Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study

PHASE I REPORT

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TT AA BB LL EE OO FF CC OO NN TT EE NN TT SS

Section 1 – Data Collection & Application

1.1 Introduction 1.2 Purpose 1.3 Overview of Data Required 1.4 Application

Section 2 – Peer Group Analysis

2.1 Introduction 2.2 Purpose 2.3 Overview of Peer Group Analysis 2.4 Conclusion

Section 3 – Institutional Issues

3.1 Introduction 3.2 Purpose 3.3 Overview of Institutional Issues

A. Organizational Issues B. Process Issues C. Implementation Issues

3.4 Summary Institutional Recommendations

Appendix

• DDMA Rail Study – Peer Property Reference List

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-1

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Data Application

Table 2-1 Peer Group Data

Table 3-1 Procurement of Services Table 3-2 Virginia Railway Express Insurance Table 3-3 Commuter Rail Systems and Sponsors Table 3-4 Funding Sources Table 3-5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Existing Agencies as Sponsor of Proposed Rail Passenger Service

List of Figures

Figure 3-1 Risk, Liability and Insurance of Railroad Operations

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-2 1 DD AA TT AA CC OO LL LL EE CC TT II OO NN && AA PP PP LL II CC AA TT II OO NN

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The usefulness of virtually any study is directly related to the quality of the input or source material available. This is certainly true for the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study. The necessary source data must be accurate, reasonably current The majority of information required as and provided in a timely manner in order to be of use to the input to this study is study team. available through one or more of the participating 1.2 PURPOSE public organizations.

The purpose of this section is to describe the types of source data required as input to this study, as well as the intended use or application of this data. Where and when data is not readily available, the study has identified a variety of “work-arounds” designed to minimize the adverse impacts of study findings due to a lack of source material.

1.3 OVERVIEW OF DATA REQUIRED

The majority of information required as input to this study is available through one or more of the participating public organizations. As such information is generally in the public domain, the timeliness of the provision of such information will be more of an issue in terms of the production of accurate study findings than will be its actual availability.

In some instances, information which may be deemed proprietary to one or more of the interested and affected private Information from one or railroads may also be required. This may necessitate the more of the interested execution of an agreement between the railroad(s) and the and affected private Study Team dealing with the protection (non-disclosure) and railroads may also be required. disposition of any such proprietary data. In any event, it must be understood that the actual availability of such information will be at the sole discretion of the railroad(s).

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-1

In general, the types of data required as input to this study fall into the following categories:

· Related rail transit studies, · Aerial photography of the downtown Detroit to Metro Airport corridor, · Site plans, drawings and/or rendering of envisioned airport capital improvements, · Information related to the charter or mandate of each of the agencies currently providing or directly involved in the public transportation services throughout the study area, · Zonal demographic (population and employment) data, · Rail alignment and station location data, including field survey information, · Regional travel time/level of service information related to the condition of relevant highways and roads throughout the study area, · MDOT and/or Wayne County TIP capital program information, and · A variety of information related to the existing railroad One of the primary physical plant and operations, including timetables, “work-arounds” track charts, grade crossing and signaling inventories, available is the study team’s own extensive right-of-way valuation mapping or equivalent and database. traffic volumes and projections.

In addition, information on peer properties will be required in order to perform the Peer Group Analysis inherent in Phase 1 of the study. Recognizing that the freight railroad(s) are limited in the amount of assistance they can offer, the PB Team will approach them only after other data sources have been exhausted or when there are apparent inconsistencies in the available information.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-2

One of the primary “work-arounds” available is the Study Team’s own extensive database, compiled as the result of performing numerous similar studies through the nation. This database includes information on capital and operating costs and operational characteristics of rail transit properties throughout the nation. This database cannot however, deal with issues of unique local significance.

1.4 APPLICATION

The chart on the following page summarizes the source(s) of data as well as its intended application to the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-3

TABLE 1-1 DATA APPLICATIONS

DATA TYPE: SOURCE(S): INTENDED APPLICATION:

Related Rail Transit Studies: All related rail transit studies will be made available by General background to assist coordinating the implications and § “Ad-Hoc Passenger Rail Task Force” Final Report, June 1998 SEMCOG. findings of the various studies. § Southeastern Michigan Regional Rail Study § Final Report “Lansing/Detroit Rail Service Survey” § Final Report “Detroit-Lansing-Grand Rapids Inter-City Passenger Rail Service Feasibility Study” § Lansing to Detroit Commuter Rail Study § Analysis of Passenger Rail Service Between Downtown Detroit and Metropolitan Airport, 1990, SMART, and § Rail Access to Airports: A Review and Discussion with Application to Metra’s Planned Service to Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Metra, July 1994

Agency Charter/Mandate Information Informational Charette General background to assist in developing recommendations related to Institutional Issues.

Zonal Demographic Data SEMCOG Input to the Sketch Planning ridership model.

Rail Alignment and Station Location Data Study Team, with assistance provided by SEMCOG and the Input to the Definition of Alternatives, Sketch Planning ridership Steering Committee model and cost estimates.

Aerial Photography SEMCOG and Wayne County Input to the Definition of Alternatives, Sketch Planning ridership model and cost estimates.

Site Plans, Drawings and/or Renderings Wayne County Input to the Definition of Alternatives, Sketch Planning ridership model and cost estimates.

Regional Travel Time/Level of Service Information SEMCOG Input to the Definition of Alternatives and cost estimates.

MDOT and/or Wayne County TIP Capital Program Information MDOT and/or SEMCOG Input to the Definition of Alternatives and cost estimates.

Railroad Physical Plant and Operations Data Railroad(s), MDOT/UPTRAN, SEMCOG Input to the Definition of Alternatives and cost estimates.

Railroad and road alignment field observation data Study Team members Determination of feasible alignments, available right-of-way and capital program requirements.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-4 2 PP EE EE RR GG RR OO UU PP AA NN AA LL YY SS II SS

2.1 INTRODUCTION

A peer group analysis subtask was included in the first phase of the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study to ensure that current data on operating and planned airport rail links was available to the study team and Steering Committee members.

2.2 PURPOSE A total of 11 properties were included in the peer group analysis. This comparative data may assist the Committee members in reaching decisions on the markets to be served and other key planning aspects of a potential Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport rail line.

2.3 OVERVIEW OF PEER GROUP ANALYSIS

A total of 11 properties, consisting of 12 airport rail lines, were included in the peer group analysis. Of these, seven are currently operating rail services to and from an airport while four are planned operations. The planned operations were included in the analysis to indicate the sort of preliminary planning that has been performed relative to airport

The light and commuter operations. This also indicates the rail modes are most relative importance of providing rail relevant to potential links between a major airport and the Detroit service. corresponding central business district (CBD). For example, in the case of Map of Hiawatha light rail line Minneapolis, the airport is a major showing multiple on-airport traffic generator on that city’s initial stations. light rail line (as illustrated on the map to the right). The peer table is included as Table 2-1 at the end of this section.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport 2-1 Rail Study

Of the seven operating lines listed in Table 2-1, two are light rail, four are commuter rail, and one is a heavy rail system. All three technologies, or modes, carry passengers on trains operating on rail tracks. Briefly, they have the following general characteristics:

Light rail transit (LRT) uses overhead wires to power trains operating on tracks. LRT can operate in its own right-of-way, share railroad right-of-way with freight operations where the two are separated in time or space, or it can operate in a street with other traffic. Because no power is in the tracks, LRT tracks are safe to cross and do not have to be separated from all other traffic (“grade-separated”), which makes LRT less expensive to construct than heavy rail systems. LRT is usually constructed in fully developed urban areas where more frequent stops to provide access are desired.

Commuter rail uses existing railroad tracks to bring people into downtown areas from longer distances, usually into work in the mornings and back at the end of the day – hence the term “commuter” rail. Commuter rail trains use standard railroad- rated equipment, which can intermingle with freight trains, usually, a locomotive pulling passenger cars. Because of the equipment used, commuter rail trains have slower acceleration and deceleration times, thus stations need to be farther apart to accomplish overall trip speeds competitive with an automobile.

Heavy rail, sometimes referred to as “rail rapid transit”, receives its power from a third or “hot” rail in the trackbed. The tracks are not safe to cross, and therefore must be fully separated from all other traffic. The amount and cost of the infrastructure required to support this is more extensive or heavier than other forms of rail passenger transportation, hence the term “heavy” rail. The Washington, D.C. Metro system and Atlanta’s MARTA are heavy

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-2

rail systems. Heavy rail systems are usually only constructed where both demand and congestion within a city core are extensive enough to warrant the expense.

Light rail and commuter rail characteristics will be covered in more detail in the Definition of Alternatives phase of this study.

Although the light and commuter rail modes are most relevant to potential Detroit service, the heavy rail operators were included on the peer group analysis as additional information was available relative to the split of riders (airport employees vs. travelers, etc.) using these mature services. In addition, the heavy rail operations presented two different situations for an airport station. In one case the station is situated such that local area commuters do not use it in significant quantity for transportation to and from the city’s CBD. In the other instance, the airport station was specifically laid out with an extensive feeder bus network and park-and-ride facilities to serve the community as well as airport employees, travelers and meeters- and-greeters.

Two of the mature commuter rail operations (one beginning in 1970s, the other in 1992) are electrified lines, using Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) cars. While this configuration requires a substantial capital investment, which is not recommended for Detroit service, such properties are again included to provide additional frames of reference.

The oldest of the peer airport services began in 1970s, while the newest started operation A New Jersey Transit EMU train. The in 1997, giving a broad range intensive physical plant evident here is also of experience relative to found on SEPTA’s commuter rail system, including portions of their airport line.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-3

The oldest of the peer maturity of service and service planning. Where available, the airport services began in same data was collected for each of the peer properties. This 1970s, while the newest started operation in 1997, information included: giving a broad range of experience relative to maturity of service and · Property name (the table is arranged alphabetically by service planning. property name) and city/metropolitan area, · Right-of-way ownership (summarized, as some lines include multiple categories depending on the age of the particular portion of the airport line being considered), · Mode (commuter rail, light rail or heavy rail), · Airport served, · Number of on-line stations between first station in CBD and airport, · The year the airport service began operation (or, if the line is in the planning/construction process, as this is written), · Distance between airport and first station in CBD, · Travel time during the peak period, · Fare during the peak period and fare structure the property uses (some properties have a specific fare for riders boarding at the airport stations, while others do not differentiate), · Typical interval between trains during the peak (rush hour) period, · Interval between trains during the off-peak (midday) period, · Hours of operation per day, and · Any remarks that provide additional information relative to the operation being considered.

There are some subtleties in the information listed above and some clarifying remarks are in order. Regarding right-of-way ownership, some airport rail lines are extensions of existing

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-4

services, which were previously extended further out from the CBD as the metropolitan area developed. In the case of the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) line to O’Hare Airport, this line begins in a 1950s vintage subway that is owned by the city on which the Authority has exclusive operating rights. This section of subway replaced a portion of The portion of CTA’s O’Hare line in expressway median elevated line that dated to on airport property. 1884-1895. The subway line The average station transitions to an Authority-owned elevated line, dating to 1895, spacing for a light rail line can be just under one then connects to another section of city-owned subway mile, while commuter rail (opened in 1970), and then operates in expressway median as station spacing ranges shown in this photo. The portions of the line in median entered from four to six miles. service in 1970, 1983 and 1984. These portions are state-owned with an easement granted to the city and exclusive operating rights for the CTA. Finally, the line ends in a city-owned subway on airport property.

While this is one of the more complicated lines in terms of the number of extensions and ownership arrangements, it is included to show how existing lines were used to provide service to the surrounding area and the city’s airport.

One can see from Table 2-1 that the average station spacing for a light rail line can be just under one mile (statistics for the planned Seattle line work out to a station approximately every 0.85 miles), while the heavy rail lines average a mile or more between stations. In the case of the commuter rail peer properties, the station spacing ranges from four to six miles. However, some clarification is again required.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-5

In Chicago, Metra’s North Central Service trains operate in a skip-stop manner over a 12-mile distance where the local service is provided by trains serving another of the agency’s 12 radial lines. In the case of the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) trains to the South Bend Airport, these trains operate through a rural area east of Michigan City. Consequently, the stations are far apart. In the more- suburbanized section west of Michigan City, the stations are closer together.

The mileage and peak travel times can also be used to determine the average speed characteristic for the particular

Most all of the light rail line. For example, the planning for Minneapolis’s light rail line calls lines are clearly provided for the 11.4 mile trip to be made in 31 minutes, working out to an or being planned to serve average speed of 22 mph. A similar result is obtained using the the needs of airport workers, planned statistics for the Seattle light rail line. By comparison, a travelers CTA train operating on the O’Hare line requires 42 minutes to and meters and greeters. travel the 17 miles to the CBD translating into an average speed of over 24 mph. The 17-mile trip in from O’Hare via Metra’s North Central Service (via a different routing) is made in 31 minutes, working out to an average speed of nearly 33 mph.

Most all of the light and heavy rail lines are clearly provided or being planned to serve the needs of airport workers, travelers and meeters and greeters. This is evidenced by the table entries for peak and off-peak frequencies, as well as by the longer hours of operation per day (at least compared to most commuter rail lines – see the following paragraph). With the airlines working 24 hours per day, 7 days per week at most major airports, their significant shift changes occur outside the normal working hours for most commuters. CTA’s service to O’Hare Airport sees significant traffic flows of airport workers around 6 am, 2 and 10 pm on this basis. However, airport workers can be observed on the trains in lesser quantity at other times throughout the day as well. Travelers with their luggage are seen on the trains at most

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-6

hours of the day, with their arrivals and departures timed for when the passenger flights are operating.

By contrast, most commuter rail operations are not geared to provide this regular-frequency airport service throughout the Most commuter rail day. The relative infrequency of midday service on Metra, Los operations are not Angeles’ MetroLink and NICTD lines demonstrates this. Further, geared to provide regular-frequency airport even the regular-frequency service of Philadelphia’s SEPTA’s service throughout the airport commuter rail line is offset by a relatively steep fare for a day. comparatively short trip. This indicates that the service is marketed more towards travelers, as opposed to airport workers. Of the peer properties, only SEPTA’s EMU cars are dedicated to airport express service. All of the other operators use their standard equipment on the airport line.

Comments in the “remarks” column provide additional perspective on the particular property/operation. Data from CTA on the split of workers versus travelers varies depending on the source. Earlier reports indicated that the split of airport workers versus travelers was nearly more even. All sources agree that the rail line’s total share of airport access trips is no more than 10 percent.

World-Wide Market for Airport – CBD Rail Services

Worldwide, there are Many other cities that have many cities where heavy rail lines connecting the heavy rail, commuter CBD to the airport. In still other rail and intercity rail directly serve major cities, a bus connection from airports. the rail line is provided as the final link to the airport. For New York’s Kennedy Airport, this latter arrangement is currently in force, but will be superseded This is the premium fare, 100 mph Heathrow by a direct rail connection in Express Service at London’s Padington Station.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-7

the near future. Worldwide, there are many cities where heavy rail, commuter rail and intercity rail directly serve major airports. Dedicated airport express services are operated along existing rail lines in many cities in Asia and Europe, so the market for airport-CBD service can be strong. Most of the listed operations serve more than just the airport-to- Characteristics of a Successful Airport – CBD Rail Service CBD market. Most of the operations listed in Table 2-1 serve more than just the airport-to-CBD market - they also serve daily commuters, shopping trips, sightseers, etc. These travel markets have different needs and expectations which can make accommodating all users a difficult proposition. It also leads to the tendency noted earlier to use the property’s standard equipment as opposed to equipment specially configured for the airline traveler’s needs.

For example, at one time CTA had 20 or so O’Hare line-assigned cars equipped with a couple of different configurations of luggage racks. These cars were used interchangeably within the fleet of approximately 320 cars operating on this line, so the chances of riding on a luggage rack-equipped car were quite small. The racks were rarely used, as passengers do not like to be separated from their luggage, or their luggage dimensions were such that using the rack was not practical. After several years of limited utility, the racks were removed from the cars.

The visitor to a city needs easy-to-follow travel Regardless of the need for information. special accommodations on the train, the visitor to a city needs easy-to-follow travel information. This begins with

direct, simple signage in the Clarity in signage is demonstrated in this view airline terminals leading the of Atlanta’s MARTA. potential rider to the rail

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-8

station. Once at the rail station, the information must clearly convey fares, travel times, hours of service, routing, station locations and connection possibilities. An ample supply of transit system literature along with assistance personnel is required at the airport station. This may also be necessary at the key CBD station, if any one station can clearly be identified as the major traffic generator for airport-bound riders. Rail service must be both price and time- competitive. Routing of To be competitive with other modes (taxi, limo, etc.), the rail the line and the number service must be both price and time-competitive, or at least give of intermediate stations are crucial to remaining the feeling of value for money. In this instance, the routing of the attractive. line and the number of intermediate stations are crucial to remaining attractive. As noted in the preceding paragraphs, certain rail modes have typical station spacings associated with them, and these spacings result in an operation that is within the user’s expectations for that type of service. Station The LA Green Line is hampered by not providing a one- seat ride to LAX. The bus connection is shown. spacing may also vary by location, with longer station-to-station distances in the suburban market, and stations closer together in the CBD.

There are ways of enhancing the attractiveness of the airport to CBD service, including skip-stop operation to reduce the overall travel time. However, this makes the service plan more complicated and difficult to understand, especially for the infrequent user.

“What is fundamental to What is fundamental to the success of the service is general the success of the service is consensus between the stakeholders as to the markets to be general consensus served and the nature of the basic service plan. As seen in the between the stakeholders

as to the markets to be served and the nature of Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport the basic service plan.” Rail Study 2-9

peer table, many of the commuter rail lines serving airports provide this service only as part of their peak period-oriented trips to and from the CBD. Generally, the light and heavy rail lines provide airport service on a more frequent basis throughout the day, and with a longer overall operating day.

2.3 Conclusion

Experience throughout the nation substantiates the fact that a significant market exists for rail transit service between airports and major downtown activity centers. This same experience also indicates that other means and modes of airport-to-downtown transportation such as taxis, charter service and the like do not suffer to any significant extent when “parallel” rail transit service is implemented.

A significant market exists for rail transit A key to ensure productive airport-to-downtown rail transit service between service is tailoring such service to the market being served. airports and major Frequent, all-day or nearly all-day service is best suited to capture downtown activity centers. the full ridership potential of round-the-clock airport operations, provided that the downtown area(s) being served is or are similarly vital. Such service can be and most often is designed to simultaneously serve the peak-based commuter or employment market as well.

However, such frequent and expansive service comes at a price – both literally and figuratively. Operating and oftentimes capital costs are necessarily higher than would be the case for day-based, peak-oriented commuter service, and is best provided on right-of-way independent of that owned and operated by freight carriers. An initial investment of this In order to be truly magnitude also poses a significant financial and credibility risk to competitive, rail transit the sponsor, as initial ridership projections may prove optimistic. service must be attractive from both an Consequently, it is wise to consider the staged implementation of aesthetic and functional rail transit service and related incremental increases in operating perspective.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-10

and capital funding requirements as a means of accommodating increasing travel demand in a cost-effective manner.

To be truly competitive, rail transit service must be attractive from both an aesthetic and functional perspective. Passengers must feel safe and have confidence in the on-time performance of rail transit service if it is to become a viable alternative to the private automobile.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-11

TABLE 2-1 PEER GROUP DATA

Line Ownership, Number of Peak Peak Fare Leasing or Other Airport On-Line Year Miles from Travel and Fare Peak Off-Peak Hours of Property Mode Served Stations Opened CBD Time Structure Frequency Frequency Operation Remarks

BSDA Owned Light Rail Lambert 13 1994 17 miles 31 minutes $3.00 (at Lambert 7-8 minutes 10 minutes 19 hours TBD = to be determined (St. Louis) (incl. airport to stations); flat fare CBD)

CTA Elevated owned; Heavy Rail O’Hare 17 1984 17 miles 42 minutes $1.50; flat fare 5 minutes 10 minutes 24 hours 6% of airport access is by rail. 70% of rail ridership is airport employees; (Chicago) in subway/ 24% travelers; 6% are airport visitors. Earlier data indicated nearly even expressway split of employees and travelers. Airport station has very little median commuter (local riders to/from city) traffic. easement

CTA (Chicago) As above Heavy Rail Midway 9 1992 10 miles 25 minutes $1.50; flat fare 6 minutes 10 minutes 20 hours Airport station also has significant commuter traffic.

DART (Dallas) Owned Commuter DFW 5 2000 TBD 50 minutes $2.00; zone fare 30 minutes 60 minutes 18 hours Bus connection to airport from closest rail station; hourly service on Rail Saturdays; no Sunday or Holiday service.

GCRTA Owned Heavy Rail Hopkins 10 1966 10.1 miles 26 minutes $1.50 6 minutes 12 minutes 20 hours Bus service in owl period. Hours of operation are for eastbound (Cleveland) service; westbound service has shorter operating hours.

Metra (Chicago) 12 miles owned; 5 Commuter O’Hare 4 1996 17 miles 31 minutes $3.15; zone fare 30 minutes One trip in each 12.5 hours No peak period reverse commute service. Runs skip-stop on miles trackage Rail direction Milwaukee West District to/from CBD. rights

Metrolink Trackage rights; Commuter Glendale/ 3 1992 16 miles 24 minutes $4.75; zone fare 6 trips on 2 trips, about 5 12 hours Primary market on line is commuter traffic. (Los Angeles) Dispatch control Rail Burbank uneven hours apart headways

MTA (Baltimore) Owned Light Rail BWI 13 1997 TBD 45 minutes $1.35; flat fare 17 minutes 17 minutes 19 hours

Metro Transit Owned Light Rail Minneapolis 11 In Design 11.4 miles 31 minutes $2.00; flat fare 7.5 minutes 10-30 minutes 20 hours Operation planned to begin in 2004; design-build contract. (Minneapolis) -St. Paul

NICTD (Northwest 20 miles trackage Commuter South Bend 15 1992 90 miles 2 hours, 20 $9.40; zone fare 2 trips, about 3 trips, on 14 hours Primary market on line is commuter traffic. Indiana) rights (two Rail minutes 2 hours apart uneven Uses electrified rail line - not recommended for DDMA. owners), 70 miles headways owned

SEPTA Varies by line Commuter Philadelphia 8 1970s TBD 26 minutes $5.00; flat fare 30 minutes 30 minutes 19 hours Uses electrified rail line – not recommended for DDMA. (Philadelphia) section Rail Internationa l

Sound Transit Varies by line Light Rail Sea-Tac 13 In Design 11 miles 30 minutes Not yet 10 minutes 15 minutes 20 hours Planned to open in 2006. Will use bus tunnel (already built) in Seattle (Seattle) section Internationa determined CBD. l

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-12 3 II NN SS TT II TT UU TT II OO NN AA LL II SS SS UU EE SS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

For the purposes of this study, institutional issues are those issues related to the roles, duties and responsibilities of the various public agencies, private concerns and community interests necessary to the eventual implementation of rail transit service between downtown Detroit and Metro Airport.

Institutional issues are The timely identification and resolution of these issues is those issues related to the roles, duties and paramount to successful project development and responsibilities of public implementation, including the securing of federal, state, local agencies, private and private funding required to support such an undertaking. concerns and community interests. 3.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this section of the Phase 1 Report is to identify relevant institutional issues inherent in such a project and to recommend approaches to guide the governance and implementation of rail transit service between downtown Detroit and Metro Airport.

