Washtenaw Area Transportation Study
2009 Transportation Profile Policy Committee Chair: James Carson, Village of Dexter
Vice-Chair: Pat Kelly, Dexter Township
Secretary/Treasurer Carsten Hohnke, City of Ann Arbor
John Mouat Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority Mike Moran Ann Arbor Township Anya Dale Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Jason Lindauer City of Chelsea Leigh Greden Eastern Michigan University Michael Armitage City of Milan Pam Boyd Michigan Department of Transportation Deb Mozurkewich Northfield Township Mandy Grewal Pittsfield Township Gretchen Driskell City of Saline Nancy Hedberg Scio Township Bill McFarlane Superior Township Ron Mann SWWCOG Hank Baier University of Michigan Yousef Rabhi Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners Doug Fuller Washtenaw County Road Commission Peter Murdock City of Ypsilanti Brenda Stumbo Ypsilanti Township
Ex officio Members:
Rachael Tupica Federal Highway Administration Carmine Palombo Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
Staff:
Terri Blackmore Executive Director Ryan Buck Senior Transportation Planner Eric Bombery Transportation Planner Nick Sapkiewicz Associate Transportation Planner Sarah Pressprich Transportation Intern Mark Ferrall Transportation Intern
Transportation Profile 2009
March 2011
The preparation of this document was financed through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Transportation and contributions from local government, public transit agency and educational unit members of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 7 ABOUT WATS ...... 8 NOTE ON DATA GROUPING ...... 10 Urban ...... 10 Urban Fringe ...... 10 Rural ...... 11 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FORECASTED AND CURRENT JOB ESTIMATES ...... 11 II. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ...... 15 POPULATION: CURRENT DATA ...... 15 POPULATION: FORECAST ...... 17 POPULATION: AGE ...... 20 HOUSEHOLDS: CURRENT ...... 22 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ...... 23 TAXABLE VALUES ...... 25 COMMUNITY FORECLOSURES ...... 26 EMPLOYMENT: CURRENT ...... 27 EMPLOYMENT: FORECAST ...... 29 EMPLOYMENT: COMMUTING ...... 31 III. ROADWAYS & BRIDGES ...... 39 ROAD MILES ...... 39 ROAD AGENCY BUDGETS ...... 43 2009 ROAD AGENCY PROGRAMS ...... 45 ASSET MANAGEMENT ...... 49 TRAFFIC CRASHES ...... 54 PASSENGER VEHICLE REGISTRATION ...... 57 BRIDGES ...... 57 IV. TRANSIT ...... 63 TRANSIT PROVIDERS ...... 63 Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) ...... 63 University Of Michigan ...... 71 Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express (WAVE) ...... 75 Manchester Senior Services ...... 77 Other Transportation Services ...... 78 Private Transportation Providers ...... 79 Human Service Agency Transportation Providers ...... 83 V. NON-MOTORIZED ...... 89 PARKING ...... 94 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN CRASH ANALYSIS ...... 95 PLANNING ...... 100 EDUCATION ...... 100 VI. FREIGHT ...... 103 RAILROAD ...... 103
i TRUCKING ...... 104 AIR FREIGHT ...... 109 ANN ARBOR AIRPORT ...... 109 VII. APPENDICES ...... 113 APPENDIX A) DATA COLLECTION ...... 113 APPENDIX B) ORGANIZATIONS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS REPORT ...... 114
ii LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS & MAPS TABLES Table 1 SEMCOG Forecasted Jobs vs. Jobs Data Differences...... 11 Table 2 Population; Washtenaw County, Cities, Villages, Townships; 2000 and 2009 ...... 15 Table 3 Population Forecast, Washtenaw County and Municipalities, 2000-2035 ...... 17 Table 4 Population Forecast, By Age, Washtenaw County, 2000 to 2035 ...... 20 Table 5 Households with at Least One Member Over 65 ...... 20 Table 6 Households with Individual 65+ Living Alone ...... 21 Table 7 Households with at Least One Member under 18 ...... 21 Table 8 Households by Community 2000 Census, 2009 Estimate, and 2035 Projection ...... 22 Table 9 Residential Building Permits (Net*), 2000 to 2009 ...... 24 Table 10 Taxable Values in Southeast Michigan Counties ...... 25 Table 11 Housing Foreclosures Fiscal Year 2009 ...... 26 Table 12 Top 25 Employers, Washtenaw County, 2009 ...... 27 Table 13 Washtenaw County Employment by Sector 2000, 2006, and 2009 ...... 28 Table 14 Employment Forecast, Regional Development Forecast, 2010-2035 ...... 29 Table 15 Journey to Work Trips, Washtenaw County, 2006-2008 ...... 31 Table 16 Transportation Mode for Washtenaw County Residents and Workers ...... 34 Table 17 Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Journey to Work Modal Choice ...... 35 Table 18 Act 51 Road Miles by Jurisdiction: 2009 ...... 39 Table 19 Agency Revenues by Funding Source: 2009 ...... 44 Table 20 Act 51 Expenditure Budget by Jurisdiction: 2009 ...... 44 Table 21 Construction Projects 2009 ...... 45 Table 22 PASER Ratings by Community 2008/2009 ...... 49 Table 23 Washtenaw County Injury Crashes by Injury Type, 2009 ...... 54 Table 24 Top 20 Intersections by Crash Ranking ...... 55 Table 25 Top 20 Intersections by Injury Ranking ...... 56 Table 26 Non-Expired Vehicle Registration in Washtenaw County, 1999-2009 ...... 57 Table 27 Bridge Ranking by Jurisdiction ...... 58 Table 28 Bridge Status by Municipality ...... 58 Table 29 AATA Fares ...... 66 Table 30 AATA Revenues and Expenditures-Fiscal Years 2007 to 2009 ...... 67 Table 31 AATA Transit Data, Fiscal Years 2005-2009 ...... 68 Table 32 Monthly AATA Ridership during Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, and 2009 ...... 68 Table 33 AATA Fleet Capacity ...... 68 Table 34 University of Michigan Transit Data, FY 2005-2009 ...... 72 Table 35 University of Michigan Revenues and Expenses, FY-2009 ...... 72 Table 36 People’s Express Fares ...... 74 Table 37 People’s Express Fleet ...... 74 Table 38 WAVE Door-to-Door Service Fare Structure ...... 75 Table 39 Inter-Urban Express Fare Structure ...... 75 Table 40 FY-2009 Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express Revenues and Expenses ...... 76 Table 41 Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express Transit Data for FY-2009 ...... 76
iii Table 42 WAVE Vehicle Fleet ...... 76 Table 43 MSS 2009 Revenues, Mileage, and Ridership ...... 77 Table 44 Existing Non-motorized Facilities by Municipality in Miles ...... 90 Table 45 Deficient Facilities by Municipality in Miles ...... 93 Table 46 Reported Pedestrian Crashes by Community ...... 95 Table 47 Reported Bicycle Crashes by Community ...... 96 Table 48 Severity of Pedestrian Crashes by Speed Limit, 2005-2009 ...... 99 Table 49 Severity of Bicycle Crashes by Speed Limit, 2005-2009 ...... 99
CHARTS Chart 1 Population Forecast, Urban Subset, 2000-2035 ...... 18 Chart 2 Population Forecast, Urban Fringe Sector, 2000-2035 ...... 19 Chart 3 Population Forecast, Rural Subset, 2000-2035 ...... 19 Chart 4 Employment Projections by Sector, 2010-2035 ...... 30 Chart 5 2009 Distribution of Act 51 Road Revenues by Road Agency ...... 43 Chart 6 2003-2009 Pavement Condition of Eligible Federal Roads ...... 53 Chart 7 Cost of Returning All Roads to Good Pavement ...... 53 Chart 8 AATA Ridership by Age, October 2009 ...... 69 Chart 9 AATA Ridership Frequency, October 2009 ...... 70 Chart 10 Modal Choice and Frequency of AATA Ridership ...... 70 Chart 11 AATA Rider Trip Purpose, October 2009 ...... 71 Chart 12 AMTRAK Wolverine Line Ridership, 1995-2009 ...... 78
MAPS Map 1 Washtenaw County ...... 7 Map 2 Ann Arbor Urbanized Area in Washtenaw County ...... 9 Map 3 Data Groups: Urban, Urban Fringe, Rural ...... 10 Map 4 Population Growth and Decline by Community ...... 16 Map 5 Washtenaw County Taxable Value Change 2008-2009 ...... 25 Map 6 Journey to Work, Inbound Trips to Washtenaw County, 2006-2008 ...... 32 Map 7 Journey to Work, Outbound Trips from Washtenaw County, 2006-2008 ...... 33 Map 8 Act 51 Roads, Washtenaw County ...... 41 Map 9 Act 51 Roads: Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and Milan ...... 42 Map 10 Construction Projects, 2009 ...... 47 Map 11 Asset Management PASER Ratings, 2008/2009 ...... 51 Map 12 Washtenaw County Bridge Deficiencies 2009 ...... 59 Map 13 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ...... 91 Map 14 Existing Bike Lanes and Paved Shoulders (3+ feet) ...... 92 Map 15 Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Locations ...... 97 Map 16 Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Locations ...... 98 Map 17 Major Freight Terminals and Post Offices ...... 107 Map 18 National Trucking Network Peak Period Congestion, 2035 ...... 108 Map 18 Ann Arbor Airport ...... 110
iv
SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHICS Population From 2000 to 2009, the population of Washtenaw County grew from 322,770 to 344,910, a 6.9% increase. The population is projected to reach 380,170 residents by 2035, a 10.2% increase over 25 years. Households Washtenaw County’s household count grew 6.5% from 2000 to 2009. This is significantly less growth than the 19.9% increase from 1990 to 2000. The majority of growth occurred in townships within the urbanized area. Employment Total Washtenaw County employment in 2009 was estimated at 178,763. Employment decreased 9.8% from 2006 levels. Additionally, 36.3% of those working in Washtenaw County were non-residents.
ROADWAYS Road Miles In 2009, there were 2,260 miles of roads in Washtenaw County; 149 miles of trunkline; 589 miles of county primary; 162 miles of city/village major; and 1,360 miles of local. Road Programs In 2009, road agencies in Washtenaw County completed 40 major roadway improvement projects. Projects included road widening, paving and resurfacing, construction of new roads, and the reconstruction of existing roads. Traffic Crashes Annual crash totals in Washtenaw County declined 9.6% from 2007 to 2009. Crashes of all types, including fatalities, personal injury, and property damage, fell each year.
TRANSIT Ridership The AATA, the largest transit carrier in the County, had a ridership of 6,272,585 in 2009. Average AATA weekday ridership was 22,506 and average weekend ridership was 9,684. Over 12,000,000 trips were taken on the County’s transit providers. Ridesharing Washtenaw County has ten carpool lots for rideshare participants to meet and continue their commute. Carpool lots do not require a special permit, and allow overnight parking. The AATA provides service to five of these lots. Other Transportation Of the 17 stops along Amtrak’s Detroit-Chicago corridor, the Ann Arbor station consistently boards the second highest ridership behind Chicago. In 2009, 431,128 passengers travelled on the Wolverine Line, a 9.1% decrease from the previous year due to the depressed economy. Megabus, Greyhound, and Michigan Flyer offer regular intercity bus service to Ann Arbor.
3 NON-MOTORIZED Planning Several communities have adopted their own non-motorized plans, incorporated the WATS Non-motorized Plan by reference, or designated a non-motorized section in their master plan. These communities include Pittsfield, Northfield, Scio, and Ypsilanti Townships, as well as the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and Saline. Crashes Analysis of pedestrian and bicycle crashes indicate that 94% of countywide pedestrian crashes and 93% of countywide bicycle crashes occurred in the Ann Arbor Urbanized Area.
FREIGHT Trucking A survey of trucking companies in Washtenaw County identified eight specialty carriers, including moving services, freight, courier services, and inventory management. Railroad Four rail lines cross Washtenaw County. The lines are owned by Norfolk Southern, CSX, Ann Arbor Railroad, and MDOT. Great Lakes Central Railroad operates on the MDOT owned line. Air Freight Three airfreight carriers operate out of Willow Run airport: Ameristar Jet Charters, Kalitta Air, and National Airlines. These carriers transport a wide variety of cargo, including high-value automotive and electronic components, emergency medical supplies, on-demand freight, mail, and packages.
4
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Washtenaw Area Transportation Profile, produced by the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), is a periodic snapshot of demographic trends, transportation facilities, and transportation services in Washtenaw County and its local municipalities.
The report is organized into six sections: 1. Introduction and Background discusses the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, Washtenaw County, and how WATS collects and organizes data. 2. Demographic Profile covers basic population trends, housing/building starts, households, and employment data 3. Roadways reviews the state of the county’s road system including bridges, funding sources, and traffic crashes 4. Transit describes the transit services available in Washtenaw County 5. Non-motorized Transportation details the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, education, planning, and crashes 6. Freight: describes freight services operating in and around Washtenaw County
Map 1 Washtenaw County
Source: WATS
7 ABOUT WATS For over 35 years, the federally mandated "continuing, coordinated and comprehensive" (3C) urban transportation planning process in Washtenaw County has occurred at two levels: the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study or WATS (previously known as the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Urban Area Transportation Study or UATS), comprising governmental units and related agencies within Washtenaw County; and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the seven-county region of southeast Michigan. WATS continually monitors the current condition of the county's transportation system, including roads, bicycle and pedestrian paths, bridges, and public transit.
