line "build your own Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane participants who expressed a LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 z 4 { 0 who expressed a preference z 2 corridor" exercise, 24 z 2 8 Retain. Option 1 Option 1. preference chose this chose this Segment D option. indicated this option as their Segment D option. preference for Segment D.

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 { 0 See above. { 0 0 of 9 { 0 1 of 39 participants { 0 0 Eliminate. Option 1 Lane Option 1. Segment D

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane LOS E 1 LOS E 1 { 0 See above. { 0 0 of 9 { 0 5 of 39 participants 1 3 Eliminate. Option 2 Option 1.

Of 39 participants in the on- None of the three Seven of 14 participants who line "build your own corridor" Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane participants who expressed a expressed a preference LOS E 1 LOS E 1 z 4 { 0 z 2 exercise, 24 indicated this z 2 10 Retain. Option 1 Option 1. preference chose this chose this Segment E option as their preference for Segment E option. options. Segment E.

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb LOS E 1 LOS E 1 { 0 1 of 3 1 0 of 14 { 0 2 of 39 participants { 0 3 Eliminate. Option 1 Lane Option 1. Segment E

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane LOS E 1 LOS F { 0 { 0 0 of 3 { 0 0 of 14 { 0 5 of 39 participants 1 2 Eliminate. Option 2 Option 1.

None of the six participants Of 39 participants to date in who expressed a preference None of the four participants the on-line "build your own Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane chose this Segment F option; LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 z 4 who expressed a preference { 0 1 corridor" exercise, 13 z 2 7 Retain. Option 1 Option 1. Two expressed chose this Segment F option. indicated this option as their undifferentiated support for preference for Segment F. Center Lane.

Center Lane See Segment A Center Lane 0 of 6; 2 undifferentiated LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 z 4 1 of 4 1 1 11 of 39 participants z 2 8 Retain. Option 2 Option 1. Center Lane

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb LOS F { 0 LOS F { 0 { 0 0 of 4 { 0 0 of 6 { 0 0 of 39 participants { 0 0 Eliminate. Option 1 Lane Option 1. Segment F

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb LOS D z 2 LOS E 1 { 0 1 of 4 1 0 of 6 { 0 4 of 39 participants 1 5 Eliminate. Option 2 Lane Option 1.

Curb Lane See Segment A Curb Lane LOS D z 2 LOS E 1 { 0 1 of 4 1 0 of 6 { 0 3 of 39 participants { 0 4 Eliminate. Option 3 Option 1.

Rating Definition z Mode meets criterion very well (2 points) Mode meets criterion sufficiently (1 point) { Mode does not meet criterion (0 points)

Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation URS Corporation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study March 2010