3.3 OVERVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

The primary institutional issues to be faced by the various public agencies, private concerns and community interests throughout the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport corridor as they pertain to the implementation of rail transit service include the following:

· Determining which organization or combination of organizations assumes primary responsibility for the development and implementation of the envisioned service(s). · Employing the appropriate process or processes to be used to guide development and implementation activities including funding, financing, right-of-way acquisition and community involvement.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-1

Such processes are aimed at soliciting and obtaining the support of key Federal, state and local stakeholders including the Federal Transit Administration, relevant state agencies and local city governments and private citizens affected by the project. · Implementation issues, including procurement of the various services required to support long-term operation and maintenance activities.

Regardless of the way these various institutional issues are characterized or organized for the purposes of a report such as this, the failure to address all of these issues in an organized, timely and coordinated manner will place the project at risk. A number of major North American transit initiatives have failed largely as a result of inadequate funding, lack of inter-agency coordination and cooperation and/or insufficient public consensus and support.

The remainder of this section discussed fundamental aspects of each of these three categories of institutional issues.

A. Organizational Issues

The most significant institutional issues to be considered are those related to ownership, governance and sponsorship of the service and related physical assets.

It is assumed that the Ownership ownership of rail transit assets throughout the Downtown Detroit to Ownership is essentially an issue of whether public or private Metro Airport corridor interests exert primary control over the envisioned service(s) and would be held in the public interest. physical assets.

It is assumed for the purposes of this study that the ownership of rail transit assets throughout the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport corridor would be held in the public interest. In other words, the citizen taxpayers of the State of Michigan and/or citizen taxpayers of an approved local improvement and/or

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-2

taxation district would own the system – specifically those rail transit assets that are separable from any freight rail facilities, systems, equipment and/or rights-of-way that are privately owned by the relevant freight railroads. There are several considerations that validate the assumption of public ownership:

· The public sector is the logical administrator and overseer of public transportation services provided over publicly-owned rights-of-way as well as those owned and operated by freight rail carriers, · Public policy dictates that rail transit service be provided within the framework of a regionally and potentially statewide, publicly-funded multi-modal transportation system, · The provision of rail transit service is not viable without substantial public sector financing, which would not likely be available under the auspices of private ownership, and · The public sector is the appropriate and responsible choice as manager of the expenditure of public finds required to plan, design, construct, operate and maintain such a system.

All light rail transit (LRT) and commuter rail services operated throughout the nation are owned by the public sector and sponsored by one or more public agencies, often thru a variety of intergovernmental agreements. Determining which organization or combination of organizations assumes the role of sponsor is largely a question of governance.

The sponsor of rail Governance transit service is the public entity or combination of public Having resolved that ownership of the of rail transit assets entities that serve as throughout the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport corridor the public’s principal agent for and overseer would be held in the public interest, a public sponsor must be of such service. appointed to “champion” the project. The sponsor of rail transit

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-3

service is the public entity or combination of public entities that serve as the public’s principal agent for and overseer of such service. As such, a sponsor serves at a minimum as the lead administrator and contracting entity for all services to be provided.

The agency or group of agencies which are empowered to plan and program or implement rail transit service may not be the same organizations that manage, operate and maintain the service itself. Similarly, overall responsibility for the planning and programming of a project may be assumed by a single agency or by several agencies through intergovernmental agreements.

National Governance Models

There are several governance models which have evolved over the years throughout the North American rail transit industry. These models include the following:

1. Expanding the charter of an existing transit agency – usually a bus service provider – to encompass the provision of rail transit service, 2. Assumption of the duties and responsibilities of rail transit service provider by a State Department of Transportation, or 3. Creation of a new Regional Transit Authority to oversee, implement, operate and maintain a regional transit network or system.

Commuter rail is the only mode of rail transit for which a State Department of Transportation has assumed the role of transit service provider.

Table 3-3 on the following page lists examples of sponsoring agencies for selected commuter rail systems throughout the country. All of the agencies listed provide or will soon be providing high quality commuter rail service,

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-4

demonstrating that there is no superior or preferred approach to dealing with the governance issue. Each region evaluated its own legal and/or functional constraints on its existing governance structure and responded in a manner most appropriate to those constraints.

TABLE 3-3 COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEMS AND SPONSORS

SYSTEM SPONSOR MARC The Maryland Department of Transportation, Mass Transit Administration Metra (13 Lines) Metra, a Service Board of the Northeastern Chicago, Illinois Illinois Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) MetroLink Southern California Commuter Rail Los Angeles, California Authority (SCCRA) North Coaster North (San Diego) County Transit District San Diego, California Peninsula Commuter Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Service (Caltrain) consisting of San Francisco, San Mateo and San Jose, California Santa Clara Counties Sounder Commuter Rail Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Seattle/Tacoma, Authority (Sound Transit) Washington Trinity Railway Express Intergovernmental Agreement between Dallas & Fort Worth, DART and the Fort Worth Transportation Texas Authority Tri-Rail Joint Powers Authority consisting of Miami/Fort Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach Counties Lauderdale/West Palm and FDOT Beach, Florida

Southeast Michigan Governance Considerations

Following is a summary of the various legislative mandates or charters of each of the public agencies currently

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-5

involved in the provision of transportation services throughout and within the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport corridor. Funding sources and constraints are also described together with a qualitative assessment of the resulting suitability of one or more of these agencies to serve as the eventual sponsor of rail transit service between the region’s two principal activity centers.

Applicable Michigan state laws which offer potential for the establishment of a separate agency to undertake the sponsorship and ownership of any proposed rail transit service are also discussed.

The Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) - DDOT provides bus service primarily within the City of Detroit. They are a service organization within the City of Detroit, accountable to the local elected city officials.

Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) - SMART provides service within the suburbs but also offers express and local bus service from the suburbs to Detroit service centers and the Central Business District (CBD). SMART reports to a Board comprised of elected/appointed officials representing the surrounding suburban communities.

Regional Transit Coordinating Council (RTCC) - RTCC is made up of the County Executives from Oakland and Wayne Counties, the Chair of the Macomb County Board Commissioners, and the Mayor of the City of Detroit. The RTCC is the body responsible for receiving and channeling transit funds and adopting critical regional policies in Southeast Michigan. The RTCC meets to consider and approve major transit decisions. Currently there is a 65/35 % split of the region’s transit funds to DDOT and SMART respectively. The RTCC has no staff and performs very limited functions. However, this group is comprised of the

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-6

chief elected officials in the tri-county area of Southeast Michigan. Its voice is expected to be necessary to move any rail service forward to implementation.

DDOT and SMART obtain their revenues from four primary sources - federal, state and local government and the fare box.

Wayne County - the largest county in the State of Michigan was established under the state county charter law with a strong county executive form of government. The two principal activity centers for this project are in Wayne County. The county also owns and operates the Detroit Metro Airport. Several communities in Wayne County support the millage to help fund the SMART operations.

At the airport, transportation providers pay fees for the right to pick up and drop fee-paying passengers at the airport. Wayne County has a current agreement licensing transportation service providers at the airport. These transportation providers cater primarily for the flying public.

The Southeast Michigan Council of Government (SEMCOG) - SEMCOG is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for multi-modal transportation plan development in the seven-county region of Southeast Michigan. Most of the larger communities are members of the organization. As the MPO, SEMCOG communicates with the other transportation agencies to ensure that the various elements of the regional transportation program are coordinated. As the role of the MPO continues to be enhanced, the community increasingly looks to SEMCOG to become the focal point for critical transportation decisions that have area-wide implications.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-7

Most of the agency funding comes from federal and state sources. Local member dues make up about 25% of SEMCOG’s revenue. Significant portions of these funds are used in planning and programming transportation projects. SEMCOG does not operate any transportation service.

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) - MDOT sponsors intercity rail passenger services through Amtrak. MDOT also funds, in part, many local transit services in the region including DDOT and SMART. Through participation in several transportation committees, MDOT maintains oversight and coordinate, to the extent possible, ongoing transportation projects.

Any of the agencies mentioned above could potentially operate any proposed rail passenger service between downtown Detroit and Metro Airport. Below are the advantages and disadvantages associated with each organization.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-8

TABLE 3-5 SPONSORSHIP ALTERNATIVES

Agency Advantages Disadvantages DDOT § Experience with carrying § No experience in providing high volume transit service. commuter or light rail § County provides the feeder services. routes to the stations within § Limited rail personnel. the City of Detroit. Would need to hire and § Familiar with federal and train staff for rail system state rules, regulations and management, operations funding requirements. and maintenance. § Could provide seamless § Could erode ability to operations with the people maintain current bus transit mover. service. § May lack legal authority to operate this service outside its jurisdiction. SMART § Has experience in providing § Could erode ability to transit service to the airport. maintain current bus transit § Familiar with federal and service. state rules, regulations and § Would need to hire and funding requirements. develop rail service § May have the legal management, operation authority to provide this and maintenance staff. service. § SMART constituency may § Operated rail service not see this as an between downtown Detroit appropriate role for the to Ann Arbor and Pontiac. agency. § Could be perceived as overly concentrating its resources on a particular community. SEMCOG § Familiar with planning and § No experience in providing programming of transportation service. transportation projects. § Would need to hire and § Already serves as a forum for train staff for rail system addressing area-wide issues. management operations § Could lead to better and maintenance. coordination of various § May not be consistent with transportation modes. the mission of the agency. § May lack legal authority to operate this service.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-9

TABLE 3-5 SPONSORSHIP ALTERNATIVES (Continued)

Agency Advantages Disadvantages Wayne § Owns and operates § No experience in Metro Airport. providing rail transit County § Could integrate the service. two modes of § Would need to hire transportation (air, rail) management, under a single operation and ownership. maintenance staff. § Could have an easier § May not be consistent time identifying and with the agency obtaining local funding mission. sources within the county. § Viewed as most responsive to airport constituency needs. RTCC § Comprised of the key § No staff or directly elected officials with relevant expertise. the authority to § May have difficulty establish rail passenger responding to varied service. constituent needs. § Could coordinate DDOT & SMART services with rail operations. § Potential for future expansion into other areas. § Larger tax base than other individual governmental entities. § Already serves as a mechanism for distribution of funds and adopting critical transit policies.

Several Michigan laws offer potential for the establishment of a regional transit authority to act as a sponsor and owner of any proposed rail service. These include:

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-10

· Act 7 of 1967 (Urban Cooperation Act of 1967)

Allows any public agency to exercise jointly with any other public agency of the state any power, privilege or authority which such agencies share in common or which each might exercise separately. Useful for forming a transportation authority between county, city and township, school districts or combinations thereof. Act 7 authorities have no taxing powers. Millage or other votes must be placed on the ballot by individual government units.

· Act 55 of 1963 (Mass Transportation Authorities Act)

Allows a city of under 300,000 population to acquire, own and operate a mass transportation system. Other jurisdictions may elect to have this authority operate in their jurisdiction. Upon a majority vote of registered voters in the service area, the authority may levy a property tax of up to five mills in the political jurisdictions that comprise the authority.

· Act 204 of 1967 (Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act of 1967)

Provides for contiguous counties (and cities over 750,000 population) in metropolitan areas to join together to form a public transportation authority. Creates the Regional Transit Coordinating Council to direct public transportation policy within southeast Michigan. Provides for SMART to operate urban services outside the City of Detroit. The authority may not levy taxes. Tax revenues must be voted at the local community level.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-11

· Act 196 of 1986 (Public Transportation Authority Act)

Authorizes the establishment of public transportation authorities by a county, city, village or township or two or more of those bodies. Authorizes Act 55, Act 204, and Act 7 authorities to form an authority under this act. This type of authority has broadly defined powers to raise funds, including fares from users; state, federal and local grants and contributions; ad valorem taxes, special assessments or charges; income tax; bonds and notes; contracts and leases; property tax millage.

Further research of these acts and others by qualified legal authorities will be necessary before the implementation of any recommendations relating to governance.

B. Process Issues

Three key process-related issues faced by virtually any Sponsor of rail transit service include planning and programming, right-of- The Sponsor’s way acquisition, community involvement, and risk management. responsibilities should include planning and Planning and Programming programming, the procurement of services, right-of-way The planning of rail transit service together with the acquisition, community involvement, and risk programming functions associated with funding, financing and management. scheduling of project and revenue service activities are often jointly performed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the sponsor. New federally mandated issues related to ensuring adequate levels of environmental justice must also be addressed by both parties during the initial stages of project development.

Other supporting planning functions such as ensuring compatibility between efficient land use policy and transit improvements, the provision of efficient, safe and cost-effective bus feeder service and the eventual design of transit stations

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-12

and related facilities should also be adopted and performed jointly and cooperatively by the MPO, sponsor, existing transit service providers and the locally affected communities. Intergovernmental agreements should be developed and executed to clearly define the roles, duties and responsibilities of the parties during the various stages of project development and implementation.

To the extent that Federal funding is sought, the MPO, sponsor and associated partners must align the planning and programming aspects of implementing rail transit service in the The MPO, sponsor and Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport corridor with the Federal associated partners must Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts Criteria for construction align the planning and programming aspects of of new, fixed-guideway systems (Title 49, United States Code, implementing rail transit Section 5309). The New Starts program provides guidance to service with the FTA’s state and local jurisdictions in the areas of mobility improvements, New Starts Criteria. environmental benefits, operating efficiency and cost- effectiveness.

To become eligible for federal capital funding, a proposed project must emerge in a positive light from the metropolitan and/or statewide planning process. In addition, a corridor-level analysis of modal and alignment options must be performed. This alternatives analysis (also Major Investment Study, or MIS) provides information on the benefits, costs and impacts of alternative strategies, leading to the selection of a locally preferred solution to the community’s mobility needs. When this work is completed, the sponsor must submit an application to the FTA for funding to support the next stage of project development – Preliminary Engineering. Such an application must provide the following information:

· Project justification, · Envisioned mobility improvements, · Environmental benefits and costs, · Anticipated operating efficiencies,

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-13

· Estimated cost-effectiveness, · The nature and extent of local financial commitment(s), and · Descriptive land use policies and growth management initiatives.

The FTA then evaluates the proposed project and determines whether or not it should be advanced into Preliminary Engineering. Such approval is not tantamount to a commitment to fund final design or construction activities.

Final design cannot be Upon approval, project costs, benefits and impacts are further initiated until environmental refined. In addition, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is requirements have been prepared, project management concepts are finalized and satisfied and required funding sources put into place. The FTA then evaluates documented. the proposed project – based largely on the information provided in the environmental documentation – and determines whether to advance the project into final design.

Final Design is the last phase of project development prior to construction, and includes right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, and the preparation of final construction plans, specifications and estimates leading to bid documents. Final design cannot be initiated until environmental requirements have been satisfied and documented. Once the FTA has approved the project to proceed to final design, it may authorize a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) with the project sponsor.

The FFGA is the Federal Government’s mechanism to provide the sponsor – through the MPO – with the required financial assistance under the New Starts program. The FFGA defines the project cost, schedule and maximum level of Federal financial participation in the project. Given its recent issuance of the Joint Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Shared Use of the Tracks of the General Railroad System by Conventional Railroads and Light Rail Transit Systems, the FTA may also turn to the FRA for

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-14

review and approval of certain proposed safety-related improvements related to joint-use LRT alternatives, if any.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations, was issued February 11, 1994. The executive order requires federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse effects on protected populations requires identification of minority groups and persons living below the poverty level. It also requires determination of the potential for the action to have disproportionate effects on these populations.

The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued orders to address Executive Order 12898. The DOT and FHWA orders outline how environmental justice analyses should be performed and how transportation project decisions should be made to avoid disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. The DOT requires agencies to:

· Explicitly consider human health and environmental effects related to transportation projects and · Implement procedures to provide meaningful opportunities for public involvement to members of low-income and minority populations during project planning and development.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-15

Disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations means any adverse affect that: · Is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population or · Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population.

Increasingly, transportation planning and implementation agencies are being required to address the impacts of transportation improvements on low-income/minority population. Proactive community involvement would be beneficial in ensuring that all critical issues related to any proposed rail service are addressed. The feasibility phase of the study will use community “town house” meetings to receive inputs and comments from the community.

The Steering Committee is a critical piece of the Public Involvement strategy. The committee is comprised of representatives from the groups indicated earlier in this section. These representatives are responsible for establishing and maintaining the necessary linkages with the broader “Public”. They will guide the consultants’ work, making sure that inputs from the community are considered and addressed in the study.

Subsequent study phases of the Downtown- Metro Airport corridor evaluation, following this feasibility study, should include a more aggressive community involvement process. It should include other ways of reaching the public, such as, surveys, websites and broadened strategies for engaging groups previously identified.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-16

Community Involvement

Active community involvement is necessary and should be encouraged and welcomed for the successful implementation of any proposed rail service. This involvement should be sought early and often to ensure that all relevant or affected parties are fully informed and are given the opportunity not only to articulate their respective issues/concerns, but also, to the extent possible, encouraged to participate in finding mutually satisfying solution(s).

There are several “publics” that will need to become actively involved for the successful implementation of any proposed service. The level and intensity of involvement will vary among the parties and also within study and implementation phases. Several of the groups that should be involved include:

· Local, state and national elected officials, · Businesses, · Railroad and other private transportation providers such as Checker Cab and commuter transportation, · Public transportation providers, · Various interest groups, and · Communities most likely to be positively/negatively impacted by any proposed service.

There are many challenges/opportunities that must be addressed to successfully study and implement any proposed rail service ranging from who would be served - to who pays for the service - to the impacts of any proposed service on other existing transit services and the environment. Environment is defined to include physical, human, natural and cultural elements. Another major issue that must be addressed is environmental justice.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-17

Risk Management

The first questions to ask a freight railroad during serious discussions of implementing commuter rail service should relate to the levels and structure of insurance to indemnify that railroad. The railroad(s) may prefer to leave the administrative duties to an impartial third party such as a state agency or they may insist on overseeing these activities themselves. The level of reserves and amounts of insurance needed to provide indemnification will vary greatly depending on the confidence level chosen from underlying actuarial studies. Such actuarial studies attempt to predict future losses based on the past loss experience of comparable commuter rail operators, until the new railroad has gained a few years of its own operating experience. Agreeing on a 90 percent level of confidence could save an agency as much as a million dollars annually compared to selecting a 95 percent level of confidence.

The basic relationship between risk, liability and insurance as it pertains to railroad operations is portrayed below:

FIGURE 3-1 RISK, LIABILITY AND INSURANCE

RISK LIABILITY INSURANCE

§ Must be § Owner § Employer’s understood § Contractor(s) Compensation § Must be defined § Operators, § Liability § Must be tenants, § Physical Assets mitigated subcontractor s

As suggested by the graphic above, typical components of a broad-based insurance program include Employer’s Compensation, general liability coverage and physical assets insurance.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-18

Typical components of Employer’s Compensation typically includes provisions for a broad-based Worker’s Compensation/Employer’s Liability (WC/EL), Maritime insurance program include Employer’s Employer’s Liability (MEL),Jones Acts, US Longshoremen and Compensation, general Harbor Worker’s (USL&H) and Federal Employer’s Liability Act liability coverage and (FELA). Minimum per-occurrence limits of $10 million physical assets insurance. (EL/MEL/USL&H/Jones) and $100 million (FELA) are common. General liability coverage protects against personal injury claims, property damage and the like. Physical assets insurance is designed to protect against property loss, employee theft/dishonesty, earthquake, flood and other “Force Majeure” occurrences. Typically, such coverage provides for or requires full replacement value without coinsurance.

The point is that adequate protection must be obtained for all parties – owner, contractor(s), the contractor’s operator(s) -- if any -- as well as tenants and/or subcontractors. Many options are available, and all of them are costly.

State-owned and operated commuter rail systems may rely on existing state resources to provide levels of indemnification satisfactory to all. In some cases, state limits on tort liability reduce exposure to risk of claims. And generally, with such tort claim limits passenger fares can be lower since the share of fare revenues devoted to tort liability is lower. Research published in 1994 showed public transit systems with such immunity devoted an average 4.19 percent of fare revenues to tort liability costs, while the average for systems without such liability limits was 7.01 percent.1

Adequate protection For most locally owned systems, private railroads may demand must be obtained for all levels and forms of protection that are beyond the scope of local parties. resources alone. For example, the insurance program of the Virginia Railway Express is comprised of several layers: (1) a $5 million self-insured retention, (2) commercial insurance up to $25

1 “State Limitations on Tort Liability of Public Transit Operators”, TCRP Legal Research Digest No. 3, December, 1994

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-19

million, (3) captive insurance with Ace up to $100 million, and (4) captive insurance with XL up to $200 million.

TABLE 3-2 VIRGINIA RAILWAY EXPRESS INSURANCE

Insurance Type Amount of Coverage Annual Premium Self-Insured $5 million Not Applicable Commercial $20 million $1 million Captive (Ace) $75 million $750,000 Captive (XL) $100 million $500,000

The VRE’s experience related to risk, liability and insurance mirror those from around much of the rest of the nation:

Risk, liability and insurance issues related to · All parties must be identified and protected, LRT are similar to, though · Adequate protection must be provided to the various typically less onerous than, those inherent in the parties, commuter rail market. · Be prepared to pay the price for such protection, and · Be aware that substantive changes to state law may be required, requiring that these issues be dealt with early in the negotiations process.

Risk, liability and insurance issues related to LRT are similar to, though typically less onerous, than those inherent in the commuter rail market. LRT sponsors or properties are typically self- insured to a pre-determined limit, supported by a layer or multiple layers of commercial insurance retention. Captive insurance is seldom required or sought for traditional LRT service.

The determination of C. Implementation Issues roles, duties and responsibilities among the parties is more complex Two key implementation issues faced by virtually any Sponsor of for commuter rail than for traditional LRT service. rail transit service include procurement of services and right-of- way acquisition.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-20

Procurement of Services

The successful implementation of rail transit service in the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport corridor will require a clear definition of the roles, duties and responsibilities of the various parties to the undertaking, including those of the railroads and any private contractors. Given the presence of the railroad infrastructure and operations throughout the corridor and the envisioned use of their right-of-way and potentially their operating expertise, the determination of such roles, duties and responsibilities among the parties is inherently more complex for commuter rail than for traditional LRT service. LRT is typically implemented with little, if any, use of freight railroad infrastructure.

The basic elements of commuter rail service may be defined and “bundled” as follows:

Bus feeder service will be · Trackage rights and dispatching services including the required in order to provide adequate levels trackage rights themselves, train control/dispatching, of regional mobility. maintenance of way, structures and systems, emergency response and recovery, the provision of layover yards and communications, · Operations management services (excluding the dispatching and maintenance functions described above) including the provision and training of operations, rolling stock (locomotives and passenger cars) maintenance and administrative personnel, train operations including fare collection, customer safety and assistance, the provision of maintenance shops and equipment required for the periodic light and heavy maintenance/unit repair of commuter rail rolling stock, and · Furnishing of commuter rail rolling stock.

Two key issues related to these three service elements are (1) who should provide these services and (2) how should they be

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-21

The issue of procured. Each are discussed below. These two issues must be operations and resolved prior to eventual negotiations with the railroad(s) maintenance is truly multi-modal, requiring through the development and implementation of an the active appropriate procurement strategy. participation and support of public and private interests Virtually without exception LRT systems are owned and throughout the maintained by the sponsoring public agency. Some safety, region. security and/or limited maintenance services may be out- sourced to qualified private contractors.