Modifications in federal legislation have emphasized the need for increased public participation in transportation planning, incorporation of multi-modal transportation options, and monitoring of vehicle emissions. The most recent federal transportation bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), increased the responsibilities of transportation planning while providing more funding than any previous surface transportation program.
RESPONSIBILITIES WATS is responsible for performing the federally required transportation planning functions for Washtenaw County and submits the results to the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) for incorporation into regional plans and programs. These functions include: Development and maintenance of a long-range multi-modal transportation plan (25-year) Administration of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which lists projects approved for implementation during the program period Coordination of federal funding for the study area under the Surface Transportation Program (STP)
As part of the federal transportation process, WATS collects and monitors data from all elements of the Washtenaw County transportation system. Data collection initiatives are undertaken for six reasons: 1) Maintain, update, and submit data on the extent, condition, and performance of federally eligible roads as part of the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). 2) Determine existing conditions, interrelationships, and trends 3) Provide the necessary database for updating the WATS Long Range Transportation Plan 4) Monitor the objectives, recommendations, and effectiveness of WATS plans and programs 5) Provide the basis for identifying specific problems that should be addressed in the Transportation Improvements Program, the Long Range Transportation Plan, or as part of the WATS Unified Work Program 6) Inform public officials and the public of ongoing transportation activities, accomplishments and emerging problems.
8 ANN ARBOR URBANIZED AREA The Ann Arbor Urbanized Area is located within Washtenaw and Wayne Counties in Southeast Michigan, covering an area of 65 square miles. Washtenaw County's 20 townships and seven cities and villages are home to an estimated 347,000 residents in 134,000 urban and rural households based on estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (2006-2008). Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti make up a significant portion of the County urbanized area. Map 2 highlights the Ann Arbor Urbanized Area in Washtenaw County.
Map 2 Ann Arbor Urbanized Area in Washtenaw County
Source: WATS
9 NOTE ON DATA GROUPING This report divides data into three categories: Urban, Urban Fringe, and Rural. These categories are intended to aid the reader in trend analysis and are not official designations. Map 3 depicts community data groupings. Note the official federal Urbanized Area boundaries of Ann Arbor, Detroit, and South Lyon/Howell/Brighton and the Small Urban Place designation of the City of Milan.
Map 3 Data Groups: Urban, Urban Fringe, Rural
Source: WATS
In general: Urban communities lie within the federal Urbanized Area boundaries, have relatively dense land use patterns, are cities, adjacent communities, or designated as a Small Urban Place by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Urban Area comprises the City of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor Township, Barton Hills, Dexter, Milan, Pittsfield Township, Saline, Scio Township (part), Superior Township (part), Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Township.
Urban Fringe communities lie adjacent to federal Urbanized Area boundaries with some overlap, are within easy commuting distance of the urbanized area, and have experienced increased residential development. The Urban Fringe area comprises Chelsea, Dexter Township, Lodi Township, Northfield Township, Salem Township, Webster Township, and York Township.
10
Rural communities are located outside the federal Urbanized Area boundary and have less dense development and population. The Rural area comprises Augusta Township, Bridgewater Township, Freedom Township, Lima Township, Lyndon Township, Manchester Village, Manchester Township, Saline Township, Sharon Township, and Sylvan Township.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FORECASTED AND CURRENT JOB ESTIMATES Community Level Data SEMCOG produces two different estimates of employment data by community, Forecasted Jobs and Current Jobs. The major difference between data sets is the exclusion of the self-employed in Current Job Estimates, whereas Forecasted Job Estimates cover all jobs.
Additionally, both data sets exclude Construction, Farming, and Military employment. Construction jobs are usually mobile and do not have a regular work site. Farming and Military jobs are excluded because they are not available in the Current Job Estimates.
The method used to aggregate the jobs at the community-level is also different. Forecasted Jobs are aggregated by gridcells (5.5 acres in size), and Current Jobs are aggregated by parcel. This method may result in some communities having higher Current Jobs than Forecasted Jobs for the same year. Usually Current Jobs are lower than Forecasted Jobs.
These differences are highlighted in Table 1.
Table 1 SEMCOG Forecasted Jobs vs. Jobs Data Differences Characteristic Current Forecasted Jobs Jobs Includes self‐employed? Yes No Includes Construction, Farming, or Military No No employment? Counts part‐time and full‐ Yes Yes time jobs Gridcell‐level (5.5 acres) to Parcel‐level to Aggregation method community‐level community‐level Wage and Salary Wage and Salary Coverage employment + self‐ employment employed Source: SEMCOG
11
12
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
II. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
POPULATION: CURRENT DATA Washtenaw County experienced modest population growth from 2000 to 2009. The county averaged 6.86% growth over nine years, which is greater than the 0.3% state average, yet lags behind the 9.1% national rate. Table 2 shows U.S. Census 2000 population count and 2009 SEMCOG population estimates for the cities, villages and townships
Table 2 Population; Washtenaw County, Cities, Villages, Townships; 2000 and 2009 2000 2009 Change % Change Census Estimate 2000‐2009 2000‐2009 Urban Ann Arbor 114,024 108,612 ‐5,412 ‐4.70% Ann Arbor Twp 4,385 4,867 482 11.00% Barton Hills 335 321 ‐14 ‐4.20% Dexter 2,338 3,471 1,133 48.50% Milan 3,065 3,149 84 2.70% Pittsfield Twp 30,167 36,925 6,758 22.40% Saline 8,034 8,310 276 3.40% Scio Twp 13,421 16,140 2,719 20.30% Superior Twp 10,740 13,424 2,684 25.00% Ypsilanti 22,237 19,201 ‐3,036 ‐13.70% Ypsilanti Twp 49,182 52,609 3,427 7.00% Urban Total 257,928 267,029 9,101 3.53% Urban Fringe Chelsea 4,398 4,967 569 12.90% Dexter Twp 5,248 6,561 1,313 25.00% Lodi Twp 5,710 5,833 123 2.20% Northfield Twp 8,252 9,277 1,025 12.40% Salem Twp 5,562 6,882 1,320 23.70% Webster Twp 5,198 6,630 1,432 27.50% York Twp 7,392 9,017 1,625 22.00% Urban Fringe Total 41,760 49,167 7,407 17.74% Rural Augusta Twp 4,813 6,929 2,116 44.00% Bridgewater Twp 1,646 1,816 170 10.30% Freedom Twp 1,562 1,843 281 18.00% Lima Twp 2,517 3,125 608 24.20% Lyndon Twp 2,728 2,894 166 6.10% Manchester 2,160 2,227 67 3.10% Manchester Twp 1,942 2,534 592 30.50% Saline Twp 1,302 2,072 770 59.10% Sharon Twp 1,678 1,698 20 1.20% Sylvan Twp 2,734 3,576 842 30.80% Rural Total 23,082 28,714 5,632 24.40% Total 322,770 344,910 22,140 6.86% Source: US Census and SEMCOG
15 Growth has not been evenly distributed within the County. Rates range from negative growth to near 60% increase. The greatest amount of population loss occurred in the established urban areas of Ypsilanti, Ann Arbor, and Barton Hills at 13.7%, 4.7%, and 4.2% respectively. Saline Township experienced the fastest growth, its total population increasing 60% in nine years. Dexter Village received 48.5% growth, the greatest amount for any city or village. Townships surrounding these small urban communities experienced rapid growth as farmland became urbanized. Pittsfield Township is estimated to have gained the greatest number of new residents, 6,758. Rural townships experienced the greatest growth rate, though those areas contain a relatively small proportion of the County’s population. Map 4 graphically compares growth rates throughout the county.
Map 4 Population Growth and Decline by Community
Source: US Census and SEMCOG
Rural townships have experienced the greatest growth rate with their combined populations growing 24.4%. However, cities, villages, and urban townships retain the vast majority of the county’s population.
16 POPULATION: FORECAST The SEMCOG population growth forecasts point to a continuation of trends from 2000 to 2009: slow growth in urban centers with moderate to rapid growth in rural townships surrounding small urban centers. Table 3 below details these forecasts through 2035.
Table 3 Population Forecast, Washtenaw County and Municipalities, 2000-2035 % Change 2000 2010 to Census201020152020202520302035 2035 Urban Ann Arbor 114,024 113,949 114,081 113,953 114,810 114,869 115,218 1.1% Ann Arbor Twp 4,385 4,814 5,113 5,401 5,517 5,723 5,951 23.6% Barton Hills 335 328 332 333 337 342 333 1.5% Dexter 2,338 3,577 3,668 3,739 3,754 3,755 3,826 7.0% Milan 3,065 3,693 3,809 3,832 3,844 3,831 3,794 2.7% Pittsfield Twp 30,167 34,761 34,969 35,322 35,750 36,237 36,870 6.1% Saline 8,034 8,795 8,898 8,942 8,894 9,226 9,550 8.6% Scio Twp 13,421 16,512 16,642 17,150 17,340 17,821 18,826 14.0% Superior Twp 10,740 12,902 13,267 13,458 13,833 14,578 15,619 21.1% Ypsilanti 22,237 22,438 22,307 22,115 21,963 21,985 22,247 ‐0.9% Ypsilanti Twp 49,182 53,981 54,347 54,522 55,184 55,728 56,507 4.7% Urban Total 257,928 275,750 277,434 278,768 281,226 284,094 288,742 4.7% Urban Fringe Chelsea 4,398 5,197 5,372 5,387 5,494 5,710 5,836 12.3% Dexter Twp 5,248 5,917 5,976 5,969 6,096 6,263 6,440 8.8% Lodi Twp 5,710 6,095 6,106 6,096 6,161 6,270 6,433 5.5% Northfield Twp 8,252 8,602 8,556 8,570 8,689 8,990 9,320 8.3% Salem Twp 5,562 6,379 6,540 6,805 7,068 7,419 7,590 19.0% Webster Twp 5,198 6,093 6,038 6,109 6,149 6,213 6,430 5.5% York Twp 7,392 7,983 8,320 8,614 8,881 9,425 10,486 31.4% Urban Fringe Total 41,760 46,266 46,906 47,550 48,538 50,290 52,535 13.5% Rural Augusta Twp 4,813 6,353 6,580 6,876 7,282 8,200 8,873 39.7% Bridgewater Twp 1,646 1,681 1,742 1,845 2,028 2,198 2,501 48.7% Freedom Twp 1,562 1,623 1,687 1,760 1,883 2,093 2,226 37.2% Lima Twp 2,517 3,072 3,148 3,217 3,257 3,429 3,715 20.9% Lyndon Twp 2,728 2,905 2,906 2,902 2,913 2,991 3,203 10.3% Manchester 2,160 2,332 2,421 2,466 2,602 2,741 2,927 25.5% Manchester Twp 1,942 2,446 2,560 2,697 2,867 3,105 3,500 43.1% Saline Twp 1,302 1,971 2,321 2,383 2,637 3,245 3,925 99.1% Sharon Twp 1,678 1,852 1,932 2,047 2,155 2,355 2,587 39.7% Sylvan Twp 2,734 3,422 3,690 4,049 4,326 4,722 5,435 58.8% Rural Total 23,082 27,657 28,987 30,242 31,950 35,079 38,892 40.6% Total 322,770 349,673 353,327 356,560 361,715 369,463 380,169 8.7% Source: SEMCOG
17 Although the least populated Washtenaw County community in 2000, SEMCOG projects Saline Township to have the fastest growth rate through 2035, 99.1%. Urban areas are expected to add the greatest number of new residents, though the rate of growth in Urban Fringe and Rural townships outpaces the urban rate of growth. Rural townships are expected to add 11,235 residents by 2035, a 40.6% increase.
Although Pittsfield has experienced rapid growth, Ypsilanti is still the most populated township in the County and is projected to remain so in 2035. Most township growth is projected to occur within the urbanized area of Washtenaw County. Chart 1 illustrates population growth estimates within the county’s urban communities.
Chart 1 Population Forecast, Urban Subset, 2000-2035 140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0 Ann Ann Dexter Milan Pittsfield Saline Scio Twp Superior Ypsilanti Ypsilanti Arbor Arbor (part) Twp Twp Twp Twp
2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Source: SEMCOG
Within urban fringe communities, York Township is projected to receive the greatest population growth, surpassing the population of Northfield Township by 2025 as seen in Chart 2. Among rural townships, Augusta Township is expected to grow the fastest, becoming more populated than many urban fringe communities. Chart 3 compares growth estimates within rural communities.
18 Chart 2 Population Forecast, Urban Fringe Sector, 2000-2035 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Chelsea Dexter Twp Lodi Twp Northfield Salem Twp Webster Twp Twp 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Source: SEMCOG
Chart 3 Population Forecast, Rural Subset, 2000-2035 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0
2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2020 2030 2035
Source: SEMCOG
19 POPULATION: AGE As baby boomers age and enter retirement, Washtenaw County’s population of those over 65 is projected to increase dramatically, more than doubling 2010 estimates. All age groups other than those over 65 are expected to decline as a proportion of the county’s population. Table 4 below shows age demographics for the entire county.