Regardless of the mode of rail transit under consideration, bus feeder service will be required in order to provide adequate levels of regional mobility. In addition, the envisioned rail investment must be integrated with planned and programmed highway and intermodal improvements throughout the area. Consequently, the issue of operations and maintenance is truly multi-modal, requiring the active participation and support of public and private interests throughout the region.

There are two broad approaches or procurement strategies to be considered related to the implementation of commuter rail service: 1. Deal with the railroad(s) as turnkey contractors, placing the responsibility for the provision of the three basic services elements on the railroads themselves, or 2. Allow the marketplace to determine the most cost- effective mix of potential contractors and services.

“Turnkey” contractors are contractors hired to complete the project design and/or construction all the way through start-up testing. In effect, the owner or sponsor takes over once service is ready to begin, simply “turning the key” to begin revenue operations.

There are various intermediate or hybrid approaches as well. For example, it may be possible to “piggyback” on existing contracts to purchase rolling stock and other equipment to start up

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-22

The relative commuter rail service. The relative advantages and disadvantages of both disadvantages of each approach are summarized in the table procurement strategies can be mitigated to on the following page. some extent through the use of appropriate In the event that the turnkey approach is used, the railroad(s) contracting instruments. will likely employ their own personnel and equipment. The costs inherent in such an approach should be expected to be commensurate with the lack of competition and reduced level of control over the work performed, typically inherent in a sole- source procurement. If the latter, “market-driven” approach is adopted, it must be recognized that the railroad(s) will still have substantial involvement in providing these services. This is particularly true given their control over trackage rights and service management and control (dispatching) activities.

The relative disadvantages of both procurement strategies can be mitigated to some extent through the use of appropriate contracting instruments. The provision of (1) incentive compensation for time-based performance, (2) railroad protectives related to enhanced insurance and indemnification and (3) requirements to maximize the use of represented (union) personnel to avoid the potential for “mixed shop” labor grievances, are prime examples of appropriate mitigation measures. Since long-term operating costs comprise the vast majority of the total expenditures required to provide such service, public sector owners/ sponsors should do everything legally and ethically possible to reduce their financial burden due to operations.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-23

TABLE 3-1 PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES

APPROACH: ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES: Turnkey Contract § Singular responsibility § Potentially higher costs for performance of due to lack of the work competition § Reduced public § Potentially reduced sector management control over services and administrative provided demands § May not maximize § Potential reduction potential market in mobilization time benefits § Reduce potential for § Establishes precedent for labor conflicts provision of future service Competitive § Potential reduction § Increased public sector Procurement in long-term management and operating costs administrative demands § Enhanced control § Potential increase in over services mobilization time provided § Potential for labor § Takes advantage of conflicts must be potential market mitigated benefits § Potential for increased § Perception of fair cost due to trackage and equitable rights competition

Service delivery or implementation methodology is yet another significant consideration related to the procurement of services and project implementation. Traditional LRT systems or lines – Service delivery those that do not envision joint operation or the use of railroad methodology is another significant right-of-way – are typically implemented using a conventional consideration related design-bid-build approach. The extent of participation by to the procurement of services and project private contractors using such an approach is usually limited to implementation. the provision of separate planning, design, construction management and/or construction services contracted throughout the relevant stages of project development.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-24

The design-build approach to project delivery has become a more widely accepted method of project implementation, particularly when schedule constraints are imposing or paramount. A design-build contractor is responsible for the final engineering design and construction of the system under the same contract with a project schedule encompassing both phases of work. While not yet universally accepted, the design- build approach is gaining popularity throughout the nation, particularly in the transit industry.

Right-of-Way Acquisition

Commuter rail service is generally operated over existing railroad track and right-of-way. In some instances, property owned by parties other than a freight railroad may be used as well.

The primary concerns of any freight carrier related to the provision of joint commuter and freight service are as follows: If properly planned and implemented the · The potential for degradation in freight service provision of commuter rail service can result in a capacity, number of significant · The potential for degradation in freight service benefits to the host railroad(s). reliability, · The financial impact of the unanticipated, incremental capital investment required to provide such service, · The financial impact of the unanticipated, incremental operating and maintenance costs inherent in the provision of such service, and · The implications of substantially increased liability.

From the perspective of the railroad(s), the incremental costs and liabilities alluded Metra service on freight right-of-way

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-25

to above arise only as a consequence of the provision of commuter rail service. Consequently, the host railroad(s) position is that these costs should be borne entirely or almost entirely by the public sector. However, if properly planned and implemented the provision of commuter rail service can result in a number of significant benefits to the host railroad(s). These include:

· A predictable mid-to-long term source of operating income, · The potential to leverage public funds for capital improvements to the railroad’s physical plant, · Valuable and virtually free advertising to a broad spectrum of the riding public, and · Enhanced cooperation with public and private employers whose decisions often significantly affect the railroad’s performance and profitability.

Despite these potential benefits, the nature and magnitude of the costs involved in the provision of joint commuter and freight service make the railroads reluctant to relinquish a large measure of control over the use of their tracks and/or right-of-way. While understandable, this perception is naturally at odds with the needs of the commuter rail operator who requires a significant measure of control in order to ensure safe, reliable and cost- effective passenger rail service. Various approaches have evolved to arrive at compromise positions, which offer both parties reasonable control over their relative destinies. These approaches generally fall into three categories:

1. Outright purchase of railroad right(s)-of-way by the commuter rail sponsor, as in the case of the Los Angeles MetroLink commuter rail system, 2. The provision of “trackage access” or limited windows of track availability by the host rail road(s) under a Purchase of Services Agreement for the provision of

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-26

commuter rail service over existing freight lines, as in the case of the Metra’s BNSF commuter rail line, or 3. The conveyance of trackage rights, wherein the commuter rail operator has distinct and unalienable rights to provide such service subject to applicable Terms and Conditions agreed-upon with the host railroad(s).

In general, the first approach is only agreeable to the railroad(s) if the line or lines under consideration have marginal residual economic benefit from a freight perspective. Often, such lines have been or are in the process of being targeted for abandonment. As might be expected, the cost of an outright purchase of railroad right-of-way is costly to the point of being prohibitive for most commuter properties.

The second approach is often the most agreeable to the railroad(s) as it is tantamount to leasing what they consider to be excess capacity at the time. The third approach generally applies to circumstances wherein a railroad estimates future growth in freight service to be minimal to non-existent but desires to preserve its current freight capacity. The provision of trackage rights may also come into play if Amtrak is involved in the provision of passenger rail service, as Amtrak is empowered by federal law with the power of Eminent Domain virtually regardless of the position of the host railroad(s).

While commuter rail relies primarily if not exclusively on the use of existing railroad right-of-way, LRT systems often require the acquisition of private property – particularly if and when street- level or at-grade operation through residential areas is envisioned. Public agencies are generally reluctant to use Eminent Domain or condemnation powers to acquire private property except as a virtual last resort. Consequently, both commuter rail and LRT pose considerable challenges to the sponsor in terms of timely and cost-effective right-of-way acquisition.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-27

While commuter rail relies primarily if not exclusively 3.4 SUMMARY INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS on the use of existing railroad right-of-way, LRT The development and implementation of rail transit service systems often require the acquisition between Downtown Detroit and Metro Airport is a major of private property. undertaking. In order to ensure success, public and private interests through Southeast Michigan and particularly those within the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport transportation corridor must be effectively organized, must adopt an appropriate and proven development process and must address key implementation issues during the early stages of project development.

Effective organization may require the creation of a new Regional Transit Authority (RTA). Alternatively, the charter of the existing Regional Transit Coordinating Council could be expanded. The same could be said of several existing transportation agencies throughout the area. However, the creation of a new RTA appears to be the least problematic of the available alternatives and would likely make the boldest affirmative statement regarding the region’s commitment to the implementation of rail transit service between Downtown Detroit and Metro Airport.

An appropriate and proven development process is one that is inclusive and responsive to the various needs of Federal, state and local stakeholders and constituencies. In particular the needs and requirements of the Federal Transit Administration as they pertain to New Start rail programs must be responded to if Federal funding is sought. Commuter rail service in particular will require the support and cooperation of the relevant freight carriers, as may the implementation of Light Rail Transit (LRT) depending on the alternative or alternatives under consideration. Large local and regional employers must also be co-opted to serve as proponents or champions of the project. The public must also be engaged in a proactive and responsive community involvement program. In essence, a partnership

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-28

between the various interests in the project must be established and maintained.

The keys to successful partnering are (1) leadership, (2) ensuring a common understanding of and commitment to the success of the undertaking, (3) open, honest and frequent communication among and between the affected parties, (4) endeavoring to understand the interests, issues and concerns of the parties, (5) attempting in good faith to address each such interest, issue and/or concern and (6) a willingness to accept reasonable compromise when circumstances warrant. Leadership will be most effective and best served if these guiding principles are clearly articulated and reinforced throughout the life of the project. The ultimate success of the project is critically dependent on such leadership and value-sharing.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-29

Rev. 0 – 18 September 2000

DDMA Rail Study – Peer Property Reference List

Property (City) Contact at Property

BSDA (St. Louis) Mr. Thomas Irwin; Executive Director; (314) 982-1400; 707 North First Street; St. Louis, MO 63102

CTA (Chicago) Mr. Frank Kruesi; President; (312) 664-7200; P.O. Box 3555; Merchandise Mart Plaza; Chicago, IL 60654

MTA (Baltimore) Mr. Ronald L. Freeland; Administrator; (410) 468-4800; William Donald Schafer Tower; 6 St. Paul Street; Baltimore, MD 21202

Metra (Chicago) Mr. Phillip A. Pagano; Executive Director; (312) 322-6737; 547 W. Jackson Blvd.; Chicago, IL 60661

Metro Link (Los Angeles) Mr. David Solow; Executive Director; (213) 452-0200; 700 South Flower Street; 26th Floor; P.O. Box 86425; Los Angeles, CA 90086

Metro Transit (Minneapolis) Mr. Arthur T. Leahy; General Manager; (612) 349-7400; 560 Sixth Avenue North; Minneapolis, MN 55411

NICTD (NW Indiana) Mr. Gerald R. Hanas; General Manager; (219) 926-5744; 33 East U.S. Highway 12; Chesterton, IN 46304

RPTA (Phoenix) Mr. Ken Driggs; Executive Director; (602) 262-7242; Suite 700; 302 North First Avenue; Phoenix, AZ 85003

SEPTA (Philadelphia) Mr. John K. Leary, Jr.; General Manager; (215) 580-4000; 1234 Market Street; Philadelphia, PA 19107

Sound Transit (Seattle) Mr. David Beal; Program Manager; Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority; 1100 Second Avenue; Suite 500; Seattle, WA 98101

Tri-Met (Portland) Mr. Tom Walsh; General Manager; (503) 238-7433; 4012 Southeast 17th Avenue; Portland, OR 97202

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study A-1

PHASE II REPORT

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TT AA BB LL EE OO FF CC OO NN TT EE NN TT SS

Section 1 – Definition of Alternatives

1.1 Introduction 1.2 Purpose 1.3 Description of Study Area 1.4 Goals of Proposed Rail Transit Service 1.5 Rail Technologies Evaluated 1.6 Conceptual Operating Plan 1.7 Description of Preliminary Alignments 1.8 Summary

Section 2 – Sketch Planning Ridership Estimating Methodology

2.1 Introduction 2.2 Purpose 2.3 Approach 2.4 Model Implementation

Section 3 – Capital and Operations and Maintenance Cost Methodology

3.1 Introduction 3.2 Purpose 3.3 Development of Capital Cost Programs 3.4 Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Costs 3.5 Summary

Section 4 – Revenue Estimating and Subsidy Requirements

4.1 Introduction 4.2 Purpose 4.3 Background Information 4.4 Revenue Estimates 4.5 Estimate of Subsidy Requirements

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-1

Section 5 – Evaluation Methodology

5.1 Introduction 5.2 Purpose 5.3 Evaluation Criteria 5.4 Evaluation Matrix 5.5 Evaluation and Screening Process 5.6 Feasibility and Cost-Effectiveness 5.7 Evaluation Matrix Description

Section 6 – Phase 2 Results

6.1 Introduction 6.2 Purpose 6.3 Discussion of Results

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-2

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Evaluation Matrix

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-3 1 DD EE FF II NN II TT II OO NN OO FF AA LL TT EE RR NN AA TT II VV EE SS

1.1 INTRODUCTION

During the initial phase of this study, several preliminary route concepts were developed. The Steering Committee and consultant team have worked together to refine these preliminary concepts into alternatives that could effectively serve the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport transportation corridor.

1.2 PURPOSE

The alternatives have This document identifies the alternatives developed to serve the been developed to be corridor’s key destinations, leverage existing rail and major consistent with other transit options currently roadway transportation corridors, and provide access to local being considered. communities. The alternatives described herein would link to existing local bus service at stations, providing corridor residents with both community circulator and through-routed corridor transit service. These alternatives have also been developed to be consistent with other transit options currently being considered throughout the region.

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

The study area encompasses the east-northeast/west-southwest transportation corridor between Downtown Detroit and Detroit Metropolitan/Wayne County Airport. Ford Road/Highway 153 and I-94 together generally form the north corridor boundary. On the south, the corridor lies north of Eureka Road. Sections of Romulus, Taylor, Inkster, Dearborn Heights, Dearborn, Allen Park, Melvindale, Lincoln Park, River Rouge, and Detroit are within the study corridor.

1.4 GOALS OF PROPOSED RAIL TRANSIT SERVICE

SEMCOG and its SEMCOG and its planning partners have identified goals for rail planning partners have identified goals for rail transit service in the DDMA corridor, summarized as a service transit service in the philosophy, operating plan, and multimodal linkages. The service DDMA corridor.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-1

philosophy and desired linkages are summarized below. The conceptual operating plan is outlined in Section 1.6.

Service Philosophy

The service philosophy for the corridor is based on day-long and evening premium transit service between downtown Detroit and the airport. Although primarily focused on the employment markets at both ends, the service should be available to residents of the corridor, employees whose work destinations are within the corridor, visitors to the area who arrive/depart via the airport, and visitors to destinations within or near the corridor, such as Greenfield Village and Wayne State University.

Desired Linkages

The Detroit area is experiencing growth in airport facilities with the new Midfield Terminal, and has already implemented a people mover circulator and a tourist trolley in downtown Detroit. In addition, passenger transit service in the corridor

Bus service available currently includes intercity train service through Amtrak and bus through the Detroit service provided by several operators. Department of Transportation, SMART and others could link to Amtrak currently operates three daily round trips on the future rail transit service. Chicago-Dearborn-Detroit-Pontiac route through the corridor. One eastbound train and two westbound trains stop at Dearborn’s Greenfield Village station, though information to date indicates that Amtrak does not normally carry local passengers between Detroit and Dearborn.

Amtrak has made considerable investment on the Michigan mainline to increase top train speeds to 79 miles per hour. Available information indicates that Amtrak ultimately plans to operate 24 trains per day on this line, with some portion of those trains bound for Indianapolis. Within the next 12 months Amtrak hopes to raise the top speed of trains on the Michigan line to 100 mph.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-2

Amtrak is also considering diverting some portion of the current daily service to a Chicago-Dearborn-Toledo route. If implemented, this would reduce service within the east end of the Detroit to Metro Airport corridor. A date for the re-routing from Dearborn to Toledo has not been announced.

In Dearborn, the city is in the process of selecting a new site for the Greenfield Village station. Once selected, Amtrak will relocate its service to the new station.

Bus service is also available in the corridor, though not on a corridor based route network. Bus service available through the Detroit Department of Transportation, SMART and others could link to future rail transit service at stations, forming an essential community circulator link for many potential transit users.

In addition to the current bus transit service available, the Detroit Chamber of Commerce is evaluating a bus rapid transit option in the Woodward Avenue corridor. Light rail transit, an initial option during the first phase of that study, is no longer being considered. Attention is now focused on a Curitiba, Brazil – type of rapid, high-capacity bus system. To date, no decision has been made on this option. The alternatives which are described in this report could link to a bus rapid transit (BRT) service in the Woodward Corridor, to provide service between the New Center The Federal Railroad Administration prohibits area and downtown. lighter-weight light rail vehicles from operating A short historic rail trolley also operates in downtown Detroit interspersed with freight trains. along Washington and Jefferson Avenues. The trolley uses a track gauge which is unique to that historic mode. Operating rail transit along this alignment would require either additional, parallel track or reconstructing the existing tracks and trolley cars to conform to passenger rail train gauge for joint use.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-3

1.5 RAIL TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATED

Several rail modes or technologies can be considered for passenger rail transportation in a metropolitan area. These technologies are briefly described below.

Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Light Rail Transit uses passenger vehicles operating on rails, powered by overhead electric wires. Light rail trains can operate within exclusive right-of-way including railroad

corridors and freeways, or Light rail transit service in Portland, Oregon. share street space with other vehicles, similar to a bus. Because the power is overhead, LRT tracks are safe to cross and do not have to be grade-separated. LRT usually operates in fully developed urban areas, where frequent stops are desirable and congested areas like downtowns can be penetrated.

For safety reasons, the Federal Railroad Administration prohibits the smaller, lighter-weight light rail vehicles from operating interspersed with freight trains.

Commuter Rail

Commuter rail trains are rail passenger cars generally powered by locomotives, operating on existing freight railroad tracks between densely populated and outlying areas. Conforming to FRA crash worthiness requirements, commuter trains can be Commuter rail service in Los Angeles, interspersed with freight trains. Similar California. to light rail tracks, commuter rail tracks

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-4

are safe to cross because the power is in the locomotive. However, because commuter rail trains cannot mix with cars or buses, they usually terminate at downtown fringes. Commuter rail is so named because trains typically carry people over longer distances into cities to work in the morning and back in the evening.

Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU); Electric Multiple Unit (EMU)

This technology is similar to both light and commuter rail, except Commuter trains can be that each vehicle is individually interspersed with freight powered and can operate singly trains. as well as in trains. DMUs are not currently approved for mixed-use operation with freight railroads. This is an example of a diesel multiple unit (DMU) trainset. This sort of vehicle was being considered for the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, but has now been dropped from consideration.

Heavy Rail

Heavy rail systems are powered by a high-voltage “third rail” and thus must be completely grade-separated from all other traffic. These systems typically accommodate very high volumes of passenger traffic. Altanta’s MARTA, San Francisco’s BART, and the Washington, D.C. Metro are heavy rail systems.

Heavy rail train on the O’Hare line in Chicago, Illinois.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-5

Monorail

Monorail technology uses vehicles attached to a single rail beam operating as an aerial guideway. Monorail systems are typically found in contained areas, where

they function as smaller area Monorail train operating in Disney distribution systems. World, Orlando, Florida.

Automated Guideway Transit (AGT)

AGT technology uses vehicles which operate under automated control on an exclusive guideway, grade- separated from other traffic. An airport people-mover is an example of

Multiple-car AGT train operating at automated guideway transit. The O’Hare Airport, Chicago, Illinois. Detroit People Mover is also an example of this mode.

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)

PRT combines monorail and AGT technology, Two technologies, using small four-to-eight person vehicles in an commuter rail and light rail transit, were automated mode along a grade-separated applied to potential guideway. PRT systems have been proposed alignments in the corridor. for line-haul transportation services, but have not yet been implemented or tested for such PRT operation in Las Vegas, Nevada. uses.

Rail Technologies Carried Forward

After evaluation of study area conditions, transit service goals, and comparative costs of candidate rail technologies, two alternative technologies were determined to merit

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-6

consideration. These two technologies, commuter rail and light rail transit, were applied to potential alignments in the corridor. A comparison of these technologies and their use in downtown to airport corridors in other cities is provided in the Peer Group Review table found in Section 3 of the Phase I Report for this study.

One of the alternatives evaluated during the course of this study was analyzed assuming the use of both LRT and AGT technologies in order to maximize the utility of Detroit’s existing Downtown People Mover (DPM).

1.6 Conceptual Operating Plan

While downtown employment is likely to be adequately served with traditional morning inbound and afternoon outbound service, the airport employment market is more varied. Multiple around-the-clock work shifts require more frequent scheduling. Lacking specific information regarding shift cycles, the alternatives have been developed around full day and evening service.

Light Rail Transit

For light rail transit alternatives, 15 minute service in each

Differences between direction is proposed during the two-hour morning and afternoon alternatives in ridership peak periods. During off-peak periods, service is proposed every and areas served may not 30 minutes. be profound at the sketch level analysis. Commuter Rail

For commuter rail alternatives, service every 20 minutes in each direction is proposed during morning and afternoon peaks, with 40 minute service during off-peak hours.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-7

1.7 DESCRIPTION OF PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS

All alternatives begin at the Metro Airport. Airport station locations vary in alternative and are described in general terms throughout the remainder of the section.

Many alternatives share segments of the same alignments, and Station locations are very all extend to downtown Detroit. The differences between preliminary at this stage of alternatives, in terms of ridership and areas served, may not be study. profound at the sketch level analysis of this study. The alignments were developed to reflect options for integrating rail transit service into the corridor’s overall transportation system, using existing principal transportation routes amenable to rail between the corridor termini.

Similarly, general station locations were identified appropriate to the spacing and service characteristics of each technology. Station locations are very preliminary at this stage of study, and can be expected to shift from those described as the corridor communities evaluate rail transit options further.

Other key facilities required to support operations on each alternative include a maintenance and storage facility and a central control facility. Locations for the maintenance and storage facility will be determined in a later phase of the project. For central control, modern communications media make it possible to locate this installation completely remote from the transit service it controls. Therefore, it is possible to build a new central control, dedicated to the DDMA rail service, and locate it on-line (for example, with the maintenance complex) or totally remote. Other possibilities include co-location with the DDOT or SMART control facility, or in a rail carrier’s regional dispatch center.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-8

Preliminary Alignments and Technologies

In response to SEMCOG’s RFP, the PB Team included preliminary route concepts for the proposed rail service in its proposal. A refined, initial grouping of alignment alternatives was presented to the SEMCOG evaluation committee at the time of the PB Team’s presentation for this assignment. This grouping was further refined and presented as part of the September 15 Project Planning Charrete. These alternatives are described on the graphic presented above.

Based on discussion during that session and subsequently, the alignments underwent further revision, and were presented to the Steering Committee at its October 9, 2000 meeting. Alignments 1 and 5 were further revised in mid-January 2001, based on input from Wayne County.

Routings and station locations may be Alternatives to be Evaluated modified in a later phase of this study. Following extended discussion at the October 9, 2000 meeting, the routes were revised to the alternatives shown in the graphic on the following page.

In addition to routing changes there were also some changes of mode (between commuter rail and light rail). For example, the purple line (now also designated as Alternative 1) was originally shown as a light rail line. In discussion with the Steering Committee members, it was agreed that this line should be revised to commuter rail, in order to be able to share common tracks with the proposed Detroit-Lansing trains.

Sensitivity testing is an additional ridership modeling step which changes only one assumption or variable in the procedure, then re-evaluates the results. Sensitivity testing provides a comparison, isolating the effect of the single variable in question on the results. With the change in mode for Alternative 1, the purple line, from light rail to commuter rail, an extension down

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-9

Woodward Avenue no longer made sense. Consequently, the green line (Alternative 5, light rail) is recommended for sensitivity testing. The two commuter rail alternatives were sensitivity tested for operation from New Center to downtown via the former CN line in the Dequindrie cut.

As noted previously, routings and station locations described below may be modified in a later phase of the study. All five Commuter rail trains will alternatives have in common the fact that they start from an on- depart from both terminal stations every 20 airport station to be located in collaboration with airport minutes during morning representatives, and extend towards the downtown area. The and afternoon peaks, service plan for the two commuter rail routes will be the same: with 40 minute service during off-peak hours. trains will depart from both terminal stations every 20 minutes during morning and afternoon peaks, with 40 minute service during off-peak hours. This service plan will be in effect 14 hours per day. For the three light rail lines, trains will leave from each terminal every 15 minutes during the two-hour morning and afternoon peak periods. During off-peak periods, service is proposed every 30 minutes throughout a 20-hour operating day.

Light rail trains will leave from each terminal every 15 minutes during the two-hour morning and afternoon peak periods.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-10

Alternative 1 – Commuter Rail

This route would begin on the property of the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (“airport”) and using new rail During off-peak periods, right-of-way extend up to and parallel with the Norfolk Southern service is proposed every 30 minutes. (NS) Detroit District line to the north of the airport. The commuter rail line would leave the airport property and extend up to Merriman Road where it would turn to the north to run parallel to Merriman. It would follow this alignment until intersecting the NS/Amtrak line running to the south of Highway 12. The commuter rail trains would swing to the east using the tracks of the Detroit-Lansing and Amtrak trains to operate to West Detroit Junction where the passenger trains of all three services would transition to the Canadian National (ex-GT) Line intersected at West Detroit. These trains would operate to a common station at New Center (approximately Woodward-Baltimore).

Interchange modifications may be The section along Merriman Road may require closing of minor cross necessary to streets in order to provide a safe rail right-of-way which is suitable for accommodate the moderate speed operation. For the major cross streets intersected required traffic flows. in the section of line, interchange modifications may be necessary to accommodate the required traffic flows.

General station locations for Alternative 1 are:

• Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, serving the Smith

The section along Terminal; Merriman Road may • Inkster, in the vicinity of Middlebelt Road at the require closing of several minor cross NS/Amtrak line (approximately Cherry); streets. • Dearborn, in the vicinity of Telegraph at the NS/Amtrak line (approximately Kean);

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-11

• Dearborn/Greenfield Village, in the vicinity of Evergreen/Michigan, in common with new Detroit- Lansing and Amtrak station. This station could be designed to integrated the planned non-motorized pathway in this area;

• Detroit, in the vicinity of Livernois Avenue at the NS/Amtrak line (approximately John Kronk – this station may present • significant engineering challenges because of topography and the extent of freight rail activity in the area); • Detroit, in the vicinity of Grand River at the CN tracks (approximately Warren); and • New Center, in the vicinity of Woodward and Baltimore.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-12

Times Square has been Alternative 2 – Light Rail mentioned as a possible intermodal station. As with each of the other alternatives, this line would begin on the property of the airport, extending northeasterly to a new rail right-of-way built in the median of I-94. This line would follow I-94 all the way to Route 12/Michigan Avenue where it would leave the interstate to transition to a center of the street alignment along Michigan. The light rail line would then operate in the center of Michigan Avenue to approximately Times Square. This location has been mentioned as a possible intermodal station, providing connection to the people mover, as well as DDOT, SMART and intercity buses.

From this point the light rail trains would extend over to Washington and then operate via new trackage on Washington and Jefferson to a terminal station near the Renaissance Center. The routing on Washington and Jefferson has been selected since this is where the Detroit Citizen’s Railway (historic trolley) presently operates. However, the light rail trains are envisioned to be standard gauge (4’, 8-1/2”) vehicles, while the historic trolley equipment is meter-gauge. This would require either dual-gauge track, or totally separate track to accommodate the light rail Accommodating the double-track light rail trains. In addition, the existing power supply of the historic trolley line and on-line stations is presumed to be insufficient to handle the considerably higher will required extensive power requirements of the light rail trains. This would mean either reconstruction of the highway, interchanges totally new or additional substations and associated cables and and the rail and wiring. highway bridges. The median of I-94 is fairly wide south of River Rouge. North of the river it narrows considerably, and accommodating the double- track light rail line and on-line stations will require extensive reconstruction of the highway, interchanges and the rail and highway bridges that pass over the interstate. Michigan Avenue is six-to-seven lanes wide over the area of interest. Accommodating the light rail line in this section will require reconstruction of the street as well as the utilities along/crossing it.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-13

General station locations for Alternative 2 would tentatively include:

· Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, serving the Smith Terminal; · Taylor, in the vicinity of Telegraph at I-94 (approximately Beverly); · Taylor/Allen Park, in the vicinity of Pelham at I-94 (approximately Avalon); · Dearborn, in the vicinity of Oakwood at I-94 (approximately Enterprise Drive; with connecting bus to Dearborn/Greenfield Village); · Dearborn/Detroit, in the vicinity of Wyoming/Michigan; · Detroit, in the vicinity of Livernois/Michigan; · Detroit, in the vicinity of 20th/Michigan (Southwest

The stopping pattern Detroit Hospital); of the light rail trains is · Detroit, in the vicinity of Dalzelle/Michigan (former Tiger different from that of the historic trolley. Stadium site); · Detroit, Times Square; · Cobo Hall; and, · Renaissance Center.

For this alternative, the stopping pattern of the light rail trains is different from that of the historic trolley, when on the common line section. This is consistent with the different transportation purposes of the two services.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-14

Alternative 3 – Commuter Rail

Alternative 3 begins on the airport property and extends via new rail right-of-way out to the NS Detroit District tracks to the north of the airport. Following the NS right-of-way, this service would extend east to Oakwood, where it would transition to the CN (ex-DT&I) line. The commuter trains would follow the CN line north to approximately the Rouge Yard/Fordson area, where The line would have to they would transition to the NS/Amtrak line, following this as far be on tracks totally east as West Detroit Junction. At West Detroit, the Route 3 trains separate from the would then join the tracks of the CN (ex-GTW) line and operate existing NS tracks, given that the light rail to New Center. vehicles could not operate intermixed with freight trains. This line is to be sensitivity-tested for ridership beyond New Center. In the sensitivity test, the trains would operate via the CN line to Milwaukee Junction, transitioning to the Detroit Connecting (ex- GT) line in the Dequindre cut. They would follow this alignment

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-15

past the end of the Detroit Connecting’s ownership, extending to a terminal station around Rivard (River East Parking Structure).

General station locations for Alternative 3 tentatively include:

· Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, serving the Smith Terminal; · Taylor, in the vicinity of Telegraph at the NS (approximately Wabash); · Melvindale at the NS, in the vicinity of Oakwood at the CN (approximately Robert; with connecting bus to Dearborn/Greenfield Village); · Detroit, in the vicinity of Livernois at the NS (approximately John Kronk); · Detroit, New Center (in common with Amtrak and This line is to be sensitivity-tested for Detroit-Lansing ridership beyond New · trains); and, Detroit, in the vicinity of Rivard/River East Center. (near Franklin).

Another potential airport station location under this alternative would be in the vicinity of Rogell Road at the NS. However, this location would require transfers to a bus shuttle serving the various airport terminals. The net effect of imposing such a transfer would be to significantly reduce projected ridership.

The last station in the list above would be only on the sensitivity testing of the extended service beyond New Center.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-16

Alternative 4 – Light Rail

Starting from a station on the airport property, Route 4 light rail trains would operate on totally-new rail right-of-way which would parallel the NS Detroit District trackage to the north of the

This routing would pass airport. The line would have to be on tracks totally separate from through several the existing NS tracks, given that the light rail vehicles could not densely trafficked operate intermixed with the freight trains, in order to comply with sections of the NS line. the Federal Railroad Administration’s ruling. In addition, this routing would pass through several densely trafficked sections of the NS line. Aerial structure would grade separate the LRT trains from crossing mainline railroad tracks, as well as from densely- trafficked yard operations on the NS line.

The light rail trains would parallel the NS route down to the Boat Yard facility at approximately 12th Street. From there, they would transition to an in-street alignment along Jefferson, ending with a station in front of the Renaissance Center.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-17

General station locations for Alternative 4 tentatively include:

· Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, serving the Smith Terminal; · Taylor, in the vicinity of Telegraph at the NS (approximately Wabash); · Taylor/Allen Park, in the vicinity of Pelham at the NS (approximately Lorne); · Allen Park/Melvindale, in the vicinity of Allen at the NS (approximately Demean); · Melvindale/Detroit, in the vicinity of Schaefer at the NS This same alternative (approximately Hess); was evaluated assuming · Detroit, in the vicinity of Livernois at the NS the use of People Mover technology as a means (approximately Rankin); of maximizing the utility · Detroit, in the vicinity of 5th/Fort (Wayne County of Detroit’s existing Downtown People Community College); and · Renaissance Center.

This same alternative was evaluated at a conceptual level

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-18

assuming the use of Automated Guideway Transit (AGT or People Mover) technology as a means of maximizing the utility of Detroit’s existing Downtown People Mover (DPM). The use of AGT technology would allow for seamless integration with the DPM and eliminate the need for a transfer within downtown Detroit. As AGT technology requires the use of an exclusive (in this case, aerial) guideway, some improvements in travel time over LRT may also be experienced. However, the significant capital cost of AGT over the largely at-grade LRT operation should be expected to largely offset any potential operational savings.

Alternative 5 – Light Rail

Alternative 5 light rail trains would start from an on-airport station. However, given that this line operates to the east/south out of the airport, the terminal station location would not be the same as for the other four alternatives, which would leave the Beyond New Center, airport to the north. A terminal station opposite the Midfield Route 5 will be Terminal is envisioned. sensitivity-tested to determine the cost- effectiveness of an The light rail trains would operate along Eureka Road to the point extension to where the CN (ex-DT&I) line is intersected. The new light rail downtown via alignment would then parallel the CN line up to the Rouge Yard/Fordson area, where it would the parallel the NS/Amtrak line to the east. At West Detroit, the Route 5 trains would swing north, paralleling the CN (ex-GT) line up to New Center. Beyond New Center, Route 5 will be sensitivity-tested to determine the cost effectiveness of an extension to downtown via Woodward Avenue.

As with the Alternative 4 (Blue Line) light rail trains, Alternative 5 will have totally new, separate tracks where it is paralleling the mainline rail rights-of-way. This will comply with the FRA ruling regarding joint operation of railroad and light rail trains. Also, it will not cross mainline rail tracks at grade, but will use aerial structure to fly over these tracks.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-19

Implementing Alternative 5 will require an awareness of and, potentially, coordination with improvements planned in the vicinity of this alignment, the West Jefferson passenger terminal and Ambassador Bridge approach work.

General station locations for Alternative 5 would tentatively include:

· Wayne County Metropolitan Airport (serving the Midfield Terminal);

Sensitivity testing of · Romulus, in the vicinity of Inkster/Eureka; Route 5 would include · Taylor, in the vicinity of Telegraph/Eureka; tentative stations at: Warren/Woodward; · Allen Park, in the vicinity of Eureka at the CN Comercia Stadium; (approximately Allen); Grand Circus/Woodward and · Allen Park, in the vicinity of Southfield at the CN (near Renaissance Center. Jane); · Melvindale, in the vicinity of Oakwood at the CN (approximately Robert; with connecting bus to Dearborn/Greenfield Village); · Melvindale/Detroit, in the vicinity of Schaefer at the CN; · Dearborn, in the vicinity of Miller at the NS (approximately Rotunda Drive); · Detroit, in the vicinity of Lonyo at the NS; · Detroit, in the vicinity of Livernois at the NS (approximately John Kronk); · Detroit, in the vicinity of Michigan at the CN (approximately Lovett); · Detroit, in the vicinity of Rosa Parks at the CN (approximately Stanley); and,

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-20

· New Center (common with Amtrak and Detroit-Lansing trains).

Sensitivity testing of Route 5 would include tentative stations at: Warren/Woodward; Comerica Stadium; Grand Circus/Woodward and Renaissance Center.

Hybrid Alternative

A sixth alternative was evaluated, combining Alternative 2 with Alternative 4. This hybrid alternative would utilize the same alignment as currently envisioned under Alternative 2 between Detroit Metro Airport and the I -94/M39 interchange. East of the interchange the hybrid alternative would make use of the same alignment as currently envisioned under Alternative 4.

1.8 SUMMARY

The table on the following page summarizes the five alternatives in terms of mode or technology used and the preliminary station locations identified.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-21

DOWNTOWN DETROIT TO METROPOLITAN AIRPORT RAIL STUDY Draft Definition of Alternatives ROUTE/ALTERNATIVE MODE PRELIMINARY STATION LOCATIONS* 1. Commuter Rail via Merriman, NS, Commuter Rail • Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, serving the Smith Terminal CN • Inkster, at Norfolk Southern RR near Middlebelt Road • Dearborn, at NSRR near Telegraph Road • Dearborn, at NSRR near Evergreen (Greenfield Village) • Detroit, at NSRR near Livernois • Detroit, at Canadian National RR near Grand River/Warren • Detroit, New Center Area 2. LRT via I-94, Michigan, Washington, Light Rail • Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, serving the Smith Terminal Jefferson • Taylor, near I-94 and Telegraph • Taylor/Allen Park, near I-94 and Pelham • Dearborn, near I-94 and Oakwood (connecting bus to Greenfield Village) • Dearborn/Detroit, near Wyoming/Michigan Avenue • Detroit near Livernois/Michigan • Detroit, near Southwest Detroit Hospital (20th/Michigan) • Detroit, near former Tiger Stadium (Dalzelle/Michigan) • Detroit, Cobo Hall • Detroit, Renaissance Center 3. Commuter Rail via NS, CN Commuter Rail • Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, serving the Smith Terminal • Taylor, at NSRR near Telegraph • Melvindale, at CN near Oakwood (connecting bus to Greenfield Village) • Detroit, at NSRR near Livernois • Detroit, New Center Area Sensitivity Testing: • Detroit, River East Parking Structure

*Preliminary station locations have been selected for initial analysis only.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-22

DOWNTOWN DETROIT TO METROPOLITAN AIRPORT RAIL STUDY Draft Definition of Alternatives (Continued) ROUTE/ALTERNATIVE MODE PRELIMINARY STATION LOCATIONS* 4. LRT via NS, Jefferson, Fort Light Rail • Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, serv ing the Smith Terminal • Taylor, at NSRR near Telegraph • Taylor/Allen Park, at NSRR near Pelham • Allen Park/Melvindale, at NSRR near Allen • Melvindale/Detroit, at NSRR near Schaeffer • Detroit, at NSRR near Livernois • Detroit, at West Jefferson near Wayne County Community College (5th/Fort) • Detroit, Renaissance Center 5. LRT via Goddard, CN, NS Light Rail • Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, serving the Midfield Terminal • Romulus, near Inkster/Eureka • Taylor, near Telegraph/Eureka • Allen Park, at Eureka near CNRR Sensitivity Testing: • Allen Park at CNRR near Southfield • Woodward at Warren • Melvindale, at CNRR near Oakwood • Woodward at Comerica Stadium • Melvindale, at CNRR near Schaeffer • Woodward at Grand Circus Park • Dearborn, at NSRR near Rotunda • Woodward at Renaissance Center Drive (Miller) • Detroit, at NSRR near Lonyo • Detroit, at NSRR near Livernois • Detroit, at CNRR Near Michigan Avenue • Detroit, at CNRR near Rosa Parks • Detroit, New Center Area *Preliminary station locations have been selected for initial analysis only.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-23 2 SS KK EE TT CC HH PP LL AA NN NN II NN GG RR II DD EE RR SS HH II PP EE SS TT II MM AA TT II NN GG MM EE TT HH OO DD OO LL OO GG YY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The production of reliable estimates of travel demand or ridership is a key component of determining the feasibility and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of any significant transit investment.

Given the rudimentary level of detail inherent in any Feasibility Study far as well far as the current lack of a regional transit model, a ridership estimating technique known far as Sketch Sketch planning models Planning was used to forecast approximate travel demand for provide quick, low cost, the alternatives described in Section 1. Sketch Planning and simple methods of techniques have been applied successfully during the estimating potential ridership. development phase of numerous transit alternatives throughout the nation.

2.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this section is to describe the methodology and approach utilized to produce Sketch Planning estimates of travel demand for the various alternatives inherent in this study.

2.3 APPROACH

Sketch planning models are used to provide quick, low cost, and simple methods of estimating potential rail ridership. Two sketch planning models were used – one for the light rail alternatives, and another model for the commuter rail alternatives. In both cases, these are rough, order-of-magnitude estimates only which can be used to support cost, revenue, and cost-effectiveness estimates. They are not based on detailed analysis, and are not applicable at the individual station level.

The basic principle underlying sketch planning models is that the rail ridership (either light rail or commuter rail) is directly related to Rail ridership is directly related to demographics, travel accessibility, and rail service characteristics. demographics, travel As such, it utilizes household and employment information accessibility, and rail available either through the Census or recorded in transportation service characteristics.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-1

analysis zones (TAZs) that are maintained by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) metropolitan planning organization. In addition, some measure of service characteristics are used, such as train headways, or the number of trains during the peak period. And, some measure of accessibility, such as distance to/from train stations.

The sketch planning models that were used in Detroit were developed in other areas of the country. They were transferred to the Detroit area to give some indication of the potential rail ridership within the downtown-to-airport corridor. Both sketch planning models (one for light rail and one for commuter rail) were implemented in a GIS context using the ArcView software program. These models are discussed individually in the sections that follow.

The light rail sketch planning model was Each application of either sketch planning model yielded a based on the number of ridership number for a particular alternative. The result was a households and jobs within pre-specified single value for each line. The sketch planning method was not distances of the proposed intended to produce accurate station level ridership numbers. stations. There are three components of potential ridership demand for any new line – resident workers making trips to work, passengers and visitors destined to/from the airport, and people making trips to entertainment sites downtown. A sketch planning model was used to estimate the rail ridership for resident trips. Then, using relationships found in other areas, a series of factors were applied in order to estimate the potential increased airport passenger and entertainment demand. Many of these additional factors and assumptions were based on work done in Sacramento, as well as Las Vegas, and Chicago.

A set of sketch planning models were already developed in other parts of the country, for other studies. This study used and applied these models to predict what the potential rail ridership might be in Detroit. Due to time and budgetary constraints, no new models were developed.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-2

The light rail sketch planning model was based on the number of households and jobs within pre-specified distances of the proposed stations. These were multiplied by a set of trip rates, to obtain the total daily trips on a line (i.e., both work and non-

The commuter rail sketch work). planning model was based on the distances The commuter rail sketch planning model was based on the of the proposed stations. distances to/from the origin and destination rail stations, the destination density, and the number of peak trains operating. The commuter rail model estimates a rail mode share. This share was then multiplied by the total daily work trips. A set of factors has already been developed to account for non-work, and non- downtown oriented commuter rail travel. This approach was used in Minneapolis/St.Paul to estimate preliminary ridership in various alternative corridors. Those with reasonable ridership potential were then advanced to the next stage for a more detailed evaluation of the potential rail ridership.

The ridership data was The ridership data was developed for a single forecast year of developed for a single 2010. SEMCOG has provided demographic data, as well as forecast year of 2010. regional trip tables, consistent with this time frame.

Section 1 describes the alignments that are in the downtown Detroit to Metro Airport corridor, and only slightly different from one another. There were various end points at the non-airport end – either in the Detroit central business district, or New Center. A total of five alternatives were tested – three light rail lines and two commuter rail lines. There were also two sensitivity tests – one light rail and one commuter rail. For each alternative, the appropriate sketch planning model was used to estimate the potential ridership for each specific line.

Light Rail Procedures

The LRT sketch planning model requires three types of input data. The first is basic demographic information on the number of households and the number of jobs within specified radii of the rail

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-3

station locations. The second set of data are the trip rate factors which were borrowed from a recent sketch planning model implementation in Phoenix. The third set of data is the rail alignment and rail station locations, given in the Definition of Alternatives report.

The basic demographic information that was used is the number of households and the number of jobs within each regional traffic analysis zone (TAZ). The regional TAZ system was simply used as a framework for storing, maintaining, and using the demographic data. SEMCOG provided a consistent set of data for 2010 conditions.

The basic demographic Two sets of trip rate factors were used for the light rail sketch information that was used is the number of planning model in order to bracket the likely expected LRT households and the ridership. Both methods were based on trip rates obtained from number of jobs within each regional traffic survey data in Sacramento, San Diego, and Portland. analysis zone (TAZ). Method I uses two factors – a household trip factor, and a jobs trip factor. These factors reflect the number of trips per household and the number of trips per job for the various geographic distances to/from the rail stations as points of access and egress.

Method II uses a combined trip rate factor based on the households and the percent of jobs within the various geographic distances to/from rail stations as points of access and egress.

Although the trip rates were developed based on all light rail ridership, and hence would already account for all riders, some consideration was given to the special demands that might be generated by the airport and downtown casinos. This was done by a set of factors and assumptions from other areas of the country.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-4

Commuter Rail Procedures

Three types of input data were required to implement the commuter rail sketch planning model. The first is employment density surrounding the destination station. The second is some measure of level of service (i.e., number of trains or headways) being provided. And, the third set of data is the rail alignment and rail station locations. In addition, the regional person trip table is required in order to properly apply the sketch planning model. Each of these items is discussed below.

The sketch planning The sketch planning model predicts commuter rail mode shares models were on a zonal interchange level using the following variables: implemented using a geographic information system · On the alignment, station-to-station distance; (GIS). · Home-to-station distance; · Station-to-destination distance; · Destination employment density; and · Number of peak trains.

The corresponding values of these attributes were multiplied by the coefficients developed elsewhere in order to obtain a commuter rail mode share of the home- based work person trip table. These shares were then multiplied by the SEMCOG home-based work (HBW) person-trips to obtain the number of commuter rail trips on an interchange. The model was applied from each rail station to the specific line’s destination. That is, from the area of influence drawn as a 5-mile radius around each station to the downtown area, or New Center area. The ridership for the entire line is then summed up and reported.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-5

2.4 MODEL IMPLEMENTATION

The sketch planning models were implemented using a geographic information system (GIS) environment. Each of the various data components was introduced as a “layer” in the GIS database. Thus, there was a layer for household data, another layer for employment data, and another layer containing the rail alignment and stations. By superimposing the rail lines and stations upon the demographic data, the GIS system was used to calculate the specific values that are required in order to implement both of the sketch planning models. All calculations were performed within the GIS database, producing a set of daily rail ridership numbers for each of the five alternatives

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-6 3 CC AA PP II TT AA LL AA NN DD OO PP EE RR AA TT II OO NN SS AA NN DD MM AA II NN TT EE NN AA NN CC EE CC OO SS TT MM EE TT HH OO DD OO LL OO GG YY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

In order to evaluate the five alternative alignments for the DDMA study, capital costs and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs must be determined for each alternative. The two rail modes (commuter rail and light rail) each have unique Commuter rail and light capital requirements. For example, light rail transit (LRT) will rail each have unique require a totally separate right-of-way, even when operating in capital and operations and maintenance cost an existing railroad corridor. LRT systems also typically utilize requirements. overhead trolley wire/catenary to distribute traction power to the trains. Therefore, the capital plan for the three (3) LRT alternatives will include traction power substations, as well as the distribution means, while commuter rail systems will not require this. Capital costs for the rolling stock also differ by mode, and these differences will be reflected in the capital program developed for each alternative.

In addition, each of the modes has unique O&M cost requirements, reflecting the differences in on-board staffing, as well as particular maintenance requirements. Further, it is in the O&M costs that the differences in the operating plan per alternative are revealed. The O&M costs we develop for this study will provide a unit cost per vehicle revenue mile. The revenue miles per alternative will be different, first reflecting the differing route lengths of each, but also as a result of the number of departures operated per day.