Table 4 Population Forecast, By Age, Washtenaw County, 2000 to 2035 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total 322,895 349,673 353,327 356,560 361,715 369,463 380,170 Age 0‐4 20,130 6.2 % 19,601 5.6 % 18,166 5.1 % 17,583 4.9 % 18,047 5.0 % 18,707 5.1 % 19,264 5.1 % Age 5‐17 51,158 15.8 % 52,902 15.1 % 50,880 14.4 % 48,181 13.5 % 46,017 12.7 % 46,168 12.5 % 48,388 12.7 % Age 18‐34 108,812 33.7 % 100,792 28.8 % 96,297 27.3 % 97,705 27.4 % 99,132 27.4 % 99,091 26.8 % 99,449 26.2 % Age 35‐64 116,524 36.1 % 140,301 40.1 % 141,367 40.0 % 135,295 37.9 % 130,258 36.0 % 127,831 34.6 % 126,696 33.3 % Age 65+ 26,271 8.1 % 36,077 10.3 % 46,617 13.2 % 57,796 16.2 % 68,260 18.9 % 77,666 21.0 % 86,373 22.7 % Source: SEMCOG
SEMCOG projects that the number of households with members over 65 will double by 2035. This significant shift in demographics points to the evolving future needs of citizens and communities. In rural communities, which are prone to gaps in alternative transportation services, 36.3% of households are projected to contain at least one member over 65, exceeding the expected county average. Households with seniors living alone are exceptionally vulnerable to isolation without transportation. This population is expected to triple in rural areas by 2035, and will represent 14.5% of all households in the county. Table 5 shows the number of households with members over 65, and Table 6 displays the number of households with those over 65 living alone.
Table 5 Households with at Least One Member Over 65 HH Percent/Year 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Urban 14,317 19,625 24,269 29,028 33,153 37,159 40,836 13.9% 17.4% 21.3% 25.2% 28.5% 31.4% 33.8% Urban Fringe 2,642 3,318 4,190 4,764 5,443 6,160 6,905 18.3% 19.5% 23.9% 26.6% 29.4% 31.6% 33.3% Rural 1,655 2,259 2,924 3,374 4,175 4,834 5,725 20.0% 21.4% 26.2% 28.6% 33.2% 34.7% 36.3% County 18,614 25,202 31,383 37,166 42,771 48,153 53,466 14.9% 18.0% 22.0% 25.7% 29.0% 31.7% 34.0% Source: SEMCOG
20 Table 6 Households with Individual 65+ Living Alone HH Percent/Year 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Urban 6,084 8,230 10,343 12,583 14,474 16,389 17,884 5.9% 7.3% 9.1% 10.9% 12.4% 13.8% 14.8% Urban Fringe 866 1,152 1,470 1,728 2,087 2,343 2,674 6.0% 6.8% 8.4% 9.6% 11.3% 12.0% 12.9% Rural 505 754 1,047 1,251 1,609 1,889 2,321 6.1% 7.1% 9.4% 10.6% 12.8% 13.6% 14.7% County 7,455 10,136 12,860 15,562 18,170 20,621 22,879 5.9% 7.2% 9.0% 10.8% 12.3% 13.6% 14.5% Source: SEMCOG
Households with children are expected to make up a shrinking proportion of total households over the next twenty-five years. Urban areas are expected to have 3,313 fewer households with children in 2035 than in 2010. Table 7 shows SEMCOG projections of households with children through 2035.
Table 7 Households with at Least One Member under 18 HH Percent/Year 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Urban 30,365 33,673 33,062 31,938 31,127 30,587 30,360 29.6% 29.8% 29.0% 27.8% 26.8% 25.8% 25.1% Urban Fringe 5,802 6,074 5,815 5,525 5,425 5,558 5,792 40.2% 35.7% 33.2% 30.8% 29.3% 28.5% 27.9% Rural 3,112 3,520 3,536 3,506 3,469 3,739 4,118 37.7% 33.3% 31.6% 29.7% 27.6% 26.8% 26.1% County 39,279 43,267 42,413 40,969 40,021 39,884 40,270 31.3% 30.8% 29.7% 28.3% 27.1% 26.3% 25.6% Source: SEMCOG
21 HOUSEHOLDS: CURRENT Washtenaw County’s households have grown 6.5% from 2000 to 2009. This is a noticeable drop from the 19.9% rate in the ten years from 1990 to 2000. Table 8 shows counts, estimates, and projections of the number of households in each community.
Table 8 Households by Community 2000 Census, 2009 Estimate, and 2035 Projection 2035 Change 2000 2009 Projected 2000‐ % Change Projected Census Estimate Growth 2009 2000‐2009 % Change Urban Ann Arbor 45,693 43,629 48,436 ‐2,064 ‐4.5% 6.0% Ann Arbor Twp 1,836 1,919 2,316 83 4.5% 26.1% Barton Hills 136 134 138 ‐2 ‐1.5% 1.5% Dexter 1,013 1,366 1,711 353 34.8% 68.9% Milan 1,239 1,354 1,616 115 9.3% 30.4% Pittsfield Twp 11,817 13,596 15,254 1,779 15.1% 29.1% Saline 3,148 3,462 4,078 314 10.0% 29.5% Scio Twp 5,057 6,447 7,622 1,390 27.5% 50.7% Superior Twp 3,961 5,100 6,411 1,139 28.8% 61.9% Ypsilanti 8,456 7,255 8,996 ‐1,201 ‐14.2% 6.4% Ypsilanti Twp 20,194 21,096 24,323 902 4.5% 20.4% Urban Total 102,550 105,358 120,901 2,808 2.7% 17.9% Urban Fringe Chelsea 1,840 2,093 2,586 253 13.8% 40.5% Dexter Twp 1,863 2,326 2,565 463 24.9% 37.7% Lodi Twp 1,960 2,131 2,503 171 8.7% 27.7% Northfield Twp 3,154 3,389 3,950 235 7.5% 25.2% Salem Twp 1,928 2,432 3,056 504 26.1% 58.5% Webster Twp 1,774 2,298 2,550 524 29.5% 43.7% York Twp 1,901 2,509 3,539 608 32.0% 86.2% Urban Fringe Total 14,420 17,178 20,749 2,758 19.1% 43.9% Rural Augusta Twp 1,728 2,608 3,661 880 50.9% 111.9% Bridgewater Twp 598 683 1,009 85 14.2% 68.7% Freedom Twp 561 652 846 91 16.2% 50.8% Lima Twp 901 1,203 1,483 302 33.5% 64.6% Lyndon Twp 877 958 1,191 81 9.2% 35.8% Manchester 900 921 1,352 21 2.3% 50.2% Manchester Twp 717 991 1,434 274 38.2% 100.0% Saline Twp 460 826 1,639 366 79.6% 256.3% Sharon Twp 593 649 1,016 56 9.4% 71.3% Sylvan Twp 927 1,307 2,128 380 41.0% 129.6% Rural Total 8,262 10,798 15,759 2,536 30.7% 90.7% Total 125,232 133,334 157,411 8,102 6.5% 25.7% Source: US Census and SEMCOG
22 The growth in households in Washtenaw County’s urban and urban fringe areas mirrored changes in population. However, in rural areas the 30.7% increase in households outpaced the population growth rate of 26.6%. Reductions in household size may explain this trend.
Between 2000 and 2009, less populated cities and villages experienced significantly more growth than established urban centers. While Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti lost households, Chelsea and Dexter grew by 13.8% and 34.8% respectively. Ypsilanti Township, the most populated township in the county, experienced a slight 4.5% increase in households, while less populated Superior Township grew by 28.8%.
Households are expected to continue moderate to fast growth through 2035. Trends mirror those encountered since 2000, growth taking place in areas surrounding urban centers. Despite rapid growth in rural areas, the vast majority of households, 77%, are expected to remain within the urbanized area.
SEMCOG projects that Washtenaw County’s rural townships will continue to experience the greatest rate of household growth through 2035. Saline Township’s household count is expected to grow 256.3%, the greatest for any community in the county. The projected 4,961 new households in rural areas by 2035 are expected to surpass the 3,571 new households in urban fringe communities.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS Residential construction from 2000 to 2009 experienced a peak and then a subsequent sharp decline in the number of permits issued. Building permit figures indicate all permits issued and are not good indicators of projects built. The data is for net building permits, which is equal to the number of building permits issued minus the number of demolition permits. Data is assigned the year a permit is issued, not the year the project is built. Generally, residential building permits fluctuate with the economy, though it is not the only factor. Others include, but are not limited to, demand, inflation, and interest rates. The tightening of credit and the recession are to blame for the current drop in permits, which remain depressed despite low interest rates.
Urban areas issued the bulk of residential building permits, 74% of the 15,280 issued in the county. Ypsilanti Township awarded the most permits, 17.9% of the county total, followed by Pittsfield Township at 14.9% and Ann Arbor at 12.6%. Despite significant growth in urban fringe and rural townships, they represented only 15.5% and 10.6% of the county total. Table 9 shows the net residential building permits by community issued between 2000 and 2009.
23 Table 9 Residential Building Permits (Net*), 2000 to 2009 10 Year % of 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Total Urban Ann Arbor 318 259 320 319 252 201 120 100 10 20 1,919 12.6% Ann Arbor Twp17112 1311110300 680.4% Barton Hills000001000010.0% Dexter 88 60 77 87 98 31 3 1 4 26 475 3.1% Milan 23121658959725191863692.4% Pittsfield Twp 255 413 293 389 494 242 84 52 24 34 2,280 14.9% Saline 75 113 118 138 38 16 2 2 1 3 506 3.3% Scio Twp 255 313 315 180 105 146 39 27 24 5 1,409 9.2% Superior Twp 53 105 109 330 247 180 36 90 48 20 1,218 8.0% Ypsilanti 85 38 0 13 193 1 4 7 1 5 321 2.1% Ypsilanti Twp 285 473 527 451 571 236 89 64 31 11 2,738 17.9% Urban Total 1,454 1,797 1,777 1,978 2,104 1,162 402 365 161 130 11,304 74.0% Urban Fringe Chelsea 5 30 86 68 67 87 19 13 1 2 378 2.5% Dexter Twp376151787165102563862.5% Lodi Twp 433153216834156822811.8% Northfield Twp775317361817207412501.6% Salem Twp333134412525128442171.4% Webster Twp7272946272352312614492.9% York Twp 107 88 60 57 47 32 17 2 2 3 415 2.7% Urban Fringe Total 374 366 395 363 368 295 116 50 30 19 2,376 15.5% Rural Augusta Twp2826397384623014423622.4% Bridgewater Twp 5 14 9 8 10 7 8 0 1 0 60 0.4% Freedom Twp3476742011350.2% Lima Twp 171627244282593130223502.3% Lyndon Twp22202220171112301180.8% Manchester4 192314181431241020.7% Manchester Twp343240432220147212151.4% Saline Twp 13 7 6 7 7 6 11 11 1 2 71 0.5% Sharon Twp20211715164 54011030.7% Sylvan Twp24191035701190601841.2% Rural Total 170 178 200 245 293 221 142 70 50 33 1,600 10.6% Total 1,998 2,341 2,372 2,586 2,765 1,678 660 485 241 182 15,280 100% Source: SEMCOG *Net= Number Building Permits- Number Demolition Permits
24 TAXABLE VALUES SEMCOG annually collects taxable value data from the Michigan State Tax Commission. Initial analysis shows that between 2008 and 2009, Southeast Michigan lost more than $6 billion in taxable property value. Washtenaw County lost $270 million in taxable value, a 1.9% decline. This is a smaller decline than the rest of Southeast Michigan, which lost an average 3.5% of taxable value. Table 10 shows the taxable value decline in Southeast Michigan from 2008 to 2009.
Table 10 Taxable Values in Southeast Michigan Counties County 2008 2009 Change % Change Livingston $8,333,172,736 $8,064,451,012 ‐$268,721,724 ‐3.22% Macomb $29,334,585,344 $28,352,004,477 ‐$982,580,867 ‐3.35% Monroe $5,787,798,016 $5,665,777,149 ‐$122,020,867 ‐2.11% Oakland $60,761,690,112 $58,471,419,235 ‐$2,290,270,877 ‐3.77% Saint Clair $6,036,250,112 $5,992,269,723 ‐$43,980,389 ‐0.73% Washtenaw $14,422,764,544 $14,152,627,320 ‐$270,137,224 ‐1.87% Wayne $47,356,846,080 $45,330,934,269 ‐$2,025,911,811 ‐4.28% Southeast Michigan $172,033,106,944 $166,029,483,185 ‐$6,003,623,759 ‐3.49% Source: SEMCOG
Southeastern Washtenaw County experienced the greatest decline in taxable value from 2008 to 2009. The City of Ann Arbor and the Townships of Ann Arbor, Sylvan, Sharon, Freedom, and Bridgewater were the only communities that did not lose or gained taxable value. Map 5 shows percent taxable value losses by community between 2008 and 2009.
Map 5 Washtenaw County Taxable Value Change 2008-2009
Source: SEMGOG
25 COMMUNITY FORECLOSURES The downturn in the economy and tightening of the credit market highlights the negative impacts foreclosures have on local budgets. Foreclosed and vacant homes undermine surrounding property values, reducing total taxable value in communities. Data from SEMCOG shows that foreclosures in Washtenaw County rose slightly in the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2010. There were 1,304 foreclosures in the period from third quarter 2009 to second quarter 2010. When averaged by area type, urban and urban fringe communities had similar foreclosure rates, around one in every 72 homes, and one in every 60 homes in rural areas was in foreclosure. Table 11 shows total housing foreclosures from 2009.
Table 11 Housing Foreclosures Fiscal Year 2009 3rd 4th 1st 2nd Total Total Housing Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Last 4 Foreclosed Housing Units Foreclosure 2009 2009 2010 2010 Qtrs. Units Dec 2009 Rate Urban Ann Arbor 38 55 43 98 234 327 47,391 1 in 145 Ann Arbor Twp2202 6 11 2,0211 in 184 Barton Hills 0010 1 3 1431 in 48 Dexter 05251219 1,5021 in 79 Milan 4 11 15 11 41 98 2,474 1 in 25 Pittsfield Twp 17 29 18 25 89 161 14,509 1 in 90 Saline 4 11 7 8 30 32 3,669 1 in 115 Scio Twp 7 5 10 7 29 46 6,870 1 in 149 Superior Twp 2130172593138 5,453 1 in 40 Ypsilanti 1932182089120 8,553 1 in 71 Ypsilanti Twp 93 122 100 100 415 636 24,023 1 in 38 Urban Total 205 302 231 301 1,039 1,591 116,608 1 in 73 Urban Fringe Chelsea 66341931 2,2801 in 74 Dexter Twp 75362131 2,7541 in 89 Lodi Twp 49131724 2,3171 in 97 Northfield Twp 14 9 16 9 48 75 3,772 1 in 50 Salem Twp 34091630 2,5941 in 86 Webster Twp31861833 2,5091 in 76 York Twp 89542637 2,5101 in 68 Urban Fringe Total 45 43 36 41 165 261 18,736 1 in 72 Rural Augusta Twp 86883063 2,7421 in 44 Bridgewater Twp2300 5 5 7221 in 144 Freedom Twp2012 5 8 6891 in 86 Lima Twp 1331 8 21 1,2791 in 61 Lyndon Twp 24251321 1,1811 in 56 Manchester 31671723 9941 in 43 Manchester Twp30351123 1,0721 in 47 Saline Twp 0020 2 5 8601 in 172 Sharon Twp 1020 3 8 7141 in 89 Sylvan Twp 1113 6 19 1,4511 in 76 Rural Total 23 18 28 31 100 196 11,704 1 in 60 Total 273 363 295 373 1,304 2,048 147,048 1 in 72 Source: SEMCOG
26 EMPLOYMENT: CURRENT Employment driven commuting patterns have a significant impact on the county’s transportation system. Workplaces make up the largest trip generators during the peak travel periods of the morning (7-9 am) and evening commute (4-6 pm). Table 12 highlights the top 25 employers in Washtenaw County. Because some employers have multiple locations, numbers may include employees from adjacent counties; however, when possible only represent Washtenaw County.
Table 12 Top 25 Employers, Washtenaw County, 2009 No. of Company Name Employer Category Employees University of Michigan 26,241 Public University University of Michigan Health Centers 19,614 Hospital, research, education St. Joseph Mercy Health System 5,670 Hospital and Health Care Washtenaw Community College 2,773 Public Community College Ann Arbor Public Schools 2,659 Public School District Automotive Components Holdings 2,000 Automotive parts & accessories Eastern Michigan University 1,950 Public university, education Thomas Reuters 1,800 Software, web services General Motors Corporation 1,700 Automotive transmissions & components Veterans Administration Hospital 1,600 Hospital Washtenaw County 1,345 County government Chelsea Community Hospital 1,048 Hospital Toyota 1,036 Automotive research U.S. Postal Service 923 Mail and package delivery Borders Group Inc. 825 Book retail City of Ann Arbor 766 City Government Lincoln Consolidated Schools 700 Public School District Ypsilanti Public Schools 650 Public School District DTE Energy 623 Electric utility service operations Glacier Hills 582 Retirement community & assisted living Kalitta Air 541 International air cargo Zingerman’s Community of Businesses *540 Specialty foods, restaurants, consulting Saline Area Schools 536 Public School District Terumo Cardiovascular Systems *510 Medical device manufacturing Domino’s Pizza 509 Headquarters and pizza delivery Total Top 25 Employees 77,841 Source: annarbor.com 2009 Business Review * Includes only permanent employees
27 While employment fell in Washtenaw County from 2006 to 2009, job loss affected local economic sectors differently. Information services grew by a substantial 43%, adding over 1,000 jobs to the region between 2006 and 2009. Educational Services, Health Care, and Management saw growth as well. Most other sectors of the economy lost jobs. Manufacturing experienced the most acute impact of the downturn, shedding 5,676 jobs, 29% of the county’s sector total. Table 13 shows county employment by economic sector.
Table 13 Washtenaw County Employment by Sector 2000, 2006, and 2009 Change Percent Change Employment Sector 2000 2006 2009 2006‐2009 2006‐2009 Educational Services 38,930 42,189 46,901 4,712 11.17% Health Care and Social Assistance 30,349 34,110 35,238 1,128 3.31% Manufacturing 27,425 19,562 13,886 ‐5,676 ‐29.02% Retail Trade 21,463 16,723 15,520 ‐1,203 ‐7.19% Professional,Scientific,and Technical Services 14,940 13,595 12,838 ‐757 ‐5.57% Accommodation and Food Services 11,528 12,419 12,096 ‐323 ‐2.60% Administrative and Support 11,256 10,034 8,394 ‐1,640 ‐16.34% Wholesale Trade 4,926 5,768 5,117 ‐651 ‐11.29% Public Administration 4,373 5,068 4,672 ‐396 ‐7.81% Other Services 4,299 4,646 4,914 268 5.77% Finance and Insurance 3,537 4,021 3,292 ‐729 ‐18.13% Transportation and Warehousing 2,536 3,720 3,186 ‐534 ‐14.35% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 2,542 2,640 2,486 ‐154 ‐5.83% Information 3,999 2,521 3,616 1,095 43.44% Arts,Entertainment,and Recreation 1,841 2,117 1,962 ‐155 ‐7.32%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,260 1,349 1,486 137 10.16% Utilities 332 728 553 ‐175 ‐24.04% Mining,Quarrying,and Oil and Gas Extraction 65 19 8 ‐11 ‐57.89% Total 185,601 181,229 176,165 ‐5,064 ‐2.79% Source: LEHD Quarterly Workforce Indicators
28 EMPLOYMENT: FORECAST SEMCOG projects Washtenaw County to add 42,309 jobs by 2035. Ann Arbor is projected to remain the primary employment hub, adding 16,724 jobs by 2035. Ypsilanti is expected to add a significant number of jobs as well, 4,222. Pittsfield Township is projected to pass Ypsilanti Township and become second to the City of Ann Arbor for jobs in Washtenaw County. The health care sector is projected to experience the most growth, 50.5% from 2010 to 2035, while decline is expected to continue within the manufacturing sector. Table 14 shows community employment forecasts from 2010 through 2035, and Chart 4 shows industry employment forecasts.
Table 14 Employment Forecast, Regional Development Forecast, 2010-2035 Change % 2010 2015 2025 2035 2010‐2035 Change Urban Ann Arbor 125,340 131,059 136,633 142,064 16,724 13.3% Ann Arbor Twp 8,128 8,426 9,036 9,381 1,253 15.4% Barton Hills ‐‐‐‐ ‐ ‐ Dexter 3,254 3,268 3,478 3,574 320 9.8% Milan 1,845 1,865 1,898 1,867 22 1.2% Pittsfield Twp 21,464 23,746 27,134 29,339 7,875 36.7% Saline 8,013 8,062 8,689 9,336 1,323 16.5% Scio Twp 11,844 11,950 12,538 13,309 1,465 12.4% Superior Twp 10,982 11,808 12,613 13,256 2,274 20.7% Ypsilanti 13,543 14,724 16,713 17,765 4,222 31.2% Ypsilanti Twp 21,774 22,307 24,039 25,058 3,284 15.1% Urban Total 100,847 106,156 116,138 122,885 22,038 21.9% Urban Fringe Chelsea 6,182 6,262 6,480 6,533 351 5.7% Dexter Twp 330 342 356 507 177 53.6% Lodi Twp 527 596 671 687 160 30.4% Northfield Twp 1,827 1,893 2,041 2,417 590 32.3% Salem Twp 814 829 906 1,159 345 42.4% Webster Twp 449 427 434 432 ‐17 ‐3.8% York Twp 2,191 2,270 2,431 2,698 507 23.1% Urban Fringe Total 12,320 12,619 13,319 14,433 2,113 17.2% Rural Augusta Twp 587 609 650 703 116 19.8% Bridgewater Twp ‐‐‐‐ ‐ ‐ Freedom Twp 248 251 249 244 ‐4 ‐1.6% Lima Twp 638 602 577 630 ‐8 ‐1.3% Lyndon Twp 219 228 246 237 18 8.2% Manchester 1,564 1,596 1,749 2,044 480 30.7% Manchester Twp 190 197 212 221 31 16.3% Saline Twp 275 302 364 445 170 61.8% Sharon Twp 115 110 124 134 19 16.5% Sylvan Twp 1,027 1,009 1,076 1,585 558 54.3% Rural Total 4863 4904 5247 6243 1380 28.4% Total 243,605 254,985 271,611 285,914 42,309 17.4% Source: SEMCOG Regional Development Forecast 2035
29 Chart 4 Employment Projections by Sector, 2010-2035 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 ‐ 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Health Care & Social 48,465 54,868 59,704 64,289 68,296 72,918 Assistance Educational Services 32,721 34,158 35,399 36,892 37,836 39,210 Prof., Scientific, & Tech. 31,011 31,840 32,481 32,955 33,350 33,958 Services Manufacturing 19,146 16,689 16,000 15,644 15,449 15,509 Retail Trade 20,867 20,326 20,054 19,378 18,636 18,065 Leisure & Hospitality 22,240 23,522 24,414 24,881 25,098 25,434 Administration & 16,538 18,006 19,340 20,573 21,668 22,944 Support Financial Activities 10,499 10,821 11,117 11,217 11,323 11,502 Other Services 10,787 11,176 11,648 11,993 12,212 12,532 Public Administration 9,298 9,588 9,671 9,807 9,782 9,845 Information 7,404 9,533 9,567 9,606 9,645 9,766 Wholesale Trade 5,624 5,447 5,406 5,322 5,235 5,220 Transportation & 5,220 5,332 5,447 5,574 5,659 5,750 Warehousing Management 2,742 2,706 2,647 2,585 2,505 2,470 Utilities 734 683 651 622 584 562 Natural Resources & 304 285 273 259 245 233 Mining Total Employment 243,600 254,980 263,819 271,597 277,523 285,918 Source: SEMCOG
30 EMPLOYMENT: COMMUTING Land uses shape the character and commuting patterns of Washtenaw County. In rural Washtenaw County, few options exist for commuters beyond the single occupied vehicle. Commuting options vary within urban areas, where mixed land uses provide a variety of housing options within walking or biking distance of workplaces and bus stops.
Comparisons of total inbound and outbound trips serve as an indicator of the relative health of Washtenaw County’s employment sector. Table 15 highlights commuting patterns of workers traveling into Washtenaw County from surrounding counties, and those commuting from Washtenaw County to other counties. Washtenaw County is a net “importer” of employees. Of the total 202,795 jobs, residents filled 129,195, while commuters living outside of the county filled the remaining 73,600 jobs. Only 22% of Washtenaw County workers travelled outside of the county for employment. Wayne County provides the most nonresident workers to Washtenaw County, 29,345, which is 8,180 more than Washtenaw residents who work in Wayne County. The largest disparity existed with Livingston County, where 12,695 residents commute to Washtenaw County for work, while only 2,290 Washtenaw residents work in Livingston.
Commute data helps explain road congestion and identify options to address it. For example, US- 23 southbound lanes between Livingston and Washtenaw Counties experience regular congestion in the AM peak while the northbound lanes are congested during the PM peak. Map 6 and Map 7 highlight regional county-to-county commuting patterns.
Table 15 Journey to Work Trips, Washtenaw County, 2006-2008 Where Where Washtenaw Washtenaw County Workers Live Residents Work Genesee County 1,740 215 Ingham County 1,810 490 Jackson County 6,795 1,180 Lenawee County 7,520 885 Livingston County 12,695 2,290 Lucas County, Ohio 865 550 Macomb County 1,025 700 Monroe County 4,760 1,170 Oakland County 7,045 6,880 Wayne County 29,345 21,165 Total Workers Imported and Exported 73,600 35,525 Live and Work in Washtenaw County 129,195 129,195 Total 202,795 164,720 Source: 2006-2008 ACS CTPP Data (2007-2009 Data will not be released until January 2011)
31
Source: 2000 US Census Map 6 Journey to Work, Inbound Trips to Washtenaw County, 2006-2008
Source: 2006-2008 ACS CTPP Data (2007-2009 Data will not be released until January 2011)
32 Map 7 Journey to Work, Outbound Trips from Washtenaw County, 2006-2008
Source: 2006-2008 ACS CTPP Data (2007-2009 Data will not be released until January 2011)
33 MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION The most common transportation mode for those working or living in Washtenaw County was driving alone. Of those commuting to or from Washtenaw County, 89% drove alone, 9.6% carpooled, and the rest used alternate means of transportation. Workers within the county utilized a more diverse set of transportation options: 71% drove alone, 8% carpooled, 8% walked, 5% used public transit, 2% biked, and the rest used an alternate mode or worked at home. Table 16 below shows means of transportation chosen by Washtenaw County residents and workers.