3.2 PURPOSE

As noted above, the capital and O&M costs will be used in part to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of the alternatives. This section outlines how A determination of cost-effectiveness requires both the capital these costs will be and O&M costs for the proposed project. Operating costs are determined. also required to determine cost-effectiveness. This section outlines how these costs will be determined, including identification of peer properties to be used in deriving the O&M cost estimates.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-1

3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITAL COST PROGRAMS

Data obtained during field surveys, from the rail carriers/regulatory agencies and from local governmental units (SEMCOG, MDOT, etc.) has been analyzed to determine where each of the five alternatives will require capital investment to support the draft service plans. This data includes information on physical elements of the existing rail infrastructure, right-of-way availability, extent and nature of train operations on the active lines and planned investments in the rail infrastructure or the highway network, which may affect the rail infrastructure. The general philosophy in the development of the feasibility study capital cost programs is to be conservative. This is done to avoid negative surprises in future phases of the study, should it progress beyond this stage.

The general philosophy in the development of Cost Contingencies the feasibility study capital cost programs is The conservative nature of the capital cost estimates reflects the to be conservative. use of a considerable contingency (20%), as well as a design and construction allowance (12%) is added to all program elements.

The application of contingency factors is reasonable and customary in the absence of detailed design information such as site plans, plan/profile drawings, sections, structural and/or architectural details and geotechnical data. The eventual availability and use of such detailed design information should be expected to reduce contingency factors and thus increase overall cost-effectiveness.

Station Assumptions

In the case of the light rail alternatives compliance with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations requires that these lines have a right-of-way totally separate from that of the mainline (freight) rail carriers. The two commuter rail alternatives may

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-2

share railroad trackage, where traffic levels/patterns are such that sharing seems reasonable in this feasibility study (the reasonableness of this assumption may change, should the project move into more detailed investigations). Stations for either mode are assumed to be totally new construction, save for the commuter rail alternatives which may utilize the This dormant rail line stops short of a Dearborn/Greenfield Village potential downtown terminal site. The and/or New Center stations, now structure might require reconstruction if the rail line were extended across the used or planned for the Chicago- street. Detroit Amtrak service or the Detroit-Lansing rail service. The common sections of line with the projects are assumed to have been upgraded prior to the start of DDMA rail service.

Initially, two types of new stations will be developed for the capital programs – stations with parking and bus interchange and stations without these features. The stations without parking and bus facilities will be used for the on-airport stations, as well as for the CBD stations. Intermediate stations on each alternative will be assumed to have 50-200 parking spaces and bus interchange facilities. For the commuter rail stations in Dearborn/Greenfield Village and at New Center, a facilities modification cost factor will be applied, assuming that the bulk of the construction cost for these stations is already committed by other regional rail projects (Amtrak Chicago-Detroit service and the Detroit-Lansing rail service).

Land acquisition costs for LRT ROW and for stations for both modes, have been adapted from other similar projects. This was necessary to meet the aggressive project schedule.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-3

In Phase 3 of the current In Phase 3 of the current study, the capital cost program may be study, the capital cost revised to reflect additional information relative to the ability to program may be accommodate parking/bus facilities at other stations, or to have revised. to delete these amenities at one of the intermediate stations, owing to space constraints. Revision of the capital program in the last phase of this study will also allow us to incorporate changes that may be required owing to the results of the ongoing ridership modeling process. Another aspect that will likely change in this phase is the substitution of region-specific land acquisition costs for the rates adopted for use in the initial estimates.

Maintenance and Storage Facilities

Maintenance and storage of the commuter or light rail trains is presumed to occur in a facility distinct from the existing rail yards and maintenance facilities in the region. Costs for such a facility are included in the capital program for each alternative. It is possible that a control facility Utility reconstruction/relocation costs may be may be co-located with an significant in urban areas. existing facility. However, in keeping with the conservative nature of the capital programs, we have included costs for a stand-alone control facility. Should consolidation be determined to be desirable/possible in a later phase of the study, these costs could be revised.

Other Capital Considerations

For light rail Alternative 2 (refer to Section 1-7, Description of Preliminary Alignments, p. 1-6), another significant cost factor is the reconstruction of I-94 to provide a median of sufficient width to accommodate the double-track light rail line and other related facilities (stations, etc.). This reconstruction is required in

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-4

the section from River Rouge to Michigan Avenue, and would entail reconstruction of road and railroad bridges, interchanges and the highway itself. This and the other light rail alternatives The capital cost will also involve reconstruction of in-street utility work, as well. programs were developed using year 2010 Dollars. The source of the capital costs used for both the commuter rail and light rail capital programs is PB’s extensive database. We are currently engaged in similar activities for several commuter rail projects around the US, and are constantly updating our cost database. The costs in the database have been reviewed and accepted by several of the Class I and regional/shortline railroads in North America, including Burlington Northern Santa Fe, CSX, Union Pacific and Wisconsin & Southern. We also maintain a database of light rail capital costs that is similarly updated. Our extensive project experience allows us to develop capital cost programs for a wide variety of alignment alternatives, such as are found in the five alternatives currently under consideration. The PB Team applied highway reconstruction cost data developed for similar work throughout the Midwest. These unit costs were developed for two proposed heavy rail expansion projects, and provide the sort of recent cost data required for this assignment.

The capital costs were developed on a link-by- Developing the capital costs by alternative relies in part on link basis. splitting the alternatives up into links. These links may be a portion of the line on airport property, or between one rail junction and another. Their geographic limits are determined based on the possibility that one link may be used by more than one alternative. This simplifies the process of data collection and of application of the unit costs to determine the capital upgrade requirements. The simplification is due to the fact that the aforementioned tasks are performed once for each link, but may be applied to multiple alternatives, in order to determine the overall capital program for that alternative end-to-end.

For now, the capital cost programs were developed using year 2010 Dollars. This may be revised to reflect the mid-year of construction or another relevant future date, depending on the

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-5

preference of the project team. If a future year is to be used, an agreed-upon annual escalation rate will be applied to the revised cost estimates.

The capital costs were developed on a link-by- link basis, using a link capital cost table as shown in this example. The sample to the left is generic, showing only the types of cost elements that might go into the capital cost program, and the estimated unit prices in 2010 dollars. This year was chosen as it is consistent with the forecast year for the ridership projections for the potential Detroit- area rail service. An escalation rate of 4% per year was used to arrive at these unit prices.

Some elements (in particular, stations) are very much dependent on the local preferences and features to be incorporated in the station. For these reasons, the sample table does not show any value for the stations, but includes the

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-6

different types of stations we have used on similar assignments. From this table, you can see that it may be possible to include a wide variety in station sizes/features, depending on local traffic generators, planned developments, transit interfaces, etc.

At the bottom of the table, the various allocations and contingencies are shown. As noted elsewhere in this section, the percentages allocated to these elements may vary from project to project. The percentages shown on the sample are those that PB has used on other similar assignments.

3.4 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS

Basic operating parameters were developed for each of the five study alternatives, including length of line, travel time and a full day’s operating schedule. This last piece allowed daily revenue miles and total daily miles (revenue miles plus 10%) for each alternative to be calculated. These data will then be Valley Transit Authority (San Jose, CA) is one of the LRT O&M cost peer properties. used to determine the likely O&M costs for that alternative using comparable data from other, similar rail properties. The source for the data on these other rail carriers is the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) National Transit Database. Most recent data reflected in the database is for the year 1998.

Basic operating Commuter rail and light parameters were rail carriers operating a developed for each of the five study single line (as opposed to Bi-State Development Authority (St. Louis, MO.) is a alternatives. peer property, both in terms of airport-downtown a network of routes) were service and LRT O&M costs.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-7

used to develop a cost per revenue mile, which could be applied to the data developed for the study alternatives. Carriers operating multiple routes were not considered applicable as the network of routes may allow economies of scale which would not be available to a single downtown Detroit to Metro Airport rail link. In the case of the light rail operators, this led to using data for the Denver, Portland, St. Louis, Sacramento and San Jose systems. St. Louis provides an example of a similarly structured route (linking an international airport to the CBD), as well as being a system that operates in a climate where the winter weather can be severe.

For the commuter rail operations, the CalTrain (San Francisco, CA), Connecticut Department of Transportation (New Haven, CT), San Diego “Coaster” and Virginia Railway Express (Washington, DC) operations were used to develop a comparable per-mile operations and maintenance cost. The combination of these properties also has the advantage of mixing styles of equipment used, which more accurately reflect the current situation for the Detroit study alternatives, where the type of equipment is not yet determined. For example, the CalTrain service uses gallery-type cars, the “Coaster” operation uses Bombardier-built double- deck cars, while Shore Line East uses single-deck equipment and Virginia Railway Express uses a Trinity Railway Express (Dallas, TX) uses rebuilt DMUs. variety of single- and double- It is the only commuter rail O&M peer property using deck cars. this technology.

Initially, Trinity Railway Express of Dallas, TX was included in the O&M cost comparison for commuter rail. This was due to the fact that Trinity Railway Express uses rebuilt Budd Rail Diesel Cars (DMUs). They predate the introduction of locomotive-hauled consists into that carrier’s fleet. However, with the dropping of

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-8

DMUs from consideration by the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, this project also avoided further consideration of this type of vehicle. This was due to the fact that development of an FRA- compliant DMU design does not appear likely in the immediate future.

As with the capital cost program, revision of the O&M costs is provided for in Phase 3 of this study. This will allow the PB Team to revise the service schedule, or to make other fundamental changes to the O&M costs.

3.5 SUMMARY

The absence of detailed MetroLink (Los Angeles, CA) is an example of a design and operations commuter rail O&M cost peer property using diesel-hauled, push-pull trains composed of information requires that Bombardier-built double-deck cars. capital and O&M cost estimates be considered very approximate at a feasibility level of analysis. The greater the degree of uncertainty, the higher the contingency factors applied. If and when such detailed design and operations data is developed, cost contingencies should be expected to drop commensurate with the level of design work performed.

Nonetheless, at a feasibility level of analysis contingency factors adversely influence the magnitude of the resulting capital and O&M cost estimates. “Sticker shock” is to be expected.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-9 4 RR EE VV EE NN UU EE EE SS TT II MM AA TT II NN GG AA NN DD SS UU BB SS II DD YY RR EE QQ UU II RR EE MM EE NN TT SS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Virtually without exception, the provision of public transportation service is subsidized throughout the nation by varying types and levels of local, State and/or Federal capital and operating funding.

The provision of public The determination of the amount of subsidy required and the transportation service is subsidized by varying potential magnitude of farebox revenue available to offset types and levels of local, operating subsidies is a prime consideration when evaluating the State and/or Federal overall financial feasibility of any significant investment in public capital and operating funding. transportation. The difference between the total operating subsidy required and potential farebox revenue represents the amount of residual operating expense to be covered by predominantly local and/or State funding sources.

The Federal government has demonstrated a willingness to provide limited formula capital funding to partially subsidize transit capital investments. However, the determination of capital subsidies and the various sources that may be identified and utilized to offset residual capital expenditures is beyond the scope of this Feasibility Study.

4.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this section of the Phase 2 Report is to provide estimates of the approximate operating subsidy required for each alternative within the context of the total annual operating and maintenance cost of each. Operating ratios (income as a percentage of expenses) are presented for each alternative, along with the resulting subsidy requirements. Finally, the operating ratios are compared to 1998 statistics (the most recent data available) for the Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) and the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART).

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-1

4.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The preceding section recommended fare structures for light rail transit (LRT) and commuter rail alternatives. The LRT alternatives would charge a flat fare, regardless of the distance traveled, consistent with the structures now in place on the DDOT and SMART systems. In 2010 Dollars, the LRT full fare was recommended to be $1.40, while the reduced fare charge would be $0.80. Both the full and reduced fare charges are consistent with the fares now being charged on the two bus operations, escalated to 2010 Dollars.

Conversely, the commuter rail alternatives would use a zone-fare system, as is typical of most of the peer properties. The recommended fare structure, in 2010 Dollars was: full- fare riders - $1.40 for the first zone, and $0.65 for each additional; and, reduced fare riders - $0.80 for the first The traditional method of selling fare media is zone and $0.40 for each additional. by ticket agents at the individual stations. The first zone charge was set equal to Some commuter rail systems use this arrangement at higher-traffic stations. the fare proposed for the LRT operation, which as noted above, was consistent with the escalated fare that would be charged for the DDOT service.

This section estimates the likely income from fares and other sources for each of the alternatives. Other sources Other sources of revenue of revenue may include may include advertising advertising in stations and in stations and on trains, as well as revenue on trains, as well as revenue derived from charter derived from charter train train operations. operation. Some properties Many heavy rail systems use fare gates (tickets pass through them) to control access to station do not allow advertising on platforms.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-2

their trains (either interior or exterior). This is a policy issue on which the operating company must decide.

All income and expense figures in this section are presented in 2010 Dollars.

4.4 REVENUE ESTIMATES

Percent of Riders Paying Full Fare

Information provided about the current SMART operation indicates that about 80% of its riders pay the full fare to use the system. This is consistent with the results at other similarly-sized transit operations in the These automated ticket vending U.S. Therefore, the 80/20 spilt of full/reduced machines (TVMs) eliminate the need to fare riders will be applied to the DDMA rail have a person selling tickets at a station. With this arrangement, on-board alternatives. personnel are required to check riders to ensure that they have valid fare media.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-3

LRT Alternatives

For the LRT alternatives, this calculation is fairly straight-forward, as a flat fare will be charged, regardless of the distance traveled.

The following daily fare income is projected for the four LRT alternatives. This is based on the ridership estimates conducted in Task 2.3 of this study, and on the split of full/reduced fare riders discussed above:

Reduced- Reduced- Total Total Full-Fare Full-Fare Fare Fare Daily Daily Alternative Riders Revenue Riders Revenue Riders Income – Fares 2 – Red 6,560 $9,184 1,640 $1,312 8,200 $10,496 4 – Blue 5,280 $7,392 1,320 $1,056 6,600 $8,448 5 - Green 8,720 $12,208 2,180 $1,744 10,900 $13,952 Hybrid 5,520 $7,728 1,380 $1,104 6,900 $8,832

It is typical to assume The total daily revenue from fares must be annualized. The that the income from other sources will be at standard practice in the transit industry is to take weekday most 5% of that from ridership and multiply it by 250. There are also other sources of fares. income to be considered. These include advertising in stations and on trains (both exterior and interior advertising, as well as wrapping the complete exterior of a train). It is typical to assume that the income from other sources will be at most 5% of that from fares. Applying these guidelines, the total annual income for the four LRT alternatives would be on the order of:

Estimated Annual Income Estimated Annual from Other Annual Income Alternative Income from Sources – All Sources Fares 2 – Red $2.6 million $130,000 $2.7 million 4 – Blue $2.1 million $105,000 $2.2 million 5 – Green $3.5 million $175,000 $3.7 million Hybrid $2.2 million $110,000 $2.3 million

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-4

Therefore, on the basis of income alone, the best-performing LRT alternative is the Green Line.

Commuter Rail Alternatives

The recommended fare structure for the two commuter rail alternatives is a distance-based, zone fare. This means that not all riders would be paying the same fare. It would depend on their point of origin and the zone in which the destination station is located. To estimate the likely income from fares, the following Most commuter rail distribution is proposed: half of the daily riders are traveling the properties do not full four zones, one-quarter are traveling three zones and one- accept interior or exterior advertising on quarter will travel two zones. The same 80/20 split of full to their rolling stock. reduced fare riders is proposed for the commuter rail alternatives. Total daily income would be:

Reduced- Reduced- Total Total Daily Full- Full-Fare Fare Fare Daily Income – Alternative Fare Revenue Riders Revenue Riders Fares Riders 1 – Purple 2,880 $8,244 720 $1,224 3,600 $9,468 3 – Orange 1,680 $4,809 420 $714 2,100 $5,523

As in the case of the LRT alternatives, another source of income may be found in advertising in stations and on trains. Note that most commuter rail properties do not accept interior or exterior advertising on their rolling stock. Nevertheless, the 5% contribution to revenue from other sources is a small enough number that this will not drastically affect the total income picture. Applying the guidelines described in the LRT revenue section, the following are likely annual incomes for the two commuter rail alternatives:

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-5

Annual Income Estimated Estimated from Other Annual Income – Alternative Annual Income Sources All Sources from Fares 1 – Purple $2.4 million $120,000 $2.5 million 3 - Orange $1.4 million $70,000 $1.5 million

On the basis of income alone, the Purple Line is the best performing of the commuter rail alternatives. However, when compared to the projections for the LRT lines on this basis, the Purple Line outperforms only the Blue and Hybrid LRT alternatives. The Orange Line is outperformed by all of the LRT alternatives.

4.5 ESTIMATE OF SUBSIDY REQUIREMENTS

This section considers the annual operating costs (estimated elsewhere) against the income projections developed above, and determines the subsidy requirements as well as the operating ratio (ratio of income to operation and maintenance costs). These results are then compared to 1998 data (most recent available) for the DDOT and SMART operations.

Total Annual Annual O&M Operating Annual Alternative Income Expense Ratio Subsidy Required 1 - Purple $2.5 million $9.8 million 25.5% $7.3 million 2 – Red $2.7 million $9.7 million 27.8% $7.0 million 3 - Orange $1.5 million $11.2 million 13.4% $9.7 million 4 - Blue $2.2 million $9.2 million 23.9% $7.0 million 5 – Green $3.7 million $12.6 million 29.4% $8.9 million Hybrid $2.3 million $9.2 million 25.0% $6.9 million

The best operating ratio is the 29.4% projected for the Green Line LRT operation. The Hybrid (Red/Blue) LRT line has the lowest annual subsidy requirement of $6.9 million.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-6

Rail transit generally By way of comparison, in 1998 has lower unit DDOT reported revenues of $30.4 operating costs million against expenses of $141.2 compared to an all- bus property. million (not including capital expenditures). This works out to an operating ratio of 21.5%. SMART in the same year reported revenues of $9.3 million and expenses of The latest development in fare collection is the “Smart Card”, which does not even $61.6 million (again, excluding have to pass through the faregate to be capital). SMART’s operating ratio read – it only needs to come in proximity. was 15.1%. Solely on the basis of operating ratio, each of the LRT alternatives and the Purple Line commuter rail alternative could be expected to out-perform both the DDOT and SMART operations. However, this result is not surprising, as rail transit generally has lower unit operating costs compared to an all-bus property. Of the DDMA alternatives, only the Orange Line does not outperform DDOT or SMART.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-7 5 EE VV AA LL UU AA TT II OO NN MM EE TT HH OO DD OO LL OO GG YY

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The vast amount of technical data to be produced during the course of the study needs to be organized and applied to each of the five alternatives inherent in the study. This must be done in a thorough and objective manner in order to determine their relative feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the alternatives as well as to screen or advance the most promising alternatives to provide a foundation for further analysis during Phase 3 of the study.

5.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this The purpose of this section is to describe the evaluation section is to describe the evaluation methodology to be employed during the course of the study. methodology to be The remainder of this section describes the Evaluation Criteria employed during the and Evaluation Matrix to be used as well as the nature of the course of the study. evaluation and screening processes.

5.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following Evaluation Criteria were agreed-upon at an Informational Charette held in Detroit on September 15, 2000:

· Mobility and Utilization Potential, including estimated daily ridership and connectivity with other modes, · Estimated Cost, including capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, · Operational Considerations, including impacts on

freight Connectivity with other transit modes will be evaluated in this process.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-1

operations, capacity constraints, extent of new construction required, right-of-way availability, potential yard locations and the number of freight rail carriers involved, and · Cost Effectiveness, represented primarily by the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI).

Some of these criteria will employ quantitative data, such as estimated daily ridership and capital and O&M costs. Other criteria, such as potential connectivity with other modes, are necessarily more qualitative or subjective. Regardless of the quantitative or qualitative nature of the supporting data, all of Information to be used as the basis for the information to be used as the basis for evaluating the five evaluating the five alternatives will be developed and applied in a strictly objective alternatives will be manner in order to help assure the credibility of the evaluation developed and applied in a strictly objective findings or results. manner. 5.4 EVALUATION MATRIX

The data produced for each alternative will be organized under each of the relevant Evaluation Criteria and input to the Evaluation Matrix portrayed on the following page (Figure 2-1). Technical data will be placed within each of the cells in the bottom-half of the matrix under each alternative column heading. The top-half of the matrix will consist of a variety of biographic route data aimed at describing key aspects of the physical plant supporting each alternative. Together, this information will provide a single “at-a-glance” perspective of each alternative and how each alternative performs against the agreed-upon Evaluation Criteria.

Information supporting the technical data included in the Evaluation Matrix will be provided in the form of narrative and graphics in the ridership and cost-related sections of this and the Final Report.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-2

5.5 EVALUATION AND SCREENING PROCESS

Once the Evaluation Once the Evaluation Matrix is completed, the data will be Matrix is completed, the data will be analyzed on a analyzed on a relative basis and used to screen the initial five relative basis. alternatives to a lesser number of more promising alternatives.

The remaining, more promising alternatives will then be advanced to Phase 3 for further analysis and screening. As such, the evaluation process will be a “two-tiered” approach.

The ridership and cost data which will drive the cost- effectiveness of each alternative will be purposefully conservative to avoid the historic tendency to be overly optimistic from a feasibility perspective. “Conservative” need not result in worst-case scenarios. Rather, conservative estimates of cost-effectiveness are intended to objectively reflect the many uncertainties inherent in the eventual utilization and cost of a major rail investment in the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport transportation corridor. Ridership and in particular cost contingencies will be applied with such conservatism in mind.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-3

FIGURE 2-1 EVALUATION MATRIX

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-4

The absence of hard engineering data at this phase of analysis must be accounted for. Without the benefit of a regional transit model or plan and profile drawings, sections and details, estimates of travel demand and cost must utilize appropriate Ridership and cost information must be contingency factors as mentioned above. In addition, the understood and applied ridership and cost information must be understood and applied in in a relative as opposed to an absolute sense. a relative as opposed to an absolute sense. What matters most when comparing the potential long-term performance of alternatives such as those being evaluated during this study is whether relative as opposed to absolute performance data is reasonable. The implications of a relative lack of technical data on study findings must be uniform among the various alternatives under consideration. In other words, a relative lack of technical data should be reflected in a fair and consistent manner among the various alternatives as opposed to unduly favoring one or more of them.

Once the five initial alternatives have been screened and thus reduced to a smaller number comprising the most cost-effective options, these remaining options will be subjected to further and more detail analysis during Phase 3 of the study to hopefully arrive at a single most advantageous approach to providing the envisioned service.

Wherever and whenever possible, input data to the various technical analyses inherent in this study will be consistent with approved regional population, employment and capital improvement projections developed by SEMCOG and other public agencies throughout the region. In addition, the results of other relevant regional transportation studies have been reviewed and accounted for where appropriate.

5.6 FEASIBILITY AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS The results of other relevant regional transportation studies Defining feasibility is always a challenge on projects of this nature. have been reviewed and accounted for One person’s or organization’s definition often differs from where appropriate. another. In order to remove some of the subjectivity from this

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-5

issue, the study team has chosen to rely primarily on the FTA’s Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI) as described in their Section 5309 New Starts Criteria. In essence, the FTA defines cost- effectiveness as follows:

CEI = Annualized Capital + O&M Costs – Travel Time Savings New Riders

In this formula, annualized capital and O&M costs and travel time saving are in dollars. The dollar value of travel time saved over competing modes is calculated on the basis of indices provided by the FTA for such a purpose. Similarly, costs are annualized in accordance with life-cycle expectations also inherent in the FTA’s cost-effectiveness criteria. New riders are Several modes are those riders who would be expected to use the new line or system evaluated as part of provided due exclusively to its existence as opposed to riders who an Alternatives Analysis. simply transfer or shift modes.