Table 16 Transportation Mode for Washtenaw County Residents and Workers Commuting To Commuting From Work and Live in Washtenaw Washtenaw Washtenaw Means of Transportation County (%) County (%) County (%) Drive alone 65,060 (88.4%) 32,050 (90.2%) 91,355 (70.7%) 2‐person carpool 5,800 (7.9%) 2,580 (7.3%) 8,265 (6.4%) 3‐person carpool 745 (1.0%) 244 (0.7%) 1,040 (0.8%) 4‐person carpool 354 (0.5%) 155 (0.4%) 480 (0.4%) 5‐or 6‐person carpool 465 (0.6%) 45 (0.1%) 125 (0.1%) 7‐or‐more‐person carpool 74 (0.1%) 75 (0.2%) 90 (0.1%) Bus or Trolly Bus 225 (0.3%) ‐ (0.0%) 6,125 (4.7%) Bicycle 20 (0.0%) ‐ (0.0%) 2,520 (2.0%) Walked 715 (1.0%) 150 (0.4%) 10,030 (7.8%) Taxicab ‐ (0.0%) ‐ (0.0%) 140 (0.1%) Motorcycle 53 (0.1%) 4 (0.0%) 180 (0.1%) Other Means 54 (0.1%) 220 (0.6%) 390 (0.3%) Worked at Home ‐ (0.0%) ‐ (0.0%) 8,440 (6.5%) Total 73,565 (100.0%) 35,523 (100.0%) 129,180 (100.0%) Source: 2006-2008 ACS CTPP Data
34 Commuters were most likely to use methods other than driving to work if they lived and worked within the same city. Of all those who walked to work within the county, 89% lived in Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti. Just over 50% of those who lived and worked in either city drove alone; however, 14% of Ypsilanti workers carpooled compared to 5% of Ann Arbor workers. Ann Arbor residents who worked in the city made up 72% of those who used the bus for employment commuting. Table 17 details the modal choice for commutes within and between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.
Table 17 Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Journey to Work Modal Choice Residence Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Workplace Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Total %
Drive alone 19,290 1,195 2,425 770 23,680 50.7% 2‐person carpool 1,790 20 650 80 2,540 5.4% 3‐person carpool 290 40 35 15 380 0.8% 4‐person carpool 150 0 25 0 175 0.4% 5‐or‐6 person carpool 35 0 75 0 110 0.2% 7‐or‐more person carpool 20 25 0 0 45 0.1% Bus 4,395 155 240 65 4,855 10.4% Bicycle 1,800 0 20 55 1,875 4.0% Walked 7,750 20 0 1,135 8,905 19.1% Taxi 35 0 0 0 35 0.1% Worked at Home 3,540 0 0 560 4,100 8.8% Total 39,095 1,455 3,470 2,680 46,700 100.0% Source: 2006-2008 ACS CTPP Data
35
36
ROADWAYS & BRIDGES
III. ROADWAYS & BRIDGES
The road network within Washtenaw County has three distinct patterns of development. First, a radial network of roads spread from the central business districts of the cities and villages, forming old trade routes between population centers. Many of these roads maintain their status as freight routes, for example Pontiac Trail, Dexter-Ann Arbor Road, and Saline-Milan Road. Second, there is a grid network of roads: Parker, Willow Road, Ellsworth Road, North Territorial Road, etc. Finally, highways (I-94, US-23, M-14) provide regional and interstate connectivity.
The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has jurisdiction over all state, US, and interstate highways in the county, as well as the business routes and loops through Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Manchester, Saline and Ypsilanti. The cities and villages maintain non-state controlled roads within their boundaries. The Washtenaw County Road Commission (WCRC) maintains the remaining roads within the County’s townships. Subdivision associations, public institutions, or businesses operate and maintain the many private roads throughout the county.
ROAD MILES MDOT classifies and funds the state’s roads under Public Act 51 of 1951 (Act 51). MDOT’s Act 51 certification process places roads into one of two categories for cities and villages: major and local roads. The WCRC classifies roads under its jurisdiction into one of two categories: primary and local roads. MDOT classifies all roads under its jurisdiction as trunklines. Road classifications are revisited and adjusted on an annual basis. In 2009, there were 2,260 miles of roads in Washtenaw County; 149 miles of trunkline; 589 miles of county primary; 162 miles of city/village major; and 1,360 miles of local. Table 18 shows the road classifications by jurisdiction, the entire county’s road miles are depicted on Map 8, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti are enlarged on Map 9.
Table 18 Act 51 Road Miles by Jurisdiction: 2009 Miles of Miles of Miles of Miles of Total Agency Trunkline Primary Major Local Miles Ann Arbor 98.4 197.0 295.4 Chelsea 8.6 10.4 19.0 Dexter 5.6 12.7 18.3 Manchester 5.2 10.8 16.0 MDOT 148.7 148.7 Milan 9.8 15.7 25.5 Saline 13.3 21.0 34.3 WCRC 588.8 1,060.6 1,649.4 Ypsilanti 21.232.453.7 Washtenaw County 148.7 588.8 162.1 1,360.8 2,260.4 Source: MDOT Act 51 reports
39
40 Map 8 Act 51 Roads, Washtenaw County
Source: WATS
41 Map 9 Act 51 Roads: Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and Milan
Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Milan
Source: WATS
42 ROAD AGENCY BUDGETS The combined revenues of Washtenaw County’s road agencies totaled over $74 million in 2009. The largest portion of revenue, 40.3%, is ACT 51 money received from the State. Local and federal sources provided 28.6% and 20.4% of revenues respectively. The remaining 10.8% came from interest and miscellaneous sources. Federal revenues in 2009 include grant money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which funded shovel-ready projects throughout the country. This funding was a onetime addition to annual Surface Transportation Program (STP) dollars. Washtenaw County received $6.5 million for its urban transportation program, $642,000 for its rural transportation program, $125,000 for small urban transportation program, and $6.5 million for transit projects. Chart 5 shows ACT 51 revenue distribution by road agency and Table 19 highlights agency revenues by funding source.
Chart 5 2009 Distribution of Act 51 Road Revenues by Road Agency Ypsilanti, 3.4%
Ann Arbor, 35.1% Barton Hills, 0.0% WCRC, Chelsea, 57.2% 0.6% Dexter, 0.7% Manchester, 0.4% Saline, 1.7% Milan, 0.9%
Source: MDOT Act 51 Reports
43 Table 19 Agency Revenues by Funding Source: 2009 Source of Funding Federal (%) State (%) Local (%) Interest (%) Misc (%) Total Ann Arbor $6,409,888 (25%) $6,992,440 (27%) $11,050,021 (42%) $438,524 (2%) $1,168,554 (4%) $26,059,427 Barton Hills $0 (0%) $12,215 (70%) $0 (0%) $5,311 (30%) $0 (0%) $17,526 Chelsea $0 (0%) $288,527 (68%) $122,046 (29%) $13,713 (3%) $0 (0%) $424,286 Dexter $0 (0%) $170,822 (33%) $338,248 (66%) $4,320 (1%) $0 (0%) $513,390 Manchester $0 (0%) $146,092 (49%) $148,000 (50%) $1,953 (1%) $0 (0%) $296,045 Milan $350,000 (51%) $308,319 (45%) $27,000 (4%) $4,352 (1%) $1,035 (0%) $690,706 Saline $188,775 (15%) $524,537 (42%) $507,126 (41%) $20,010 (2%) $0 (0%) $1,240,448 WCRC $7,310,515 (17%) $20,187,696 (47%) $8,966,567 (21%) $128,636 (0%) $5,929,772 (14%) $42,523,186
Source:Ypsilanti MDOT Act 51 Reports $869,931 (34%) $1,298,130 (51%) $76,147 (3%) $43,019 (2%) $239,336 (9%) $2,526,563
This report divides road related expenditures into three major categories: construction (including reconstruction and rehabilitation), maintenance, and other expenditures (e.g. equipment and administration). County agencies used 66% of their funds for construction, 27% for maintenance, and 6% on other expenditures. Table 20 shows expenditure categorizations and totals by road agency.
Table 20 Act 51 Expenditure Budget by Jurisdiction: 2009 Construction Maintenance Other Expenses Total Ann Arbor $19,787,087 $5,146,456 $1,384,881 $26,318,424 Barton Hills $0 $0 $0 $0 Chelsea $222,527 $143,860 $9,786 $376,173 Dexter $510,437 $176,562 $134 $687,133 Manchester $250,262 $62,249 $61,772 $374,283 Milan $149,168 $69,633 $53,391 $272,192 Saline $757,283 $314,859 $29,037 $1,101,179 Ypsilanti $2,256,212 $302,916 $122,826 $2,681,954 WCRC $25,672,863 $14,239,646 $3,076,600 $42,989,109 TotalSource: MDOT $49,605,839 Act 51 Reports $20,456,181 $4,738,427 $74,800,447 Note: Road agencies may report more spending than received as revenue through ACT 51. This results from the use of funds not directly associated to road funding; some examples may be a private developer or money used from a city, village, or township general fund.
44 2009 ROAD AGENCY PROGRAMS In 2009, road agencies in Washtenaw County completed 40 major roadway improvement projects; see projects listed in Table 21 and Map 10. Projects included road widening, paving and resurfacing, construction of new roads, and the reconstruction of existing roads including base repair. Major projects included widening Jackson Road to a boulevard, reconstruction of the Dexter Main Street Bridge over Mill Creek, reconstruction of Stadium east of Pauline, construction of the Huron/Nixon Roundabout, and the resurfacing of I-94 from Jackson County line to Parker Road. In addition, numerous other projects were undertaken, including seal coating, repaving, or resurfacing. Agencies used ARRA funds to finance many road maintenance and resurfacing projects, the purchase of four hybrid buses, construction of a Park and Ride lot, among others.
Table 21 Construction Projects 2009 Roadway Project Limits Improvements Cost Ann Arbor Rd US‐12 to Bennett Rehabilitate $ 210,000 Annual Local Street Resurfacing Various Locations Resurfacing $ 1,645,883 County St. Marvin to Dexter Reconstruct $ 638,000 Dexter Main St. Bridge over Mill Creek Resurface $ 2,520,000 East Delhi Bridge over the Huron River Rehabilitation $ 1,500,000 HewittRoad Packard Intersection to Huron River Drive Mill Install and Resurfaceroundabout and resurface $ 1,000,000$ 1,500,000 Huron Parkway and Nixon Huron River Drive Main to Bird Reconstruct $ 1,283,000 I‐94 Freer to Parker Mill and overlay $18,400,000 I‐94 Jackson Co Line to Freer Mill and resurface $ 6,000,000 .2 Miles West of Zeeb to .2 Jackson Miles West of Baker Construct 4 lane boulevard $14,000,000
Concrete overlay, bridge deck, approach and slope work $ 387,000 LeForge Liberty Main to Division Resurface $ 194,600 M‐17 US‐23 to Normal Full depth concrete repair $ 1,083,000 M‐52 Norfolk Southern Rail Crossing Crossing Upgrade N/A Maiden Lane Broadway to Fuller Resurface $ 229,000 Mansfield Michigan to End Reconstruct with base improvement $ 802,000 Mansfield Westmoreland to Congress Reconstruct $ 345,000 Wide Crack sealing $ 506,667 Table continuedMDOT on nextUniversity page Region University Region TCS 45
Roadway Project Limits Improvements Cost .5 Miles East of Gooding to Milan‐Oakville Milan City Limit Reconstruct with drainage improvements $ 2,800,000 Miller Ave 7th to Chapin‐Inbound Lane Resurfacing N/A Non‐motorized improvements City Wide Non‐motorized improvements $ 250,000 Non‐motorized improvements Various Locations Bike lane addition $ 70,000 Owen Place East of Harris Resurface $ 106,667 Packard FifthStadium to Hill to Eisenhower Resurface Signal interconnect $ $363,400 300,000 PackardPedestrian Safety Various Locations Pedestrian safety improvements $ 99,200 Platt Greenway Ellsworth to US‐12 Non‐motorized path addition $ 1,200,000 Plymouth at Gottfredson Intersection Install Signal and add turn lanes $ 480,000 Plymouth Road Bridge over Fleming Creek Bridge replacement $ 800,000 Preventive Maintenance Countywide Resurface $ 100,000 Risdon Dr. West of Harris Resurface $ 106,667 12 to Pleasant Ridge Storm sewer and pavement replacement $ 350,000 S. Harris US‐ Stadium Pauline to 650' East Reconstruct with utility improvements $ 2,162,823 State Stimson to 3850' South Resurface $ 835,300 State, Old State, Moon and Reconstruction, widening, updating Michigan Ave, State St. Crossing Intersections signals $ 1,300,000 Tefft Ct. East of Woodland Drive Resurface $ 106,667 Area Northfield Church Rest Area Replace building $ 2,750,000 US‐23 Northfield Church Rest Whittaker and Stony Creek Intersection Minor widening, construct roundabout $ 1,300,000 Willow Rd. Bridge West of Whittaker Bridge replacement $ 180,000 Source: Local Road Agencies
46 Map 10 Construction Projects, 2009
Source: WATS
47
48 ASSET MANAGEMENT In 2002, the State of Michigan appointed an Asset Management Council to administer a new process to maximize the use of state and federal road funds. The process includes data collection by three person teams consisting of representatives from MDOT, the local road agency, and the regional agency. Beginning in 2008, the program collected half of the federal aid miles. Using 2008 and 2009 data, the Washtenaw County Team rated 1648 miles of federal aid eligible roads.
The Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating System (PASER), is used to assign a rating from "1" (failed road) to "10" (new road/complete reconstruction). The state combines ratings from each county, and provides an annual report to the State Asset Management Council. The 2008/2009 ratings listed below for each community employ categories ranging from "Excellent" to "Failed". Table 22 highlights PASER ratings by jurisdiction and Map 11 shows ratings for each road.
Table 22 PASER Ratings by Community 2008/2009 Very Very Excellent Good Good Fair Poor Poor Failed 10987654321Total Ann Arbor City 1.5 6.2 11.4 15.4 13.2 14.1 28.2 22.6 10.1 0.0 122.7 Ann Arbor Township 0.0 5.0 18.0 8.6 30.0 25.1 7.4 9.4 4.1 0.0 107.6 Augusta Twp 2.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.6 10.0 11.4 28.3 5.7 0.0 60.7 Bridgewater Twp 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 13.7 6.7 1.8 0.0 32.7 Chelsea City 0.0 2.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.1 0.2 2.6 0.0 8.6 Dexter Village 0.00.00.00.00.01.41.52.30.00.05.2 Dexter Twp 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.2 5.4 7.7 21.8 6.3 9.4 0.0 53.0 Freedom Twp 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.1 15.4 5.1 0.0 0.0 25.7 Lima Twp 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 4.3 27.1 21.0 6.4 1.5 0.0 61.4 Lodi Twp 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 6.4 17.5 5.8 6.0 4.0 0.0 40.4 Lyndon Twp 0.0 8.3 6.2 0.1 3.0 9.2 16.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 43.5 Manchester Village0.00.60.00.61.11.40.40.70.00.04.9 Manchester Twp 0.0 0.0 5.2 10.2 5.2 0.0 3.3 18.1 2.2 0.0 44.3 Milan City 0.3 0.3 2.3 0.5 0.4 2.5 0.9 1.6 0.6 0.0 9.2 Northfield Twp 0.0 0.7 30.5 7.4 16.9 7.5 8.3 9.4 0.0 0.0 80.6 Pittsfield Twp 0.0 2.8 2.3 14.3 4.4 23.6 11.6 8.5 5.1 0.0 72.5 Salem Twp 0.0 0.0 6.4 2.9 10.6 19.1 18.0 23.6 4.8 0.0 85.4 Saline City 1.0 1.9 4.4 5.2 1.3 3.1 2.6 5.0 0.6 0.0 25.1 Saline Twp 0.0 2.3 7.2 0.4 0.2 3.9 17.2 5.5 0.0 0.0 36.7 Scio Twp 0.4 5.4 21.3 10.4 13.0 30.0 31.4 13.0 2.3 0.0 127.1 Sharon Twp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 27.8 0.2 0.1 32.6 Superior Twp 1.5 2.2 0.6 15.2 17.7 30.1 9.9 6.7 3.5 0.0 87.3 Sylvan Twp 0.0 7.1 1.2 14.2 20.4 12.2 16.3 12.2 3.3 0.0 86.9 Webster Twp 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.8 5.2 14.2 7.1 11.3 1.2 0.0 40.4 York Twp 0.5 2.0 27.8 5.4 10.5 13.5 21.0 24.8 10.0 0.0 115.5 Ypsilanti City 0.7 2.1 3.6 9.1 6.1 11.5 10.1 8.7 4.7 0.0 56.7 Ypsilanti Twp 0.9 8.7 21.2 30.4 19.8 31.2 34.1 25.8 9.3 0.0 181.6 2008/2009 Totals 8.8 67.5 175.2 153.9 196.9 321.4 341.4 296.1 87.0 0.1 1648.2 Percentage 1% 4% 11% 9% 12% 19% 21% 18% 5% 0% 100% Source: WATS
49
50 Map 11 Asset Management PASER Ratings, 2008/2009
*Note: Gravel federal aid eligible roads are not rated, which is why some ratings on the map appear to stub, and not connect with other federal aid roads
Source: WATS
51
52 Between 2003 and 2009, the amount of poor pavement grew while pavement in fair condition deteriorated. There were slight increases in pavement in good condition, now accounting for approximately 15% of the county total. Chart 6 shows road condition trends since 2003. The cost of returning roads to good pavement has increased over time due to pavement degradation. Chart 7 shows the general increase in cost of returning to good pavement condition since 2003.
Chart 6 2003-2009 Pavement Condition of Eligible Federal Roads 60% 50% Miles 40% Lane 30% 2003 of
20% 2004 10% 2005 Percent 2008/2009 0% 2007 2008/2009
PASER Rating
Source: WATS
Chart 7 Cost of Returning All Roads to Good Pavement
17% $430 $410 15% $390 Miles
13% $370 Lane $350
of 11% $330
9% $310 Millions
Percent $290 7% Good Pavement $270 5% $250 Cost
Source: WATS
53 TRAFFIC CRASHES Eleven law enforcement agencies within Washtenaw County report traffic crashes; this includes Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Saline, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield, Northfield and Milan Police Departments, the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Department, the Michigan State Police, and the Eastern Michigan University and University of Michigan Departments of Public Safety.
The State of Michigan bases crash level on the highest-level injury involved and statistics reflect only the severity of crash injuries rather than the total number of injuries per crash. Property damage crashes with no injury occur most frequently. There were 27 fatal crashes in 2009, two less than the 29 in 2008. Table 23 shows 2009 Washtenaw County crashes by community and type.
Table 23 Washtenaw County Injury Crashes by Injury Type, 2009 Non‐ Fatal Incapacitating Incapacitating Possible No Injury Total Urban Ann Arbor 0 19 106 416 2,187 2,728 Ann Arbor Twp 1 9 31 87 466 594 Barton Hills 0 0 0 0 1 1 Dexter 02 264656 Milan 0 0 4 3 56 63 Pittsfield Twp 5 20 46 157 977 1,205 Saline 0 2 1 14 126 143 Scio Twp 2 9 26 57 487 581 Superior Twp 3 3 17 30 185 238 Ypsilanti 2 7 17 107 555 688 Ypsilanti Twp 5 18 68 176 886 1,153 Urban Total 18 89 318 1,053 5,972 7,450 Urban Fringe Chelsea 0 0 3 11 115 129 Dexter Twp 1 7 9 19 107 143 Lodi Twp 1 3 11 15 118 148 Northfield Twp 1 10 15 42 247 315 Salem Twp 0 3 7 21 135 166 Webster Twp 0 3 14 21 142 180 York Twp 0 5 11 23 190 229 Urban Fringe Total 3 31 70 152 1,054 1,310 Rural Augusta Twp 1 3 3 14 80 101 Bridgewater Twp 0 3 5 8 78 94 Freedom Twp 0 1 4 7 41 53 Lima Twp 1 2 7 25 129 164 Lyndon Twp 1 2 2 13 65 83 Manchester 0 0 0 3 21 24 Manchester Twp 0 1 2 3 63 69 Saline Twp 0 3 5 5 49 62 Sharon Twp 0 1 0 11 56 68 Sylvan Twp 3 2 13 27 220 265 Rural Total 6 18 41 116 802 983 Total 27 138 429 1,321 7,828 9,743 Source: www.MichiganTrafficCrashFacts.org
54 INTERSECTION CRASH AND INJURY RANKINGS WATS ranks intersections according to the number and rate of crashes occurring at each location. Crash rate is defined as the number of crashes per year divided by the average daily traffic on a roadway. WATS creates a combined ranking by adding the crash rate ranking and crash frequency ranking. Table 24 ranks the twenty highest intersections in Washtenaw County by combined crash rank and Table 25 lists the twenty highest crash locations by combined injury rank. Injury rate, like crash rate, is defined as the number of injuries per year at an intersection divided by the average daily traffic on a roadway. Both tables include data within a 150-foot radius of the intersection.
The purpose of ranking intersections is to examine where possible problems exist. A high number of crashes do not imply that an intersection is unsafe; however, it does indicate a need for evaluation. Many factors influence how many crashes and injuries occur at an intersection such as crash type, traffic volume, pavement conditions, weather, as well as many others.
Table 24 Top 20 Intersections by Crash Ranking Crash Total Crashes Freqency Crash Crash Rate Combined Street Cross Street 2007‐2009 Rank Rate Rank Rank Washtenaw Ave Carpenter Rd 160 1 2.60 8 1 Washtenaw Ave Golfside Dr 130 3 2.50 12 2 Packard St Carpenter Rd 137 2 2.47 15 3 Jackson Rd Zeeb Rd 8862.2324 4 W Michigan Ave Carpenter Rd 100 5 2.06 32 5 W Michigan Ave N Hamilton 46 29 2.41 17 6 Maiden Ln Fuller Rd 65 13 2.05 33 7 E Huron River Dr Golfside Dr 51 22 2.09 30 8 Washtenaw Ave N US 23 Ramp 109 4 1.62 49 9 Carpenter Rd E Ellsworth Rd8091.6845 10 W Michigan Ave N Huron St 74 11 1.67 46 11 S Division St E William St 38 44 2.37 19 12 S Hewitt E Ellsworth Rd 66 12 1.52 56 13 E Liberty St S Division St 37 46 2.18 26 14 E William St S 5th Ave 36 52 2.28 22 15 S State Rd E Michigan Ave 43 39 1.99 35 16 Old US 12 Main St 45 31 1.58 53 17 E Stadium Blvd Packard St 60 17 1.45 69 18 N Main St Catherine St 36 51 1.84 38 19 N Prospect St Ford Rd 31 74 2.29 21 20 Source: Roadsoft GIS
55 Table 25 Top 20 Intersections by Injury Ranking Injury Injury Injury Combined Frequency Frequency Injury Rate Injury Rate Street Cross Street 2007‐2009 Rank Rate Rank Rank Packard St Carpenter Rd 23 1 0.41419 10 1 N Hewitt Rd Washtenaw Ave 21 2 0.41489 9 2 E William St S Division St 11 14 0.68726 1 3 Moon Rd S State Rd 12 13 0.55407 3 4 Jackson Rd S Zeeb Rd 16 4 0.40537 13 5 E Michigan Ave N Harris Rd 12 13 0.50377 5 6 E Michigan Ave N Prospect St 15 5 0.39278 14 7 N Medical Center Dr Fuller Rd 13 9 0.41045 11 8 Dorset Ave US‐12 14 7 0.39051 15 9 Washtenaw Ave Golfside Dr 17 3 0.32666 25 10 N Earhart Pl Plymouth Rd 10 20 0.45385 8 11 W Liberty St W Stadium Blvd 12 13 0.38657 16 12 Hubbard St S Huron Pkwy 10 20 0.37488 17 13 S University Ave S State St 9 30 0.45387 7 14 Carpenter Rd W Michigan Ave 14 7 0.28859 31 15 W Packard Rd N Hewitt Rd 10 20 0.35010 21 16 Hogback Rd Washtenaw Ave 15 5 0.24378 37 17 W Packard Rd Golfside Dr 11 14 0.29730 30 18 Hill St Washtenaw Ave 10 20 0.32596 26 19 N Prospect St Ford Rd 8 44 0.59062 2 20 Source: Roadsoft GIS
56 PASSENGER VEHICLE REGISTRATION The vehicles registered to Washtenaw County drivers provide an approximation of vehicles available to the population. Available vehicles influence the total trips made and the travel modes used. Table 26 shows Washtenaw County registration data from 1999-2009. Registrations grew steadily the first three years, but fell off after the economic downturn. Registrations in 2009 declined for the first time since 2003. Growth over the last decade averaged 1.38% per year.
Table 26 Non-Expired Vehicle Registration in Washtenaw County, 1999-2009 Passenger Commercial Recreational Percent Fiscal Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Change from Year Registration Registration Registration Previous Year 1999 215,230 22,596 4,213 ‐ 2000 220,596 23,855 4,343 2.79% 2001 224,689 24,957 4,397 2.11% 2002 229,086 25,715 4,389 2.03% 2003 232,270 26,060 4,445 1.38% 2004 234,557 26,746 4,454 1.13% 2005 235,555 29,789 4,937 1.70% 2006 236,945 32,246 5,079 1.48% 2007 237,566 34,648 5,237 1.16% 2008 236,153 36,182 5,347 0.08% 2009 234,318 37,687 5,383 ‐0.11% Source: Michigan Secretary of State
BRIDGES Washtenaw County has 295 bridges over 20 feet in length. The State of Michigan requires bridges to be inspected and ranked at least every two years. WATS uses the State’s condition and appraisal ratings to identify bridges that are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The Federal Highway Administration, which defines these terms, limits their use to bridges carrying vehicle traffic, not railroad or pedestrian traffic.