Given Southeast Michigan’s current lack of a regional transit model, the determination of new riders and the dollar value of anticipated travel time savings becomes virtually impossible. Consequently, the study team will use a surrogate formula which approximates the intent of the FTA’s CEI calculation but is better-suited to accommodate the unique circumstances in Southeast Michigan:

CEI = Annualized Capital + O&M Costs Ridership

Typically, the FTA’s formula for determining the CEI is applied Any determination of cost-effectiveness should during later stages of project development where several modes be considered very are being evaluated as part of an Alternatives Analysis or similar preliminary. study. Such multi-modal analyses typically include Transportation System Management (TSM) and No-Build alternatives in addition

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-6

to rail and/or bus options. The cost-effectiveness of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is determined on an incremental basis, wherein the estimated capital, operating and maintenance costs and ridership used to calculate the CEI represent the differences between the cost and ridership estimates for the LPA and those for the other study alternatives. Given the fact that the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study is focused on a single mode of transit (albeit two variations – commuter rail and LRT), any determination of cost-effectiveness should be considered very preliminary and subject to considerable change during subsequent phases of project development, if any.

There are certainly other There are certainly other factors which should be accounted for factors which should be accounted for when when determining feasibility. Compatibility with local and determining feasibility. regional land use plans, joint and/or Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) potential, environmental impacts and benefits and so forth are examples of other reasonable components of a more detailed assessment. Such factors will doubtless be addressed if and when the findings of the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study are advanced to a subsequent and more detailed phase of analysis.

5.7 EVALUATION MATRIX DESCRIPTION

Each of the five study alternatives are evaluated in separate columns of the matrix (refer to p. 5-3).

The evaluation criteria are contained in the left-hand column of the matrix. The upper portion of the matrix is

the biographical data for the Some of the alternatives may use existing, active rail alternatives. This includes the rights-of-way. route number/color

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-7

identification, mode and a brief description of the routing of that alternative. Downtown terminal(s) information is included for each alternative, with multiple terminals being listed for those routes that have extensions subject to sensitivity testing. Route owner/operator information is included for those alternatives operating on existing rail carrier tracks. An alternative on a totally-separate (new) right-of-way (principally for LRT) would show “none” in the owner/operator row.

The evaluation criteria Other biographical data includes the number of on-line stations, are contained in the left - hand column of the number of on-line communities and the length of the line. matrix. The upper “Range of current portion of the matrix is speeds” pertains only to the biographical data for the alternatives. those alternatives where it will operate on existing freight railroad tracks. In this instance, the current speed limit(s) would be entered, for each rail carrier segment

comprising the The number of grade crossings can have an impact alternative. on operations and capital programs.

Estimated travel time will reflect what is proposed for each relevant alternative. This may reflect higher than existing speeds on existing freight railroad tracks (the Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] “Track Safety Standards” allow higher speeds for passenger trains than for freights operating over the same tracks), for those alternatives including operation on shared-use (passenger and freight) tracks. In the case of LRT alternatives, the travel time entry will reflect what is considered to be a reasonable travel time for the alternative. As some LRT alternatives include sections of in-street operation, differing average speeds (including station dwell times) will be applied to these sections of line, compared to those sections on exclusive right-of-way.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-8

The number of grade In addition, some LRT alternatives penetrate the Detroit CBD. crossings is an important Once again, a different average speed will be applied for the consideration both from a safety standpoint and CBD sections compared to the outlying areas. This reflects the in the contact of more frequent stopping pattern in the CBD, as well as the fact determining the capital that increased street and pedestrian traffic and turning patterns program costs. may slow the LRT operation.

The number of grade crossings is the last of the biographical information pieces on the matrix. In the case of alternatives operating jointly with freight rail carriers, a numeric entry (using data supplied by MDOT and/or SEMCOG) will be made indicating the number of grade crossings on that alternative. This information becomes an important consideration both from a safety standpoint and in the context of determining the capital program costs associated with the particular alternative.

Evaluation Criteria

The lower portion of the evaluation matrix then evaluates each alternative using 11 criteria organized into four general categories (refer to Section 2.3, p. 2-1). Under the heading Mobility and Utilization Potential the The amount of work required to restore a former rail line to operation (including bridge reconstruction) is estimated ridership a significant consideration. and connections with other modes are presented for each alternative. The “Costs” section of the evaluation criteria includes the estimated capital and operations and maintenance costs for that alternative.

Considerations includes freight operations (the number of train movements occurring on proposed sections of shared track), with this information coming from MDOT/SEMCOG databases among

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-9

other sources. Capital constraints reflect exceptional cost

Alternative 2 includes outlays associated with a particular alternative. For example, the cost of Alternative 2 includes the cost of reconstruction of I-94 to reconstruction of road provide a median of sufficient width to accommodate the and railroad bridges, interchanges, as well as double-track light rail line and other related facilities (stations, the highway itself. etc.) from River Rouge to Michigan Avenue. This would entail reconstruction of road and railroad bridges, interchanges, as well as the highway itself. In a similar context, major reconstruction of Merriman Road and intersecting streets may be required to accommodate Alternative 1 between approximately I-94 and US 12. There may also be a significant amount of in-street utility reconstruction work associated with this and any other in-street alignments, as well.

Major reconstruction of Merriman Road and New rail line construction is a subjective evaluation of the intersecting streets may amount of new right-of-way required for a particular alternative. be required to By FRA guidelines, LRT cannot operate on the same tracks as accommodate alternative 1. freight trains, therefore, all the LRT alternatives will require extensive new rail line construction. Depending on freight train traffic levels (determined through information reported by MDOT/SEMCOG and other sources), some of the commuter rail alternatives may also require significant new rail line construction.

The Right-of-Way (ROW) Availability criteria assess the possibility of accommodating a new rail line within existing railroad land holdings. Once again, the source for these data is that collected by MDOT/SEMCOG. Potential yard locations indicates that potential sites for the maintenance and storage facility have been located. It does not reflect the affordability ROW width/availability must be considered for all of the particular site, however. alternatives, both proposed and future service levels.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-10

The Number of freight rail carriers indicates the total involved A Cost Effectiveness Index will be over the length of the alignment. This will reflect where the calculated for each proposed rail service may transition from the tracks of one carrier alternative. to those of another. The significance of this lies in the fact that a train operating via this routing potentially would have to be handed off from the dispatcher of one rail line to that of the other carrier. This hand-off has the potential to delay trains, reducing the reliability of the rail service.

Finally, the Cost Effectiveness Index will be calculated for each alternative. This number includes both the capital and operations and maintenance costs for the alternative being considered as well as the estimated passenger miles.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-11 6 PP HH AA SS EE 22 RR EE SS UU LL TT SS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The results of the Phase The results of the Phase 2 analysis form the basis for the 2 analysis are summarized in the recommendation of alternatives to be carried forward for further Evaluation Matrix on analysis during Phase 3. The results of the Phase 2 analysis are Page 6-3. summarized in the Evaluation Matrix on Page 6-3.

6.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this section is to (1) present the results or findings of the Phase 2 analysis, (2) provide observations as to the implications of these findings and (3) recommend the most feasible or cost-effective alternatives to be subjected to further analysis during Phase 3 of the study.

6.3 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

As mentioned previously, the results of the Phase 2 analysis are summarized in the Evaluation Matrix on Page 6-3. Following is a summary of observations related to these results:

· Projected travel demand would be greater for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) alternatives than for the commuter rail alternatives, · The estimated capital costs associated with the two modes would be higher for LRT than for commuter rail, · Annual operating and maintenance costs would be somewhat higher for the commuter rail alternatives than for LRT, · The commuter rail alternatives would result in significant impacts to existing and projected freight railroad services, and · The LRT alternatives proved more cost-effective at this level of analysis than did the commuter rail alternatives.

A sixth “hybrid” alternative was also evaluated (refer to Section 1, page 1-17). The estimated capital cost for this alternative

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 6-1

is$604.5 million. This alternative would produce annual operating and maintenance costs of approximately $9.2 million and estimated daily ridership of 6,900 passengers. The resultant Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) for the hybrid alternative is $27.65 per rider, placing it fourth among the six alternatives evaluated.

The relative differences in cost-effectiveness between the two modes is largely attributable to the fact that the variances between combined annualized capital, operating and maintenance costs – which favor commuter rail – are outweighed by corresponding variances in estimated travel demand or ridership - which are heavily in favor of LRT. Owing to the characteristically shorter distances between stations, the LRT The LRT alternatives alternatives offer the potential for greater downtown distribution offer the potential for greater downtown than either of the commuter rail options. distribution than either of the commuter rail Such results are fairly typical, as LRT lines often carry more options. passengers than comparable commuter rail lines owing to generally higher service frequencies, closer station spacing (allowing for greater access potential) and the population and employment demographics they tend to serve. The reverse if often true in instances where recent LRT lines serving areas of moderate-to-low population and employment density are compared to older, more mature commuter lines serving multiple large and reasonably dense activity centers. Such comparisons, however, are not relevant here.

All of the alternatives studied would provide ample opportunity All of the alternatives studied would provide for connections to other modes of transportation through ample opportunity for provisions for pedestrian, bicycle, park-and-ride, kiss-and-ride and connections to other bus access as well as connections to Detroit’s existing Downtown modes of transportation. People Mover and potential circulation services at Metro Airport.

It is important to realize that cost-effectiveness is but one measure of feasibility and/or the likelihood of securing Federal funding – albeit an important one. Though outside the scope of this study, the potential to improve land use/transportation

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 6-2

synergies through Transit Oriented Development (TOD), demonstrable environmental and other quality of life benefits and the strength and stability of local funding commitments are all examples of other important criteria which must be considered Cost-effectiveness is when assessing the potential costs and benefits of investments in but one measure of fixed-guideway transit service. feasibility and/or the likelihood of securing Federal funding. Alternatives Recommended For Further Study

On the basis of the findings of the Phase 2 analysis, it is recommended that Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 be advanced to Phase 3 for further study.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 6-3

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 6-4

PHASE III REPORT

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TT AA BB LL EE OO FF CC OO NN TT EE NN TT SS

Section 1 – Refinement of Alternatives

1.1 Introduction 1.2 Purpose 1.3 Phase 3 Alignment Descriptions 1.4 Sketch Planning Ridership Methodology 1.5 Capital and Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology 1.6 Summary

Section 2 – Rolling Stock and Equipment

2.1 Introduction 2.2 Purpose 2.3 General Considerations 2.4 Commuter Rail Rolling Stock 2.5 Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) 2.6 Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) Vehicles 2.7 Summary

Section 3 – Revenue Estimates

3.1 Introduction 3.2 Purpose 3.3 Background Information 3.4 Revenue Estimates 3.5 Estimate of Subsidy Requirements 3.6 Summary

Section 4 – Phase 3 Results

4.1 Introduction 4.2 Purpose 4.3 Discussion of Results 4.4 Summary

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-1

Section 5 – Study Recommendations

5.1 Introduction 5.2 Purpose 5.3 Recommendations 5.4 Next Steps 5.5 Report Summary

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-2 1 RR EE FF II NN EE MM EE NN TT OO FF AA LL TT EE RR NN AA TT II VV EE SS

1.1 INTRODUCTION

At the conclusion of Phase 2 of this study, the Steering Committee directed the study team to exclude Alternative 3 from further consideration due primarily to its relatively low cost- effectiveness.

In addition, Alternative 1 was “de-emphasized” by the Steering Committee in recognition of its relatively low cost-effectiveness but was not excluded from further consideration altogether. The committee’s decision accounted for the fact that Alternative 1 Alternatives 1,2 4 and 5 may offer some future synergistic opportunities in terms of its use were advanced to of the Norfolk Southern (NS) Michigan Line – the same railroad line Phase 3 of the study for further refinement. which supports Amtrak intercity rail service and is being evaluated for potential Lansing to Detroit passenger and regional high-speed rail service.

The Steering Committee also agreed that remaining Alternatives 4 and 5 should be refined during Phase 3 of the study to reflect the potential use of Automated Guideway Transit (AGT or People Mover) technology and to reflect the potential for additional travel demand created by the envisioned Pinnacle development south of the airport, respectively. Thus, the Phase 2 screening process resulted in Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 being advanced to Phase 3 of the study for further refinement.

1.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this section of the Final Report is to describe the refinements made to the alternatives evaluated during Phase 3 of the study. These refinements fall into three general categories – (1) modifications to Phase 2 alignment and station locations, (2) the utilization of revised demographic data for one alternative and (3) the application of modified Sketch Planning ridership estimating methodologies. In addition, refinements to the Phase 2 capital and O&M cost estimates were made to all of the surviving alternatives.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-1

A description of the study area, the goals of the proposed rail transit service, and conceptual operating parameters are described in Sections 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of the Phase 2 Report. In addition, descriptions of the various modes of rail transit considered and ultimately assumed during Phases 2 and 3 of the study are provided in Section 1.5 of that same report.

1.3 PHASE 3 ALIGNMENT DESCRIPTIONS

All Phase 3 alternatives connect downtown Detroit with Metro Airport. As was the case during the Phase 2 analysis, downtown and airport station locations vary somewhat by alternative and are described in general terms throughout the remainder of this section.

The alignments and corresponding station locations were defined to allow for and assume the eventual integration of Station locations remain corridor-specific rail transit service into the area’s overall very preliminary, and should be expected to transportation network. Prototypical station locations were change during future identified appropriate to the spacing and service characteristics phases of project development, if any. of each mode or technology. Station locations remain very preliminary even at the Phase 3 level of analysis, and should be expected to change during future phases of project development, if any.

Other key facilities required to support operations on each alternative include maintenance and storage and central control facilities. Locations for the maintenance and storage facility will have to be determined during later phases of the project. For central control, modern communications media make it possible to locate this installation completely remote from the transit service it controls. Therefore, it is possible to build a new central control facility dedicated to the DDMA rail service or to co-locate such an operation with existing DDOT, DTC or SMART control facilities or even in a freight rail carrier’s regional dispatch center (as appropriate by mode).

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-2

The alternatives selected for additional analysis during Phase 3 are depicted in the graphic on the following page. These revised alternatives arose as the result of extended discussion on the subject by the Steering Committee during their meeting on March 12, 2001. The most significant revisions to the array of alternatives evaluated during Phase 2 of the study include the following:

· The “de-emphasis” of Alternative 1, · The exclusion of Alternative 3 from further study, The application of AGT · technology to Alternative The application of Automated Guideway Transit (AGT 4 would allow for seamless or People Mover) technology to Alternative 4, and integration with Detroit’s · existing Downtown People The utilization of enhanced demographic data for Mover (DPM). Alternative 5, reflecting the potential for additional travel demand created by the envisioned Pinnacle development south of the airport.

The application of AGT technology to Alternative 4 would allow for seamless integration with Detroit’s existing Downtown People Mover (DPM), thereby eliminating the need for a transfer within downtown Detroit and maximizing the utility of the existing investment.

The utilization of enhanced demographic data for Alternative 5 was not possible during Phase 2 as the subject information was not available at that time. The assumption of direct service to the envisioned Pinnacle development required the relocation of several of the westernmost stations serving this alternative.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-3

Alternative 1 – Commuter Rail via Merriman, NS and CN The Alternative 1 alignment and station locations remained For the purposes of the Phase 3 analysis, the Alternative 1 unchanged from Phase 2. alignment and station locations remained unchanged from Phase 2 and are depicted in the map on the following page. A complete description of this alternative is provided in Section 1.7 of the Phase 2 Report. For ease of reference, a table summarizing the modes or technologies and preliminary station locations inherent in each of the Phase 3 alternatives is provided in Section 1.6.

The Phase 2 capital cost estimate for this alternative was revised during Phase 3 to reflect the results of a capital cost refinement exercise undertaken during the latter phase. This exercise was performed to validate or refine unit costs applied to select Phase 2 equipment and systems, incorporate detailed railroad right-of- way valuation data provided by MDOT and reflect more recent industry cost data obtained by the study team during the prior

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-4

phase of analysis. The annualized results of this exercise as they pertain to Alternative 1 are portrayed in the Phase 3 Evaluation Matrix contained in Section 4.3.

Given the fact that the definition of Alternative 1 remained unchanged from Phase 2, there was no further analysis of ridership potential undertaken during the Phase 3 analysis. The capital cost estimate for the However, the production of revised capital and O&M cost commuter rail estimates for this alternative resulted in a modified Cost- alternative includes an allocation for a central Effectiveness Index (CEI) which is also provided in the Phase 3 control facility. Evaluation Matrix contained in Section 4.3.

The capital cost estimate for the commuter rail alternative includes an allocation for a central control facility. This allocation could provide either a stand-alone downtown Detroit to Metro Airport control facility, or provide a separate control desk and equipment to be included in one of the affected rail control centers (CN, Conrail, CSX or NS), or in one of the local transit agency control centers (DDOT or SMART). Given the need for coordination with the freight railroads and the passenger trains of other carriers (Amtrak and the Detroit-Lansing service), if this equipment were to be included in an existing control center, the most logical arrangement is to include it in one of the freight railroad dispatch centers.

All of the involved freight railroads (CN, Conrail, CSX and NS) have experience dispatching passenger rail trains, so any one of these carriers would understand the need for timely coordination and hand-off of the downtown Detroit to Metro Airport passenger trains as they move from the tracks of one carrier to another. Based on distance/time spent on the tracks of another The conduct of carrier, the downtown Detroit to Metro Airport commuter rail computer-based capacity simulations will trains would spend more time on NS controlled lines than they aid in identifying the would on the Conrail shared asset trackage or on CN controlled areas where particular lines/right-of-way. attention is required.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-5

Specific control and coordination strategies would be developed as the planning for this rail line progresses. Further, the conduct of computer-based capacity simulations aid in identifying the areas where particular attention is required. As a result of this continued planning and capacity simulation, changes in the proposed schedules of the downtown Detroit to Metro Airport trains may be required to resolve particular conflicts, with either other freight or passenger trains.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-6

Alternative 2 – LRT via I-94, Michigan, Washington and Jefferson Alternative 2 alignment and station locations As was the case for Alternative 1, the Phase 3 definition of also remained unchanged from Phase Alternative 2 remained unchanged from Phase 2 and is depicted 2. in the map on the following page. A complete description of this alternative is provided in Section 1.7 of the Phase 2 Report. For ease of reference, a table summarizing the modes or technologies and preliminary station locations inherent in each of the Phase 3 alternatives is provided in Section 1.6.

The Phase 2 capital cost estimate for this alternative was also revised during Phase 3 to reflect the results of the aforementioned capital cost refinement exercise. This exercise was performed to validate or refine unit costs applied to select Phase 2 equipment and systems, as well as to reflect more recent industry cost data obtained by the study team during the prior phase of analysis. The annualized results of this exercise as they

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-7

pertain to Alternative 2 are portrayed in the Phase 3 Evaluation Matrix contained in Section 4.3.

Given the fact that the definition of Alternative 2 also remained unchanged from Phase 2, there was no further analysis of ridership potential undertaken during the Phase 3 analysis. However, the production of revised capital and O&M cost estimates for this alternative resulted in a modified Cost- Effectiveness Index (CEI) which is also provided in the Phase 3 Evaluation Matrix contained in Section 4.3.

Alternative 4 – AGT via NS (Extension of DPM)

The LRT version of Alternative 4 which was evaluated during Phase 2 was advanced to Phase 3 with no substantive changes to either alignment or station locations. This alternative is described in detail and depicted graphically in the An AGT version of corresponding map in Section 1.7 of the Phase 2 Report. Alternative 4 would amount to an extension of Detroit’s existing A second version of Alternative 4 assuming the use of AGT Downtown People technology was also approved by the Steering Committee as Mover (DPM) to Metro

Airport. Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-8

being subject to a more detailed level of analysis during Phase 3. An AGT version of Alternative 4 would essentially amount to an extension of Detroit’s existing Downtown People Mover (DPM) to Metro Airport, thereby eliminating the need for a transfer within downtown Detroit and maximizing the utility of the existing investment. The AGT version of Alternative 4 combines the alignment and station locations characteristics inherent in the Phase 2 version of this alternative with those of the current DPM. The resulting definition of this alternative is described and depicted graphically in the map below.

AGT trains would require exclusive right-of-way over the entire length of this alignment as this automated, linear induction- propelled technology is completely incompatible with other modes.

AGT trains would parallel the NS Chicago District from the airport to the Boat Yard facility near 12th Street. From there the alignment would parallel Jefferson Street to a station serving Wayne County Community College, merge with the current DPM guideway in the vicinity of Cobo Hall and circulate through downtown Detroit serving all of the existing DPM stations (refer to Preliminary station the map below). locations for the AGT version of Alternative 4 between the airport Preliminary station locations for the AGT version of Alternative 4 and downtown Detroit would be the same as those envisioned for the LRT version.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-9

The AGT version of Alternative 4 required the between the airport and downtown Detroit would be the same production of entirely new as those envisioned for the LRT version. Within downtown, the ridership, capital and AGT version of this alternative would eliminate the surface LRT O&M costs estimates. station in the vicinity of the Renaissance Center in order to make use of the existing DPM guideway and thereby provide direct service to each of the current DPM stations. For ease of reference, a table summarizing the modes or technologies and preliminary station locations inherent in each of the Phase 3 alternatives is provided in Section 1.6.

The AGT version of Alternative 4 required the production of entirely new ridership, capital and O&M costs estimates primarily to reflect the enhanced downtown circulation and associated incremental costs arising from the use of the existing DPM guideway. Consequently, entirely new cost-effectiveness data was produced for this alternative and together with the supporting ridership, capital and O&M costs estimates, is provided in the Phase 3 Evaluation Matrix contained in Section 4.3.

Observations of the existing DPM operation were made during the base and peak periods on 19 April 2001. Base period service consisted of four two-car trains operating on headway slightly under 4 minutes (the average observed headway was approximately 3 minutes, 54 seconds). The time required for a train to make the complete loop was 15 minutes, 38 seconds.

Weekday peak period observations indicated that four trainsets were again required. The average headway between trains continued to be around 4 minutes. The time required for a train to circle the entire loop was now 16 minutes, 41 seconds, or over a full minute longer that the time required during the base period. Presumably, this change was due to increased dwell at The capital costs the on-line stations. included for the AGT alternative are sufficient to cover the purchase The 4-minute headway between trains is such that “through” price of new control trains providing service between downtown Detroit and Metro equipment.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-10

Airport could be inserted into the normal rotation without significantly impacting the schedule of following trains. This insertion would occur just north of the existing Cobo Hall DPM station (approximately where the DPM loop crosses Jefferson Street). In a similar vein, the through trains would diverge from the DPM loop operation just north of the Cobo Hall station, and could do so without impacting the schedule of the following trains.

These merges and diverges, as well as the operation around the DPM loop would be computer controlled, as is now done for the DPM operations. It is envisioned that a new central computer would be required for the service between downtown Detroit and Metro Airport and that this equipment would interface with the existing DPM central computer. The capital costs included for the AGT alternative are sufficient to cover the purchase price of this new control equipment. These capital costs also allow for either expansion of the existing DPM control facility, or for construction of a new facility. As with the rail alternatives, the new facility could also be incorporated in one of the local transit agency control centers (DDOT or SMART).