A bridge is structurally deficient if it has received a condition rating of poor or worse for deck, superstructure, or substructure. These bridges have a high priority need for replacement. Functionally obsolete bridges do not pass the current standards for road width or roadway alignment, but remain structurally sound.
A structurally deficient bridge is more serious than one with functional obsolescence; the State identifies bridges qualifying for both classifications as structurally deficient. A bridge is eligible for funds from the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program or the States Local Bridge Program once classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
In Washtenaw County, there are 52 structurally deficient and 49 functionally obsolete bridges. Table 27 and Table 28 show the bridge ranking by owner and by municipality. Map 12 shows the locations of the deficient bridges. Approximately 35% of bridges within the county require repair.
57 Bridges shorter than 20 feet and culverts are not considered major spans, and are not evaluated or included in the rankings. Although not ranked, these bridges/culverts encounter similar problems and may close for repair occasionally.
Table 27 Bridge Ranking by Jurisdiction MDOT WCRC Local Total Structurally Deficient 14 34 4 52 Functionally Obsolete 24 14 11 49 Source: SEMCOG Table 28 Bridge Status by Municipality Structurally Functionally Total Deficient Obsolete Bridges Urban Ann Arbor 3 14 33 Ann Arbor Twp 5 10 33 Barton Hills 0 0 0 Dexter 0 0 0 Milan 0 0 3 Pittsfield Twp 1 2 21 Saline 0 2 5 Scio Twp 3 1 28 Superior Twp 3 2 13 Ypsilanti 3 2 10 Ypsilanti Twp 5 7 29 Urban Total 23 40 175 Urban Fringe Chelsea 0 0 1 Dexter Twp 3 0 4 Lodi Twp 0 0 4 Northfield Twp 2 0 10 Salem Twp 0 0 5 Webster Twp 0 1 2 York Twp 4 1 15 Urban Fringe Total 9 2 41 Rural Augusta Twp 4 1 19 Bridgewater Twp 1 0 5 Freedom Twp 0 0 0 Lima Twp 7 2 26 Lyndon Twp 0 0 1 Manchester 1 1 4 Manchester Twp 0 0 1 Saline Twp 3 2 7 Sharon Twp 2 0 5 Sylvan Twp 2 1 11 Rural Total 20 7 79 Total 52 49 295 Source: SEMCOG
58 Map 12 Washtenaw County Bridge Deficiencies 2009
Source: SEMCOG
59
60
TRANSIT
IV. TRANSIT
Multiple transit agencies provide public transportation to Washtenaw County. The primary agency is the Ann Arbor Transportation Agency (AATA), which provides fixed route service throughout Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and in portions of Pittsfield, Superior, and Ypsilanti Townships. People’s Express (PEX) and the Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express (WAVE) provide demand- response service in a large portion of the non-urban area and into the urban area where they connect to AATA service. WAVE also provides fixed route service connecting Chelsea, Dexter, and Ann Arbor. The University of Michigan provides extensive fixed route transit service between campus destinations. Public school systems throughout the county provide student transportation. Amtrak provides the only passenger rail service to the county. Private agencies provide a variety of services, including bus, shuttle, and taxi services. Several non-profit agencies, such as Manchester Senior Services (MSS), provide transportation to seniors only.
TRANSIT PROVIDERS Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) The mission of AATA, as stated on its website, is to “Provide useful, reliable, safe, environmentally responsible and cost-effective public transportation options for the benefit of the Greater Ann Arbor Community”. AATA programs and services aim to serve senior citizens, people with disabilities, economically disadvantaged, students including K - 12, commuters, choice riders, and special event riders. The AATA provides fixed route service within a quarter mile of 95% of City of Ann Arbor residents. It also provides park and ride lots, online route scheduling, ridesharing, and discounted rates for youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities.
Routes connect to non-motorized facilities, major employment centers, and park and ride lots. The AATA provides several additional services including: the A2Express commuter routes to Chelsea and Canton, A-Ride demand-response service for seniors and people with disabilities, Night Ride late-night shared-ride taxi service, and shuttle services for the annual Art Fairs and UM football games. While AATA is the primary recipient of state and federal funds, several small rural transit providers receive funding through AATA.
Fixed Route Service Fixed route service provided by AATA operates within the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and in portions of Pittsfield, Superior, and Ypsilanti Townships. In 2009, the AATA operated twenty- seven fixed routes within the urban area. In Ann Arbor, service hours were from 6:00 a.m. to 10:45 p.m. weekdays and 8:15 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Communities outside of Ann Arbor have reduced service hours. Ann Arbor routes operate with service at least every 30 minutes weekdays, and hourly service evenings and weekends. Frequent service operates on routes to downtown Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan campus.
AATA fixed route service also incorporates multi-modal transportation options. There are easy- load bike racks on the front of all fixed route buses and low floor entries to accommodate strollers and wheelchairs. The Park and Ride program combines five free parking lots located throughout Washtenaw County with frequent bus service, saving commuters the cost of parking and easing overall traffic congestion in Ann Arbor.
63 After School Service Huron and Pioneer High School students who have extended-day 7th hour classes may use AATA bus service to get home. These students obtain a pass that allows them to ride free from bus stops in front of the school after the end of classes. Paratransit Services (Demand Response) AATA also provides shared ride services within the greater Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti area. A-Ride A-Ride is a shared-ride door-to-door transportation service for individuals unable to use AATA fixed-route bus service due to the effects of a disability. Users of A-Ride must possess an AATA ADA Eligibility Card. Taxicabs, small buses, or lift-equipped vans provide the service. Night Ride Night Ride is a late night, shared-ride taxi service. The AATA initiated Night Ride to address Ann Arbor’s need for safe, low-cost transportation after the fixed route service terminates. Anyone may use Night Ride, but trips are limited to within the city limits of Ann Arbor.
Holiday Ride Holiday Ride is a shared-ride taxi service within the City of Ann Arbor that operates on major holidays when AATA regular service does not. Holiday Ride operates similar to Night Ride. Anyone within the city limits of Ann Arbor may call for a ride on New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, and Christmas Day. Senior Ride The Senior Ride program offers group trips for senior citizens to grocery stores from some senior citizen housing complexes. The housing complexes prearrange these trips with AATA. AATA Shuttles Art Fair Shuttle Parking shuttles carry Art Fair patrons from parking lots on the periphery of Ann Arbor directly to and from locations within the Art Fair.
Football Ride Parking shuttles carry University of Michigan football spectators from various locations throughout Ann Arbor including hotels and Briarwood Mall directly to and from Michigan Stadium.
Commuter Express Services A2 Chelsea Express: Provides weekday express service for commuters from Chelsea to Ann Arbor. Two trips depart to Ann Arbor daily in the morning, and two return trips return to Chelsea during evening peak hours. A2 Canton Express: Provides weekday express service for commuters from Canton to Ann Arbor. Two trips depart to Ann Arbor daily in the morning, and two return trips return to Canton during evening peak hours.
64 Fares AATA’s fare structure provides significant discounts for riders with disabilities, income eligible, and seniors. The base fare for fixed route service is $1.50; however, fares are waived for seniors over 65 and individuals that qualify for ADA status. Income eligible riders, those between ages 60 and 64, and those with disabilities unable to qualify for ADA status pay a $0.75 fare for fixed route service.
M-Ride AATA operates a program called M-Ride, which offers trips on AATA buses to University of Michigan students, faculty, and staff at no cost to the rider. This program began in August of 2004 and resulted in a significant increase in AATA ridership. The University and AATA boards approved a new five-year contract effective August 2010 through July 2015. With the new contract, the university pays a $1.00 fee for each rider. AATA estimates the 5-year contract’s value at $1.8 million per year, with ($1.1 million) from federal funds earned by University of Michigan Transit Operations, and the remainder from University of Michigan general funds.
Nearly 40% of the 5,630,030 AATA bus riders during FY 2009 were University of Michigan students, faculty, or employees. This percentage has remained steady since 2006, the second year of the initial M-Ride contract.
M-Ride’s many direct impacts for Ann Arbor include reduced traffic congestion, greater student access to retail and entertainment venues, reduced traffic volume on local streets, increased AATA ridership, and greater federal funding. The program benefits the University of Michigan by reducing parking demand. The university is monitoring the M-Ride program to measure service quality, transportation standards, and customer feedback. The university plans to continue tracking increases in ridership, as well as conduct surveys of the participating and non-participating university population to understand rider needs and level of satisfaction. getDowntown The getDowntown Program, a partnership between the AATA and the Ann Arbor DDA, provides low cost bus passes to downtown employees. The program is designed to reduce parking demand downtown. The Ann Arbor DDA subsidizes the cost of the passes, which cost $5 per year, paid for by the employer. Table 29 summarizes fare and discount information for AATA’s fixed route, Paratransit, and shared ride services.
65 Table 29 AATA Fares Fixed Route, Art Fair, and Football Shuttles Full Fare $1.50 Students/youth up to 18 $.75 (under 5 ride free) Transfer Free Fare Deal Card: Income Eligible, Age 60‐64, and Persons with Disabilities unable to qualify for ADA $0.75 fares 30 day pass $58.00 Senior, Disability, & Income Eligible 30 day pass $29.00 Seniors 65+ and ADA fare Free go!pass Holders Free U of M faculty, staff & students Free A2 Express‐Canton, Chelsea One Way $5.00 10‐Ride Ticket $40.00 30‐Day Pass $99.00 A‐Ride Same Day Fare $4.00 Advanced Reservation Fare $3.00 Companion Fare $3.00 Companion Fare (Student K‐12) $1.50 Companion Fare (5 and Younger) Free Personal Care Assistant (Registered) Free Night Ride and Holiday Ride Cash Fare $5.00 per trip Seniors 65+ and individuals with disabilities $2.50 per trip go!pass Holders $1.00 per trip Senior Ride Cash Fare $0.75 per trip Source: AATA
66 Revenues and Expenditures During Fiscal Year 2009, fare revenue received by the AATA totaled $3,650,594. Total operating revenue in Fiscal Year 2009 was $23,646,679. Local revenues, which included Ann Arbor’s millage and local purchase of service agreements, represented 44% of AATA’s 2009 budget. Fare revenues and local funds together represented 59% of AATA’s budget, up from 56% in 2007. Total expenses for Fiscal Year 2009 were $23,607,582. Salary, wages, and benefits accounted for 56.9% of AATA’s expenditures, down from 59.2% in 2007. Purchased transportation expenditures, which include contracts with private providers for Demand Response services, grew $900,000 from 2007 to 2009, representing 20% of the budget in 2009. Table 30 depicts revenue and expenditure categorizations from Fiscal Year 2009.
Table 30 AATA Revenues and Expenditures-Fiscal Years 2007 to 2009 Operating Revenue 2007 2008 2009 Fare Revenues $3,306,589 (14%) $3,277,985 (14%) $3,650,594 (15%) Local Funds $9,798,597 (42%) $10,480,096 (44%) $10,435,535 (44%) State Revenues $7,085,233 (30%) $7,176,635 (30%) $6,942,908 (29%) Federal Assistance $2,229,308 (10%) $2,113,677 (9%) $2,355,572 (10%) Other Revenues $973,017 (4%) $730,412 (3%) $262,070 (1%) Total Revenues $23,392,744 $23,778,805 $23,646,679
Operating Expenses Salary, Wages, and Benefits $13,822,817 (59%) $13,574,793 (57%) $13,430,056 (57%) Materials and Supplies $3,201,483 (14%) $3,136,080 (13%) $2,996,419 (13%) Purchased Transportation $3,816,113 (16%) $4,394,882 (19%) $4,714,736 (20%) Other Operating Expenses $2,507,283 (11%) $2,629,187 (11%) $2,466,371 (10%) Total Operating Expenses $23,347,696 $23,734,942 $23,607,582
Operating Gain (Loss) $45,048 $43,863 $39,097 Source: National Transit Database
Ridership and Vehicle Mileage The AATA compiles monthly ridership reports to examine average daily, monthly, and yearly trends in ridership. AATA Fare boxes collect ridership data by tracking the total number of fares paid and the use of special program cards. Table 31 shows average ridership and miles from 2005-2009 and Table 32 shows monthly and annual ridership figures as collected by AATA. Since 2005, service has become more productive as ridership growth has outpaced the growth or decline in vehicle miles.