One aspect of the DPM service that has not been observed is the operation during a special event (such as the auto show). DTC was contacted regarding the number of trains and typical headway between trains while serving such an event, however, no response was received in time to be included in this report. If the AGT alternative for service between downtown Detroit and Several of the Metro is recommended for further study in a future phase of the westernmost stations work, a formal request for information from DTC should be made inherent in the original definition of the at that time. alternative required relocation in order to Alternative 5 – Light Rail via Eureka, CN and NS capture the maximum amount of Pinnacle- related ridership New ridership, capital and O&M cost estimates were produced potential. for Alternative 5 during the Phase 3 analysis. The need for revisions to the Phase 2 performance data was driven by the

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-11

availability of employment projections related to the envisioned Pinnacle development south of the airport. This additional employment, to the extent it materializes, suggests the potential for additional travel demand and thus increased cost- effectiveness.

SEMCOG allocated the Pinnacle employment projections to the appropriate Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the vicinity of the envisioned development, and subsequently input the data to the LRT Sketch Planning model. Initial Sketch Planning results suggested that several of the westernmost stations inherent in the original definition of the alternative require relocation in order to capture the maximum amount of Pinnacle-related ridership potential. The subject stations were thus relocated as shown in the chart below.

A complete description of this alternative exclusive of the revised Pinnacle station locations is provided in Section 1.7 of the Phase 2 Report. Station locations that were revised to account for the additional potential travel demand created by the envisioned Pinnacle development are as follows:

PHASE 3 REVISIONS: PHASE 2 LOCATIONS: § Eureka at Pardee § Eureka at Telegraph § Eureka at Inkster § Eureka at Lange § Pennsylvania East of § No Station Location Merriman Assumed

The remainder of the preliminary station locations assumed under Alternative 5, including those in the vicinity of Eureka and

Entirely new cost- Middlebelt and at the Midfield Terminal, remained unchanged. effectiveness data was For ease of reference, a table summarizing the modes or produced for this technologies and preliminary station locations inherent in each of alternative and together with the supporting the Phase 3 alternatives is provided in Section 1.6. ridership, capital and O&M costs estimates. The redefined Alternative 5 required new estimates of running time as input to the Sketch Planning ridership estimates.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-12

Substantive revisions to the Phase 2 capital and O&M costs were also required to reflect the revised alignment and associated station locations. Consequently, entirely new cost-effectiveness data was produced for this alternative and together with the supporting ridership, capital and O&M costs estimates, is provided in the Phase 3 Evaluation Matrix contained in Section 4.3.

Woodward Corridor Service

During Phase 2 of the study, a sensitivity test was performed on Alternative 5 to determine the approximate magnitude of LRT service within the additional travel demand that could be attributed to extending Woodward corridor is an LRT service down Woodward Avenue from New Center. The intriguing concept given its obvious urban resulting incremental increase in ridership was estimated to be development potential 400 riders per day, or an approximately 6% increase in base within downtown Detroit. (airport to New Center) travel demand. The incremental increase in capital cost of such an extension was estimated to be approximately $68.7 million, representing a 10% increase in

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-13

capital investment over the base alternative. Annual O&M costs were estimated to increase by approximately 12%.

Whether these estimates of approximate, incremental increases in ridership and cost could reasonably apply to similar albeit northerly extensions of Alternatives 2 and/or 4 up Woodward is an issue which should be addressed during future and more detailed analyses, if any. It should be noted that the necessarily circuitous routing of Alternative 2 as it approaches downtown Detroit would make it a less desirable candidate for such an extension than Alternative 4.

Nonetheless, LRT service within the Woodward corridor is an intriguing concept - particularly given its obvious urban development potential within downtown Detroit as well as its ability to serve as the first segment of a more geographically diverse system linking the downtown area with outlying communities in Macomb and/or Oakland County. The City of Detroit is currently evaluating LRT service within the Woodward corridor. The results of this study should be considered during any further analyses of rail transit service between downtown Detroit The City of Detroit is and Metro Airport. currently evaluating LRT service within the 1.4 SKETCH PLANNING RIDERSHIP METHODOLOGY Woodward Corridor.

The AGT version of Alternative 4 analyzed during Phase 3 of the study would include a direct connection to the people mover loop near that line’s Cobo Hall station. Operation via the loop would include serving the 13 stations on the loop. The operation and stations on this loop would supersede the blue line alignment north/east of the proposed Wayne County Community College station, eliminating the proposed station on Jefferson in front of the Renaissance Center. Thus, twelve new stations were added to this line’s alignment, affecting the line length and the one-way travel time.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-14

The second major alternative refinement undertaken during Phase 3 was the re-routing of Alternative 5 to serve the Pinnacle Development south of the airport. In this alternative development scenario, the demographic data was changed to reflect the addition of nearly 25,000 total jobs in three zones south of the airport. The light rail line was diverted to the south of the Phase 2 alignment, extending down to Pennsylvania, with a stop just east of Merriman. From here the line would run east to Middlebelt, and then north to Eureka, resuming the Phase 2 alignment at that intersection.

On the basis of additional field survey information as well as input obtained at the Phase 2 public meetings, the station locations on Eureka were shifted slightly, with a station at Eureka/Inkster superseding the proposed Eureka/ Lange station, and a station Owing to the aggressive opposite the Southfield Mall (approximately Eureka/Pardee) schedule for the Phase 2 taking the place of the proposed station at Telegraph Road. As capital programs would be warranted. in the Phase 2 work, Alternative 5 joins the railroad right-of-way on Eureka east of Racho, and there was no change to the alignment/stations north of that point.

1.5 CAPITAL AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST METHODOLOGY

Owing to the aggressive schedule for the Phase 2 work, it was recognized that refinement of the Phase 2 capital programs would be warranted. This refinement took two principal forms. First, independent review of the initial capital programs was conducted within the PB Study Team. This independence was maintained by having an individual not involved in the initial program development conduct the review. Second, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) was approached about the possibility of obtaining current, local land values (placeholder values were used in the Phase 2 work). In addition, MDOT provided review comments on each of the individual link capital cost estimates, making suggestions on possible refinements. Finally, PB took the opportunity to review

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-15

recent bid prices for rolling stock and other equipment to see if any revisions were required from the Phase 2 work.

Finally, a method of approximating the Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) capital costs was developed by the PB Team to be used in determining the likely capital cost for the AGT variant of Alternative 4.

As stated above, the tight time frame for completion of the Phase 2 work made it desirable to conduct an independent review of the Phase 2 capital cost estimates. This review coincided with MDOT’s efforts to provide current, local land value information for the communities on the proposed downtown Detroit to Metro Airport routes. It was recognized that a means of determining the AGT capital costs would be required if there were to be any comparison between this alternative and the commuter rail or light rail transit alternatives.

As with the Phase 2 work, the capital costs estimates were input to the Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI) calculations.

1.6 SUMMARY

The table on the following pages summarize the five alternatives in terms of mode or technology used and the preliminary station locations identified.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-16

DOWNTOWN DETROIT TO METROPOLITAN AIRPORT RAIL STUDY Phase 3 Refinement of Alternatives ALTERNATIVE MODE PRELIMINARY STATION LOCATIONS* 1. Commuter Rail via Merriman, NS, CN Commuter Rail • Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, serving the Smith Terminal • Inkster, at Norfolk Southern RR near Middlebelt Road • Dearborn, at NSRR near Telegraph Road • Dearborn, at NSRR near Evergreen (Greenfield Village) • Detroit, at NSRR near Livernois • Detroit, at Canadian National RR near Grand River/Warren • Detroit, New Center Area 2. LRT via I-94, Michigan, Washington, Light Rail • Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, serving the Smith Terminal Jefferson • Taylor, near I-94 and Telegraph • Taylor/Allen Park, near I-94 and Pelham • Dearborn, near I-94 and Oakwood (connecting bus to Greenfield Village) • Dearborn/Detroit, near Wyoming/Michigan Avenue • Detroit near Livernois/Michigan • Detroit, near Southwest Detroit Hospital (20th/Michigan) • Detroit, near former Tiger Stadium (Dalzelle/Michigan) • Detroit, Cobo Hall • Detroit, Renaissance Center 4. LRT and AGT via NS, Jefferson, Fort Light Rail, AGT Light Rail Transit (LRT): Automated Guideway Transit (AGT): • Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, • Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, Smith Terminal Smith Terminal • Allen Park/Melvindale, at NSRR near Allen • Allen Park/Melvindale, at NSRR near Allen • Melvindale/Detroit, at NSRR near • Melvindale/Detroit, at NSRR near Schaeffer Schaeffer • Detroit, at NSRR near Livernois • Detroit, at NSRR near Livernois • Detroit, at West Jefferson near Wayne • Detroit, at West Jefferson near Wayne County Community College (5th/Fort) County Community College (5th/Fort) • Detroit, Renaissance Center (surface) • Detroit, Renaissance Center (existing DPM station) • All other existing DPM stations *Preliminary station locations have been selected for initial analysis only and do not include stations selected for ridership “sensitivity testing” purposes.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-17

DOWNTOWN DETROIT TO METROPOLITAN AIRPORT RAIL STUDY Phase 3 Refinement of Alternatives (Continued) 5. LRT via Eureka, CN, NS Light Rail • Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, serving the Midfield Terminal • Pennsylvania East of Merriman • Middlebelt/Eureka • Romulus, near Inkster/Eureka • Taylor, near Pardee/Eureka • Allen Park, at Northline near CNRR • Allen Park, at Goddard near CNRR • Allen Park at CNRR near Southfield • Melvindale, at CNRR near Oakwood • Melvindale, at CNRR near Schaeffer • Dearborn, at NSRR near Rotunda Drive (Miller) • Detroit, at NSRR near Lonyo • Detroit, at NSRR near Livernois • Detroit, at CNRR Near Michigan Avenue • Detroit, at CNRR near Rosa Parks • Detroit, New Center Area *Preliminary station locations have been selected for initial analysis only and do not include stations selected for ridership “sensitivity testing” purposes.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-18 2 RR OO LL LL II NN GG SS TT OO CC KK AA NN DD EE QQ UU II PP MM EE NN TT

2.1 INTRODUCTION

With one commuter rail, one Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) and two light rail transit (LRT) alternatives being carried into For each of the modes Phase 3 of the study, additional detail on appropriate types of there are variations in the type of equipment rolling stock and equipment was required. available and suitable for the services The two modes have substantial differences in equipment, given envisioned by this study. that LRT vehicles are electrically-powered while the commuter rail equipment being proposed for this application would be diesel-powered. In addition, the commuter rail rolling stock conforms to FRA and other industry requirements regarding crashworthiness, and so is operable on tracks shared with mainline freight trains. This is not the case with Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs). For this reason, the LRT alternatives were defined in a manner which would provide complete separation of the LRVs and paralleling/intersecting freight trains.

2.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this section is to provide further information on the available types of rolling stock and equipment suitable for The car type may impact station downtown Detroit to Metro Airport rail service. The prices for equipment. rolling stock included in the Phase 2 capital costs for the alternatives are not specific to one type of car or the other. They are applicable to each of the types discussed in this report.

2.3 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

For each of the modes there are variations in the type of equipment available and suitable for the services envisioned by this study. Commuter rail trains may use single-deck, double-deck or gallery-type coaches. All three A single-deck cab car is shown on the end of a six-car train in Boston. The locomotive propelling the train is at

the other end of the consist. Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-1

types are suitable for haulage behind a diesel locomotive. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act requires that access for elderly and disabled riders be provided, and this has differing impacts depending on the type of car selected. The car type may also impact station equipment, in particular platform height and/or equipment provided at the station. Another possible variation in commuter rail locomotives and rolling stock includes rehabilitation of older equipment for continued use, as opposed to the purchase of new equipment. While the rehabilitation of older equipment might make it possible to reduce the initial capital outlay for equipping the rail operation, it must be realized that rehabilitated equipment cannot be expected to have the same service life as new equipment.

One option that was not advanced to Phase 3 is the possible use of diesel multiple-unit (DMU) equipment for the commuter rail The recent trend in LRV purchases has been to alternative. This option is dropped as there is currently no include a low-floor available product or pending order for an FRA-compliant DMU in section in the vehicle to the United States. The only viable option for a DMU is to comply with ADA requirements. remanufacture a 40-50 year old Budd-built Rail Diesel Car (RDC). This was the route taken for the initial operation of the Trinity Rail Express in the Dallas area. Remanufacture of these vehicles was a costly undertaking, and the remaining service life of the rebuilt RDC must be considered limited at best.

The recent trend in LRV purchases has been to include a low-floor section in the vehicle to comply with ADA requirements regarding accessibility for the elderly and disabled. These provisions also accommodate other users, including able-bodied individuals pushing a stroller or wheeled luggage. Available LRVs vary as to the extent of low-floor section included. Yet, the market for LRVs is such that suitable, older equipment is not available for rehabilitation and use by a new start operation. This may change by the 2010 timeframe in which downtown Detroit to Metro Airport operation might reasonably begin (the oldest of

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-2

the San Diego light rail vehicles would be beyond their FTA- mandated service life at that point).

2.4 COMMUTER RAIL ROLLING STOCK

Until recently, all orders for new commuter rail locomotives in North America had gone to either the Electro-Motive Division (EMD) of General Motors or General Electric (GE). This has changed with the recent award by Metra of a 26-locomotive order to Motive Power Industries (MPI) of Boise, ID. Previously, MPI and its predecessors had Metra 139 is an F40PH model locomotive, which been providing locomotives to the EMD delivered to virtually every established commuter rail operation in North America. commuter rail industry only as remanufactured units. Conversely, EMD and GE supplied only new locomotives to commuter rail customers.

All three locomotives are similar in capabilities and equipment. These locomotives are generally in the 3000-4000 horsepower Contracting for range and include head-end power (HEP) packages for supplying maintenance services may be cost-effective. the train’s heating/ventilating/air conditioning and interior lighting systems. Some designs drive the HEP off the main engine, reducing slightly the amount of horsepower available to propel the train. Top speed of the locomotives depends on the customer’s specifications, and there is no reason that any of these builders could not supply a locomotive suitable for the type of service envisioned by this study.

While not yet considered in this The capital cost feasibility study, the possibility of estimates for the study alternatives included contracting for maintenance sufficient funds to services with one of the region’s procure new rail carriers may be a cost- locomotives. General Electric model “P42” diesels for Amtrak. effective way to provide these Similar locomotives have been delivered to the Metro North Commuter Railroad (NY) operation. Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-3

services, particularly for a new-start operation, where only a handful of locomotives are required. In this instance, there is a considerable advantage to having a locomotive that is similar to the freight locomotives the rail carrier uses. This would allow the railroad’s mechanics, electricians and other trades people to work on the commuter rail locomotives with limited additional training (to deal with unique systems or equipment on the commuter locomotives). EMD and GE locomotives are in the fleets of each of the rail carriers currently operating in the region. While there are no MPI locomotives in these fleets, the MPI engine as delivered to Metra is proposed to have an EMD-designed engine (EMD’s patents on this engine had expired, hence its availability to MPI).

Remanufactured locomotives would also be suitable for the type of service envisioned by this study. As noted in the introduction to this section, this arrangement offers a lower purchase price, albeit with a shorter service life compared to a new locomotive.

The capital cost estimates for the

alternatives included sufficient funds to MARC 70 is a remanufactured freight procure new locomotives, with the per- locomotive, upgraded for commuter rail service. unit pricing being based on a review of recent procurements for similar equipment. This allocation is more than enough to cover the purchase of remanufactured units, as well.

Rolling stock behind the locomotives will include coaches and cab (control) cars. The cab cars are at the opposite end of the consist from the locomotive. This arrangement allows the train to operate in push-pull mode, eliminating the need to wye or turn the train at each end of the line. When in the pull mode the engineman works from the locomotive cab. In push mode, the engineman is in the cab car controlling the train from a control

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-4

stand in that car. A trainline passes from the cab car through the coaches to the locomotive, allowing it to be controlled from the cab car.

There are several options for the configuration of the coaches and cab cars. As in the case of locomotives, new cars or remanufactured equipment would be suitable for the service In the North American commuter rail industry envisioned by this study. However, the issue once again becomes there are operations that trading off a lower purchase price for a shorter service life. In the have selected North American commuter rail industry there are examples of remanufactured equipment and there are new start operations that have selected remanufactured those that have bought equipment and there are those that have bought new cars to new cars. start the service. The capital cost estimates reflect recent prices for the purchase of new rolling stock, and are more than adequate to cover procurement of remanufactured equipment, should that route be taken.

Single-deck coaches and cab cars could be used. Cars of this type are in operation on Metro-North and New Jersey Transit, along with other operations. These cars are typically high-floor throughout the length of each car, as the vestibules are at the car ends. Therefore, ADA accessibility requires either a station- located or on-board lift, or a short section of car floor height station platform. Loading and unloading of able-bodied patrons can also be slower, on account of the need to climb stairs to access the seating area of this style of car. Depending on interior arrangement, a car of this type can seat up to 100 passengers.

One way to address the access issues is to build high- floor platforms at all stations. ADA accessibility This approach is capital requires either a intensive (particularly for an station-located or on- board lift, or a short operation with low ridership), section of car floor and also may not be height station acceptable to the owning rail platform. carriers, on account of the A Bombardier double-deck style coach, as delivered to Toronto’s GO Transit operation.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-5

need to provide clearance for freight trains to pass through the station.

Double-deck cars are manufactured by several vendors and are being used on both new-start and established operations. The most common style of car in this group is the Bombardier-built double-deck car. Elderly and disabled access is provided via a car-carried “bridge plate” which is deployed to close the gap between a low platform and the boarding area of the car. On- board staff put the plate in place and remove it when the boarding/exiting process is completed.

Accessible seating and wheelchair securement areas are provided in direct access from the boarding area. Able-bodied riders can walk to the other seating areas within the car,

Cars of this type being including climbing stairs to reach the upper deck. Two sets of used on the West doors are provided, about one-quarter of the length in from each Coast have included end of the car (also known as “quarter-point” doors). This makes bicycle stowage areas, coffee or food service the loading/unloading process comparatively quick. As this car bars and other has two complete separate decks, on board fare collection amenities. would require the collector to make two passes through each car (on each deck) to check and/or sell tickets.

Frequently, this type of car is used with a proof-of-payment fare collection system, where on-board staff is engaged only to ensure that riders have valid fare media, as opposed to selling the fare media. It is possible to seat 120-130 persons in each double-deck car. The exact car capacity is dependent on the owner’s wishes. Cars of this type being used on the West Coast have included bicycle stowage areas, coffee or food service bars and other amenities, reducing overall capacity.

An accessible (vehicle-mounted lift) gallery-type cab car is shown on the end of a Metra (Chicago) train. Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-6

The “gallery-type” car, as used in Chicago and San Francisco, has a central entrance area, and uses a high car floor throughout the lower deck of the car. An on-board lift has been used to provide for elderly/ disabled access. Able-bodied riders must climb these stairs as well, so the loading/unloading process can be somewhat slow. It is not uncommon to have a 45-second dwell (station stop) time when using this car configuration.

Elderly/disabled accommodations are on the lower deck of the It is not uncommon to car. There is also seating for able-bodied riders on this deck, or have a 45-second they may climb another set of stairs to access the upper deck. dwell time when using a gallery car. The gallery name comes from the fact that the upper deck seating is open to the area below, allowing a collector to check tickets on both decks at one time. Again, depending on exact configuration/amenities, it is possible for a car of this configuration to seat 130 persons.

Procurement Considerations

A particular concern for potential downtown Detroit to Metro Airport rail service is the fact that the order size would be fairly One way to control small. For example, seven locomotives, fourteen coaches and locomotive and car seven cab cars are all that might be required to support this prices would be to service. One way to control locomotive and car prices would be exercise an existing equipment option on to exercise an existing equipment option on the procurement of the procurement of another property, spreading out the design, manufacturing and another property. support costs over a larger overall quantity of rolling stock. The downside of this approach is that it may require the operator to accept some features it would not normally want, or to give up some amenities it might have desired, in the interest of getting the better price on the option.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-7

2.5 LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES (LRVs)

With the exception of LRVs delivered to the Buffalo, Philadelphia and Toronto operations, most North American LRVs are articulated vehicles. In this configuration, two sections of carbody share a common truck (wheelset), while the outer ends of each carbody rest on their own truck. This increases the productivity of the car, and also reduces the weight of

A two-section, high-floor LRV in Los Angeles the car, as it eliminates one truck. loading at a high-platform station. Although more capital intensive, high-level platforms can Double-articulated (three-carbody) drastically reduce station dwell times. LRVs are in use elsewhere in the world and are on order for an operation that will begin in the Portland central business district. Even longer vehicles have been placed in service at various

European properties. A single-articulated, high-floor LRV on the Portland system loading at a low-platform station. Wayside lifts were used initially to The first LRVs to come into North provide accessible service. America in the early 1980s used a high-floor throughout their length. This made it possible to use a single, fairly simple truck design for all three trucks under the articulated car. However, it complicated arrangements when ADA compliance was required. The San Diego Trolley used an on- This view shows the short section of high platform board lift to provide access to used to provide accessible service on the Sacramento system. The low-level platform is in this type of car. Sacramento’s the background.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-8

LRT operation used short sections of high-level platform at each station to provide access. In Portland, a station-located lift was used initially.

Most North American LRVs are articulated More recently, LRV design has moved to include low-floor sections vehicles. in the car. This varies from car to car, as some cars will have only 50% of the floor area at the low-floor height, while others may have up to 80% or even a 100% low-floor arrangement. These later instances frequently require unique truck designs and motor mounting arrangements, as this undercar equipment cannot fit in the small space under the low-floor car. For this same reason, other typical undercar equipment (controls, etc.) must be either roof-mounted or contained in equipment compartments within the carbody.

More recently, LRV design has moved to Multiple-section, low-floor articulated LRVs are being used include low-floor sections extensively in Europe, including some very dramatic designs. One in the car. problem the industry has faced is that there have been wide variations in designs, as each owner wished to have the car styled and equipped to their preference. This resulted in a sharp climb in the per-car price. More recently, the major vendors have moved to a single basic car design that is modular, allowing the same basic car to serve a multiplicity of applications. It is hoped that this will aid in controlling the per-car price.

In North America there is no used LRV market at this point. Procurement as an option to another The oldest of the LRVs are only

order might mean that approaching their 20th year of some features desired A two-section, 70% low-floor LRV in Paris. on cars used for service service. While this situation may between downtown change by the time downtown Detroit to Metro Airport rail Detroit and Metro operation would be implemented, it is still recommended that Airport may not be cost effective. new vehicles be procured for this operation.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-9

A typical single-articulated LRV may seat 100-120 persons, again depending on configuration and amenities. LRVs may be coupled into trains of up to three cars, all under the control of a single trainman.

Procurement Considerations

As in the case of the commuter rail equipment, the total rolling stock requirements for LRT service between downtown For the Phase 3 Detroit and Metro Airport investigations, would be fairly small. Such an Alternative 4 (Blue Line) will be considered as an order might be more expensive AGT operation. than if procured as an option Siemens delivered these three-section, 100% on the order of another low-floor LRVs to the Munich tram operation. property. Procurement as an option to another order might mean that some features desired on cars used for service between downtown Detroit and Metro Airport may not be cost effective.

2.6 AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT (AGT) VEHICLES

For the Phase 3 investigations, Alternative 4 was considered as an AGT operation, extending from the existing 2.9-mile loop system in the central business district. The vehicles on that operation are UTDC (now, Bombardier) MK I advanced-rapid transit cars. Bombardier no longer manufactures these, although MK II-type cars of a similar design have been delivered to the

The cars provided for the Detroit systems in Kuala Lumpur and Vancouver, Transportation Corporation AGT operation BC. are MK I type cars built by UTDC.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-10

The MK II car is considerably smaller than a typical LRT car, seating only 32-35 passengers (depending on interior appointments), where an articulated LRV would seat on the order of 100 riders. The MK II car is comparable in performance characteristics to the LRT operations envisioned by this study. Average speeds on the Kuala Lumpur system are 23.6 mph, while the Vancouver system average speed is 26 mph. Top speeds for these vehicles are between 55 and 62 mph, again largely consistent with LRV performance. The capital cost estimate for the AGT variant of Alternative 4 includes sufficient vehicles to provide a service level comparable to the LRT alternatives.

A fundamental problem with AGT operations is the fact that each product depends on a proprietary signal system and power collection arrangement. This means that vehicles from one vendor cannot typically be used on a system built by another AGT operations depends supplier. The UTDC (Bombardier) MK I and MK II systems have a on a proprietary signal further complication in that they use a linear induction motor in system and power collection arrangement. the vehicle propulsion. This requires the use of a reaction rail on the guideway. For these reasons, there is no alternative to using either MK I or MK II vehicles on the proposed extension. Also, there is no used vehicle market for AGT equipment in the US today. In addition, as described above, the only vehicles that would be feasible for use on the extension would be UTDC (Bombardier) MK I or MK II equipment. Therefore, there is no practical alternative but to purchase new vehicles for the proposed airport extension. The capital costing for this alternative includes sufficient funds for this purchase.

2.7 SUMMARY

There are many choices for commuter rail locomotives and rolling stock as noted above. The capital cost estimates provide sufficient funds for the purchase of new equipment or reconditioned equipment. The final choice is a policy or image decision for the operating company as there is no question that reconditioned equipment can be acquired at a much lower

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-11

price. The downside to this approach is that the reconditioned equipment may have a reduced service life compared to new locomotives and rolling stock. The only choice that is no longer recommended for the commuter rail alternative is DMUs. This situation may change by the time vehicles are required, but at present no manufacturer is building an FRA-compliant DMU.

A fundamental For the light rail alternatives, there are many possible vendors problem with AGT offering a wide variety of products. As noted earlier, there is operations is the fact that each product presently no used LRV market in North America, so new depends on a equipment is recommended for purchase. With regard to the proprietary signal vehicle specifics, a design which maximizes the extent of low-floor system and power collection area is recommended, as this will be suitable for use on in-street arrangement. as well as private right-of-way alignments. This arrangement will also serve to minimize boarding/alighting times for both able- bodied and disabled riders.

As noted in the preceding Section 2.6 there really is no choice for the AGT alternative but to purchase Bombardier-built MK II vehicles.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 2-12 3 RR EE VV EE NN UU EE EE SS TT II MM AA TT EE SS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The revised ridership projections for the Alternatives 4 and 5 performed during Phase 3 of this study required that the revenue and subsidy estimates for these lines be recalculated. In the case The revised ridership projections for of Alternative 1 (Commuter Rail) and Alternative 2 (LRT), there Alternatives 4 and 5 was no change in the ridership projections so the revenue required that the estimates made in Phase 2 do not require revision. revenue and subsidy estimates for these lines be recalculated. 3.2 PURPOSE

Comparison of the relative performance of these four alternatives requires that the operating costs and revenue results be determined in a consistent manner. As noted above, two of the four alternatives were re-examined in terms of likely ridership, and these revisions require that the revenue be re-determined.

3.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

No change was made to the Phase 2 recommended fare structures for the commuter rail and LRT alternatives. LRT would charge a flat $1.40 (in 2010 Dollars) full fare, regardless of the distance traveled. The reduced fare charge would be $0.80. No change was made to the Phase 2 Commuter rail would use a zone-fare system, with a $1.40 full-fare recommended fare for the first zone, and $0.65 for each additional; and, reduced structures for the commuter rail and LRT fare riders - $0.80 for the first zone and $0.40 for each additional. alternatives. All income and expense figures in this section are presented in 2010 Dollars.

3.4 REVENUE ESTIMATES

Based on the refined market analysis for Alternatives 4 and 5, the following daily ridership and split of full and reduced fare riders is projected.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-1

Full- Full-Fare Reduced- Reduced- Total Total Alternative Fare Revenue Fare Fare Daily Daily Riders Riders Revenue Riders Income – Fares 1 2,880 $8,244 720 $1,224 3,600 $9,468 2 6,560 $9,184 1,640 $1,312 8,200 $10,496 4 5,760 $8,064 1,440 $1,152 7,200 $9,216 5 8,880 $12,432 2,220 $1,776 11,100 $14,208

The annual revenue for the four alternatives would be:

Estimated Annual Income Estimated Alternative Annual from Other Annual Income Income from Sources – All Sources On the basis of income Fares alone the best performing alternative 1 $2.4 million $120,000 $2.5 million continues to be 2 $2.6 million $130,000 $2.7 million Alternative 5. 4 $2.3 million $115,000 $2.4 million 5 $3.5 million $175,000 $3.7 million

Therefore, on the basis of income alone the best-performing alternative continues to be Alternative 5.

3.5 ESTIMATE OF SUBSIDY REQUIREMENTS

This section considers the annual operating costs against the income projections developed above, and determines the subsidy requirements as well as the operating ratio (ratio of income to operation and maintenance costs).

Total Annual Annual O&M Operating Annual Alternative Income Expense Ratio Subsidy Required 1 $2.5 million $11.9 million 21.0% $9.4 million 2 $2.7 million $9.7 million 27.8% $7.0 million 4 $2.4 million $11.9 million 20.2% $9.5 million 5 $3.7 million $13.6 million 27.2% $9.9 million The best operating ratio is the 27.8% projected for Therefore, the best operating ratio is the 27.8% projected for Alternative 2. Alternative 2. This line also has the lowest annual subsidy requirement of the four alternatives ($7.0 million). This is a change

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-2

from the results in Phase 2, when Alternative 5 had the lowest subsidy requirement. In Phase 3, Alternative 5 is projected to produce the highest revenue of the four, but it also has the highest operating cost of the four, and requires the largest annual subsidy. However, this is not the sole determinant of a line’s feasibility.

By way of comparison, in 1998 DDOT reported revenues of $30.4 million against expenses of $141.2 million (not including capital expenditures). This works out to an operating ratio of 21.5%. SMART in the same year reported revenues of $9.3 million and expenses of $61.6 million (again, excluding capital). SMART’s operating ratio was 15.1%. Data for DTC indicates that the people mover earned fare revenues of $910,990 in 1998, and that it has an operating expense of $8,557,713 in that same year. Therefore, its operating ratio for 1998 was 10.6%.

3.6 SUMMARY

The results of the Phase 3 revenue and subsidy analysis indicate All four of the that Alternative 2 would produce the most advantageous alternatives are projected to outperform operating ratio and require the lowest subsidy. Alternative 5 both the DTC and would project the highest farebox return and supplemental SMART operations. income from other sources.

On the basis of operating ratio, Alternative 1 (commuter rail) and Alternative 4 AGT) failed to out-perform the DDOT operation. All four of the Phase 3 alternatives are projected to outperform both the DTC and SMART operations.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 3-3 4 PP HH AA SS EE 33 RR EE SS UU LL TT SS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The evaluation methodology used during Phase 3 of the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study was identical to that employed during Phase 2. For a detailed discussion of this methodology, refer to The evaluation methodology used Section 5 of the Phase 2 Report. during Phase 3 of the Downtown Detroit to 4.2 PURPOSE Metro Airport Rail Study was identical to that employed during Phase The purpose of this section is to present the results or findings of 2. the Phase 3 analysis as summarized in the table below and in the Evaluation Matrix on the following page, and to provide summary-level observations as to the implications of these findings on future phases of project development, if any. The study team’s recommendations pertaining to potential “next steps” are discussed in Section 5.

4.3 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The results of the Phase 3 analysis are summarized in the Evaluation Matrix on the following page. The table below compares the relative performance of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 alternatives in terms of potential ridership, estimated cost and cost-effectiveness (CEI). Alternative 3 is not included as it was eliminated from further consideration during the Phase 2 screening process.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-1

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 4 ALTERNATIVE 5

Commuter Rail via LRT via I-94, LRT (Phase 2)/ LRT via Pinnacle PHASE Merriman, NS, CN Michigan, AGT (Phase 3) via (Phase 3), Eureka, Washington, NS, Jefferson, Fort CN, NS Jefferson

Estimated Ridership: § Phase 8,200 10,900 3,600 riders/day 6,600 riders/day 2 riders/day riders/day § Phase 8,200 11,100 3,600 riders/day 7,200 riders/day 3 riders/day riders/day Estimated Capital Cost: § Phase 2 $293.4 million $688.3 million $534.1 million $752.0 million § Phase 3 $275.0 million $692.1 million $1.2 billion $776.4 million Estimated Annual O&M Cost: § Phase 2 $11.9 million $9.7 million $9.2 million $12.6 million § Phase 3 $11.9 million $9.7 million $11.9 million $13.6 million Approximate CEI: § Phase 2 $34.4 $26.9 $26.2 $22.1 § Phase 3 $32.1 $25.4 $58.6 $22.0

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-2

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-3

Following is a summary of observations related to the results portrayed in the table on Page 4-1 and the Phase 3 Evaluation Matrix:

· Estimated ridership increases for Alternatives 4 and 5 were due to increased downtown circulation and access (Alternative 4) and direct service to the The CEI for Alternatives 1 and 2 improved due envisioned Pinnacle development south of Metro solely to reduced Phase Airport (Alternative 5). 3 capital requirements. · Phase 3 capital cost refinements resulted in changes to the Phase 2 capital estimates for all alternatives. The only dramatic change in the Phase 2 capital cost estimates was related to Alternative 4, where costs doubled due to the assumption of proprietary AGT technology during the Phase 3 analysis. Similar estimates for the remaining alternatives were adjusted as the result of refinements to unit costs applied to select Phase 2 equipment and systems as well as to incorporate railroad right-of-way valuation data provided by MDOT. · Revisions in alignment and ridership for Phase 3 Alternatives 4 and 5 drove commensurate changes in their estimated annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. · The estimated or surrogate Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) was also revised during Phase 3 for all alternatives due to changes to the ridership, capital and/or O&M cost estimates.

The CEI for Alternatives 1 and 2 improved due solely to reduced Phase 3 capital requirements. The Cost- The CEI for Alternatives 5 Effectiveness of Alternative 4 degraded dramatically improved only slightly. from Phase 2 despite increased ridership due to its disproportionately large increase in capital cost. The CEI for Alternative 5 improved only slightly, reflecting the fact that the increased ridership potential

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-4

contributed by the envisioned Pinnacle development was able to do little more than slightly offset the increased capital and O&M costs imposed by the required line extension.

Sketch Planning Ridership Estimates

For Alternative 4, the change of mode to AGT allowed this line to be directly connected to the existing Downtown People Mover. Consequently, twelve new stations were added to the alignment. Some of the existing Alternative 4 stations overlapped with the people mover stations, and thus, one station on Alternative 4 was superseded by those on the AGT loop. A series of buffers (one each for the 0.25, 0.5, 2, and 5-miles) were drawn around the stations, as the light rail methodology required.

The Sketch Planning analysis was run with the appended downtown stations from the people mover system, and a set of ridership numbers were produced. The station spacing downtown, as well as the circuitousness of the route was beyond the limits defined by the sketch planning tool being used. Thus, it was decided to only include a portion of the additional demand generated by the downtown stations. This portion was set at 25%. Using the original (Phase 2) and revised (Phase 3) ridership numbers, and the assumptions listed above, the Alternative 4 AGT produced an average of 7,200 daily riders.

For Alternative 5, diversion of Alternative 5 through the proposed Pinnacle Development the line was relocated to serve the midst of the development patterns. This necessitated a new station PB’s independent near Pennsylvania/Merriman, along with shifted stations along review of the capital Eureka, and eventually serving downtown. The sketch planning cost programs model was run on this alternative and produced an average included review of unit prices to ensure daily ridership of 11,100. Several sensitivity tests were run with consistency within an shifting the stations along Eureka as well as locating the stations alternative. within the Pinnacle Development. These did not produce a

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-5

significant change in the ridership potential of the line and were dropped from further analysis.

Capital Cost Estimates

PB’s independent review of the capital cost programs for the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport alternatives included a basic “sanity-check” on the approach taken in calculating the capital program for each link making up an alternative, as well as in the approach taken to assemble the links into complete alternative routes. This effort included review of unit prices to ensure consistency within an alternative as well as between like modes. Certain errors were corrected in this process. For example, hot-air heated switches had been used on all alternative alignments. However, in reality this equipment cannot be used on in-street trackage, owing to the need to locate blower fans and route ducting. Accordingly, a price was obtained from another recent procurement for electrically-heated, paved track switches.

As mentioned previously, MDOT had been approached during the Phase 2 work about providing input on current, local land prices. This input was received at the start of the Phase 3 work. The complete, independent appraisal is included in the appendix to this report. The appraiser suggested average industrial/commercial land acquisition unit prices that could be applied on a per-community basis. The price varied by community. These prices were applied to the various links to update the placeholder values that had been used during Phase 2.

The Department also requested the opportunity to review the individual link capital cost estimates. As a result of this review, Existing rail lines are selected changes were made to the estimates. For example, assumed to have signal MDOT suggested that the Incremental Train Control System and track upgrades (ITCS) be used in lieu of Centralized Traffic Control (CTC). Even made by either Amtrak or the Detroit-Lansing when escalated to 2010 Dollars, ITCS represented a savings projects. compared to CTC, and so this unit price was applied to those

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-6

links where currently there is no existing rail line. Existing rail lines are assumed to have signal and track upgrades made by either Amtrak or the Detroit-Lansing projects. This assumption is consistent with that applied in the Phase 2 work.

Another effort that PB undertook was to review recent bid prices for rolling stock and other equipment to see if revision was required to the Phase 2 capital programs. This review determined that no such revisions were necessary.

Following receipt of all external comments and input, the individual link capital cost estimates were revised. The net changes in capital costing (from Phase 2 to Phase 3) are reflected in the table on Page 4-1.

A fundamental change from the Phase 2 estimating work was the inclusion of AGT as a mode on Alternative 4. This revision came from a suggestion made at one of the public meetings during Phase 2.

An AGT industry expert (external to PB) was contacted to determine the availability of recent, comprehensive capital cost information. Such information existed for the AGT operation in Singapore. However, the Singapore operation is a densely- trafficked rail transit line, with a considerably higher level of service and ridership than is expected on the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport line.

Accordingly, several factors had to be developed to modify the Singapore capital costs to better approximate the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport operation. For example, the number of trains per hour and cars per train for operation would be considerably lower than the Singapore operation. Because the trains would be shorter than the Singapore trains, this also meant that the capital costs attributable to stations would have to be downsized. In addition, further station downsizing was warranted, as the number of passengers per would be

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-7

substantially lower than what Singapore had been designed to accommodate.

The reduction in the number of trains per hour leads to a reduction in the complexity of the control system, as well as a reduction in the size and equipping of facilities (shops, etc.). These changes were reflected by adjustments to the Singapore capital cost data.

Approximately 25% of the Singapore system is in subway, while none of the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport operation would be in subway. This resulted in another adjustment to the Singapore capital costs. In the end, it was determined that a unit price for a complete AGT system of $62.9 million per mile would be appropriate. Once again, this is in 2010 Dollars and includes the appropriate contingencies and allocations, based on the actual construction and implementation experience with the Singapore system. Applying this unit price to the 19-mile line length, the total estimated capital cost for the AGT on Alternative 4 would be $1,195 million.

4.4 SUMMARY

The results of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 analyses indicate that the Cost-effectiveness is but various alternatives studied should be ranked as follows in terms one measure of feasibility of cost-effectiveness: and/or the likelihood of securing Federal funding. RANK: ALTERNATIVE: CEI: 1 Alternative 5 $22.0 2 Alternative 2 $25.4 3 LRT Alternative 4 $26.2 4 Alternative 1 $32.1 5 AGT Alternative 4 $58.6 6 Alternative 3 $59.8

These rankings suggest that the study alternatives fall into three distinct tiers relative to their approximate cost-effectiveness with

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-8

Alternatives 5, 2 and the LRT version of Alternative 4 comprising the first tier, Alternative 1 as the singular second tier representative and the AGT version of Alternative 4 and Alternative 3 constituting the third and final tier.

As discussed in Section 6 of the Phase 2 Report, it is important to realize that cost-effectiveness is but one measure of feasibility and/or the likelihood of securing Federal funding. It is also important to realize that relatively small increases in estimated ridership potential and/or relatively small reductions in cost can result in relatively significant improvements in cost-effectiveness. For example, a mere 10% increased in estimated travel demand coupled with a commensurate reduction in capital cost produces an approximate 20% improvement in cost- effectiveness.

Other key FTA rating criteria Other key FTA rating criteria include the potential to improve include land land use/transportation synergies through Transit Oriented use/transportation synergies, demonstrable Development (TOD), demonstrable environmental and other environmental benefits and quality of life benefits and the strength and stability of local the strength and stability of funding commitments. All of these rating criteria must be local funding commitments. addressed in order to obtain a more complete picture of the potential for any of the alternatives evaluated during the course of this study to ultimately secure some level of Federal funding.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 4-9 5 SS TT UU DD YY RR EE CC OO MM MM EE NN DD AA TT II OO NN SS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

With the submission of the Final Report the study team has substantially completed its contribution to the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study. The results of the study as presented in the previous section should be Based on the results of the study as presented in the previous responded to by section, SEMCOG and the study Steering Committee elected to SEMCOG and the study Steering Committee. advance select study findings and/or recommendations to Alternatives Analysis at their May 21 meeting. In addition to considering some of the alternatives evaluated during the course of this study, the envisioned Alternatives Analysis will reflect the results of several other transit studies currently being undertaken throughout the region, particularly recent study efforts focused on the provision of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

Key recommendations that arose out of this study and were adopted by SEMCOG and the study Steering Committee are discussed in Section 5.4.

5.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this section is to outline potential “next steps” based on SEMCOG and the study Steering Committee’s decision to advance select study findings and/or recommendations to Alternatives Analysis.

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations seemed appropriate to the study team in light of the results discussed in the previous section:

· Advance LRT Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 into Alternatives Analysis together with the most promising Bus/TSM alternatives arising out of other current transit studies, · Focus an Alternatives Analysis on the development and evaluation of additional Bus/TSM (Transportation

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-1

System Management) and “No Build” alternatives, supportive land use/TOD (Transit Oriented Development) and the development of a Financial Plan, · Prioritize the resolution of the Institutional Issues identified and discussed in Section 3 of the Phase 1 Report, · Locate a passenger station at the northern periphery of the airport property as part of evolving plans for passenger rail service between Lansing and Detroit as a means of maximizing the potential for commuter rail service between downtown Detroit and Metro Airport, and · The State of Michigan’s Congressional delegation should continue to lay the groundwork for the next Federal transportation authorization following The focus of any expiration of the Transportation Efficiency Act for the Alternatives Analysis st should be the selection 21 Century (TEA-21) in 2003. of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The rationale for advancing Alternative 2 to subsequent phases of project development is based largely on the fact that this alternative ranks second overall in terms of cost-effectiveness and would produce the most advantageous operating ratio while requiring the lowest subsidy.

The results of this study suggest that it may prove worthwhile to evaluate the potential of extending Alternative 4 up Woodward Avenue during subsequent phases of project development.

5.4 NEXT STEPS

The focus of any Alternatives Analysis should be the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) provided that adequate local funding can be identified and secured. SEMCOG’s Long Range Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) will have to be amended to reflect the results of an Alternatives Analysis.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-2

If undertaken in mid-to-late 2001, an Alternatives Analysis should be able to be completed in 2002 or early 2003, at which time Any LPA will be subjected to SEMCOG should request approval from the Federal Transit considerable scrutiny by Administration (FTA) to proceed into Preliminary Engineering (PE). the FTA. The PE phase could conceivably be completed in 2005, permitting SEMCOG to request the FTA’s approval to negotiate a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) – the instrument used by the Federal government to provide funding for transit projects such as those currently envisioned throughout southeast Michigan. Any LPA will be subjected to considerable scrutiny by the FTA in terms of relative performance against the agency’s Section 5309 New Starts Criteria.

Estimates of travel demand developed during the course of the study indicate that relatively low levels of population and employment density between downtown Detroit and Metro Airport will pose a significant limitation on the productivity of any major transit investment in the corridor. Consequently, efforts should be made to develop and implement transit-supportive land use policies and programs within the various corridor municipalities. Increased efforts will have to be made to attract business, reinforce and enhance the livability of the corridor’s various residential communities and focus development in such a way as to maximize the utility of any major investment in public transportation.

5.5 REPORT SUMMARY

The Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study focused solely on rail transit alternatives and was performed in the absence of a Further analysis of the fully-developed regional transportation model. In addition, no alternatives evaluated detailed engineering work was performed. These constraints are during this study should result in improved cost- characteristic of virtually all feasibility studies. However, such effectiveness. constraints make it difficult to accurately assess the extent to which the surrogate Cost-Effectiveness Indices produced during the course of this study should be expected to reflect those produced during subsequent phases of project development.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-3

The experience of the study team suggests that ridership estimates produced using a fully-developed transportation model often exceed those generated by the Sketch Planning tools used during the course of this study. Similarly, detailed engineering work performed during subsequent phases of project development should reduce cost contingencies and thus eventually result in somewhat lower capital requirements. Consequently, further analysis of the alternatives evaluated during this study should result in improved cost-effectiveness. However, whether such further analysis will result in one or more of these alternatives performing well enough to obtain a Recommended or Highly Recommended ranking by the FTA remains to be seen.

The Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study has identified several potential rail transit alternatives that could serve the corridor well provided that transit-supportive land use policies and programs are implemented. A number of challenging institutional, funding and financing issues also require resolution before any corridor-specific transit alternative can be considered a legitimate candidate for Federal funding.

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 5-4 SS TT EE EE RR II NN GG CC OO MM MM II TT TT EE EE

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Steering Committee

Claryce G. Gibbons-Allen David Rich Interim Deputy Director Senator Carl Levin’s Staff Detroit Department of 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 1860 Transportation 1301 E. Warren 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 1860 Detroit, Michigan 48207-1099 Detroit, Michigan 48226

Claudia Berry Lauri Kay Elbing Senior Director John D. Dingell’s Staff Detroit Regional Chamber 5465 Schaefer Road One Woodward Avenue Dearborn, Michigan 48126-3222 Box 33840 Detroit, Michigan 48226-3422 Ron Ristau SMART Michel Guido 660 Woodward Avenue Mayor Detroit, Michigan 48226 City of Dearborn 13615 Michigan Avenue Bob K. Morris Dearborn, Michigan 48126-3589 Legislative Director Wayne County Dept. of Public Gloria Combe Service Canadian National 415 Clifford, 800 Philip Neudeck 2800 Livernois, Suite 300 Bldg. Troy, Michigan 48083-1222 Detroit, Michigan 48226-1518

George Cushingberry Tim Hoeffner Commissioner Rail Passenger Service Manager Wayne County Board of Michigan Department of Commissioners Transportation 600 Randolph Street, Suite 417 UPTRAN Detroit, Michigan 48226-2831 P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, Michigan 48909

Mark Higginbotham Resident V.P. Public Affairs Norfolk Southern Corporation 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study