67 Table 31 AATA Transit Data, Fiscal Years 2005-2009 % Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005‐2009 Avg. weekday daily ridership 17,490 19,798 20,525 22,254 22,506 28.7% Avg. weekend ridership 8,038 8,854 8,782 9,388 9,684 20.5% Avg. weekday vehicle miles 13,843 14,156 14,366 14,984 15,164 9.5% Avg. weekend vehicle miles 7,760 6,950 7,297 7,107 6,977 ‐10.1% Source: National Transit Database
Table 32 Monthly AATA Ridership during Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, and 2009 % Change Month 2007 2008 2009 2007 to 2009 October 560,420 612,065 669,126 19% November 508,611 531,921 524,746 3% December 410,927 416,676 468,464 14% January 509,665 555,483 552,484 8% February 448,526 493,257 499,517 11% March 514,286 546,410 604,203 17% April 466,307 522,603 547,453 17% May 412,336 430,496 419,176 2% June 387,187 424,951 429,982 11% July 461,328 519,248 514,095 11% August 418,035 448,036 407,856 ‐2% September 539,807 636,449 635,483 18% Total 5,637,435 6,137,595 6,272,585 11% Source: National Transit Database
AATA Fleet There are 74 buses in AATA’s active service fleet, all of which are ADA accessible and equipped with bike racks. Thirteen of these buses are part of AATA’s contingency fleet for emergency or special events. The oldest fleet owned by AATA was purchased in 1999 and the newest in 2009. AATA began the process of converting its entire bus fleet to hybrid electric technology when it introduced its first 15 hybrid electric buses in October 2007. By the end of 2009, AATA had grown its hybrid fleet to 27, more than a third of the agency’s buses. AATA plans to continue its conversion over the long term as buses reach the 12-year federal replacement standard. Table 33 shows AATA’s fleet and capacity information.
Table 33 AATA Fleet Capacity Number of Buses Seated Capacity 52 37‐40 16 32 627 Source: AATA
68 AATA Fixed Route Rider Survey In October 2009, AATA conducted an on-board Fixed Route Rider Survey of 3,028 riders. Included in the survey were questions regarding demographics, trip purpose, frequency of use, and riders’ satisfaction with AATA service. The data was collected to evaluate and understand rider needs and travel patterns to assist AATA in improving service.
The survey data indicated that 57% of people riding AATA are younger than 29; people ages 30-39 account for another 16%, and age 40-49 accounted for 11%. In all, people younger than 49 account for 84% of the AATA Ridership. Only two percent of fixed-route riders are 70 years or older. Of all riders surveyed, 52% were students, which accounts for the heavy ridership among younger people. Chart 8 shows ridership by age.
Chart 8 AATA Ridership by Age, October 2009
2%
4% 10%
11%
57% 16%
<=29 30‐39 40‐49 50‐59 60‐69 70+
Source: 2009 AATA Transit Survey
When asked how often riders use AATA service, 36% responded six or seven days a week, 42% rode four or five days, and 22% rode one to three days per week. Of all riders surveyed, over one third had a valid driver’s license and vehicle yet chose to use public transit. Among frequent riders (6-7 trips per week), more than half had a valid license and vehicle available, yet chose to use AATA. Chart 9 shows ridership frequency, and Chart 10 displays modal choice according to ridership frequency.
69 Chart 9 AATA Ridership Frequency, October 2009
22% 36% Intensive ‐ 6 or 7 Days
Frequent ‐ 4 or 5 Days
Occasional ‐ 3 Days or Less
42%
Source: 2009 AATA Transit Survey
Chart 10 Modal Choice and Frequency of AATA Ridership
100% 0.22 0.28 0.29 80% 0.39
0.24 60% 0.34 0.43 40% 0.39 0.54 20% 0.37 0.29 0.22 0% Occasional Frequent Intensive Combined Licensed and vehicle available Licensed, but no vehicle No License
Source: 2009 AATA Transit Survey
When asked for trip purpose, 35% of riders responded that they use AATA service for work or business, and 40.3% responded they use AATA service for school. The work/school combination accounted for 16,950 trips per day, 75.3% of daily trips. Chart 11 shows ridership according to trip purpose.
70 Chart 11 AATA Rider Trip Purpose, October 2009
1.0% 0.3% 0.1%
School / College 23.2% Work 40.3% Shopping Social visit or recreation Doctor / Medical 35.0% Church
Source: 2009 AATA Transit Survey
University Of Michigan University of Michigan provides fixed route transit services primarily to student, faculty, and staff. Service connects the university’s major housing developments and commuter lots to the North, South, Central, and Medical campuses. Additionally, intercampus shuttle service connects to locations on the medical campus and to some satellite medical facilities.
University of Michigan Transportation provides fixed route bus service at 10-minute headway intervals during peak hours to its Ann Arbor campuses and commuter lots. Service during non- peak hours operates at 20-minute intervals. Medical campus routes operate from 6:40 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday. Service to the South, Central, and North campuses operates 7:00 am to 2:00 am Sunday through Thursday, and from 7:00 am to 3:00 am Friday and Saturday. The service does not operate during school holidays.
Paratransit Services In addition to fixed route service, University of Michigan offers free on-demand/door-to-door service for students and faculty with short term or permanent disabilities. The service operates year-round Monday through Friday, except university holidays and breaks.
Ride Home is an afterhours (2:00am to 7:00 am) taxicab service available to students, faculty, and staff, providing transportation to residence halls, parked vehicles, and local residences.
Charter Services The University of Michigan buses are also available to its departments and student organizations for charter. The charter rate is $68.32 per hour, or $205.00, whichever is greater.
71 Ridership and Vehicle Mileage Ridership on the University of Michigan’s bus system has risen steadily since 2005. In 2009, the system served an average of 22,260 riders per weekday and 5,927,027 riders annually. Average vehicle miles have declined 40 miles since 2008. The University of Michigan fleet traveled 956,205 revenue miles, at an expense of $6.38 per mile. Table 34 shows miles and ridership.
Table 34 University of Michigan Transit Data, FY 2005-2009 % Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005‐2009 Avg. Weekday Daily Ridership 20,062 21,460 22,138 22,060 22,260 11.0% Avg. Weekend Daily Ridership 2,539 2,995 2,896 3,214 3,159 24.4% Total Ridership 5,282,764 5,682,304 5,827,942 5,846,091 5,927,027 12.2% Avg. Weekday Vehicle Miles 4,079 4,061 4,057 4,048 3,997 ‐2.0% Avg. Weekend Vehicle Miles 1,253 1,454 1,406 1,332 1,344 7.3% Source: National Transit Database www.ntdprogram.gov
University of Michigan Fleet The University of Michigan bus fleet is comprised of 59 University-owned buses with an average age of 6.1 years. The peak service uses thirty-six buses to accommodate maximum demand. Buses operate using B-20 biodiesel most months; however use #1 diesel on cold days during the winter.
Revenues and Expenditures During Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, fare revenue received by the University of Michigan Transit Service from charter services totaled $1,464,508. State funds totaled $4,392,709, and made up 70% of total revenues. Total operating revenue was $6,251,325. Total expenses for FY-2009 were $6,233,172. Sixty-Eight percent of operating expenses went to salary, wages, and benefits. Table 35 shows revenue and expenditure categorizations from fiscal year 2009.
Table 35 University of Michigan Revenues and Expenses, FY-2009 Operating Revenue Fare Revenues $1,464,508 (23%) State Revenues $4,392,709 (70%) Other Revenues $394,108 (6%) Total Revenues $6,251,325 (100%)
Operating Expenses Salary, Wages, and Benefits $4,252,055 (68%) Materials and Supplies $1,442,558 (23%) Purchased Transportation $127,212 (2%) Other Expenses $411,347 (7%) Total Operating Expenses $6,233,172 (100%)
Operating Gain (Loss) $18,153 Source: National Transit Database www.ntdprogram.gov
72 People’s Express (Northfield Human Services) The People’s Express (PEX) is a division of Northfield Human Services. Founded in 1991, Northfield Human Services addresses human service needs in Northfield Township. Under the direction of a number of dedicated individuals and with local businesses, clubs, and private citizen support, the organization sought to address the transportation needs of low-income individuals in Northfield Township. These efforts resulted in the formation of the People’s Express transportation service. People’s Express is a non-profit transit provider.
Service and Ridership The People’s Express has service contracts with a number of agencies including the Area Agency on Aging 1-B, Michigan Ability Partners (MAP), Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), University of Michigan Hospital, and the City of Saline. The service transports individuals with disabilities, low income, students, seniors and veterans to a number of locations throughout Southeast Michigan. Destinations include schools, medical facilities, hospitals, and places of employment. The People’s Express primarily provides services for residents of the City of Saline and the Townships of Ann Arbor, Bridgewater, Northfield, Pittsfield, Salem, Saline, Scio, Webster, and York. PEX serves certain destinations in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. It also serves parts of southeastern Livingston County, southwestern Oakland County and western Wayne County. People’s Express requires an application to determine rider eligibility.
Ann Arbor Commuter Route The Ann Arbor Commuter Route provides service to park and ride lots along the US 23 Corridor, and connect to Ann Arbor. Vans service the Lee Road/US-23 parking lot, M-36/US-23 parking lot, and several bus stops in Ann Arbor on weekdays from 6:30 am-5:30 pm.
Scio Township Connector In 2008, Scio Township began a partnership with People’s Express to provide transit service to the Jackson Corridor. The bus follows a fixed route along the corridor, with stops Scio Farms Estates-a mobile home community, the Meijer store at Jackson and Zeeb roads, Lake Stone Apartments, and the AATA bus stop at Wagner and Jackson.
Ride to Health People’s Express’ Ride-to-Health program provides access to physical and mental health appointments for Washtenaw Urban County Townships.
Dollar to Ride The Dollar to Ride program provides scheduled door-to-door trips to qualified individuals for medical, educational, work, and personal rides.
Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Rides People’s Express established their Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program to address the unique transportation challenges faced by welfare recipients and low-income persons seeking to obtain and maintain employment. Many new entry-level jobs are located in suburban areas, and low-income individuals may have difficulty accessing these jobs from their inner city, urban, or rural neighborhoods. People’s Express provides low-cost rides every two hours at the M-36 and US-23 intersection car pool area for individuals to transfer and travel to work in Washtenaw County.
73 Fares People’s Express fares vary based on the destination and origin of riders. Riders who travel within affiliate jurisdictions pay $2.00 each way, those who travel outside of affiliate jurisdictions pay $4.00 each way. People’s Express affiliate jurisdictions are Ann Arbor Township, Bridgewater Township, Northfield Township, Pittsfield Charter Township, Salem Township, Superior Township, City of Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Charter Township. People’s Express offers $1.00 fares to those who qualify. Applications for this program are on the organization’s website. Table 36 summarizes People’s Express’ fare structure.
Table 36 People’s Express Fares Fares $1.00 One way trips if qualified for a Current Program (Application required) $2.00 One‐Way trips within affiliate jurisdiction $4.00 One‐Way trips outside affiliate jurisdiction Source: People’s Express
Fleet There are 32 vehicles in the People’s Express fleet, including vans and buses. People’s Express’ oldest vehicle is a 1998 van, and its newest are several vans and a bus purchased in 2009. Seating capacities range from five passengers to 21+2 passengers. Table 37 shows People’s Express’ current vehicle fleet. The federal government recommends replacing vans and other smaller vehicles every 4-7 years.
Table 37 People’s Express Fleet Seating Quantity Type Capacity Vehicle Model Year 1 Van 3+2 2004 8 Van 5 1998, 1999 (3), 2001 (3), 2002 2 Van 7 1999, 2000 8 Van 7+1 2003, 2004, 2010 (6) 1Small Bus 13+1 2003 4Small Bus 13+2 2002 (2), 2004, 2005 2Medium Bus 15+1 2009 (2) 3Medium Bus 16+1 2003 (3) 1Medium Bus 18+1 2009 1Medium Bus 20+4 2010 1Medium Bus 21+2 1997 A '+' indicates wheelchair tie down locations. Add two more seats per wheelchair tie down location if the tie down is not in use. For example: 18+2 = 22 seats without wheelchairs, or 18 seats with two wheelchairs Source: MDOT
74 Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express (WAVE) The Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express (WAVE) provides transportation to meet the weekday needs of older adults, persons with disabilities, and choice riders. WAVE provides fixed route bus service connecting Chelsea with Dexter and Ann Arbor, door-to-door service in Chelsea, Dexter, and portions of the adjacent townships, and privately funded shuttle bus trips for special events.
Door-to-Door Service WAVE operates door-to-door bus programs in the Chelsea area and in the Dexter School District. The service is available to anyone but used primarily by elderly and disabled riders to reach medical appointments. Rider must schedule trips as early as possible and standing ride appointments are available.
Inter-Urban Express (Community Connector) An inter-urban express route, the Community Connector, originates in Chelsea, travels through Dexter, and makes pre-arranged stops along the Jackson Road corridor connecting to the AATA Route 9 at Jackson/Wagner Roads. The Inter-Urban Express operates Monday - Friday 5:30am - 7:15pm and connects with AATA buses six times per day.
Fares See Table 38 for the door-to-door service fare structure. Fares for the Interurban service vary according to distance; see Table 39 for the full fare structure.
Table 38 WAVE Door-to-Door Service Fare Structure Children Under 5Ride free when accompanied by a parent Personal Care Attendants* Ride free Senior or Person with Disability $2.00 within the city or village limits Senior or Person with Disability $2.50 local outside city or village limits Under Age 65 $4.00 within the city or village limits Under Age 65 $5.00 local outside city or village limits Source: WAVE
Table 39 Inter-Urban Express Fare Structure Senior or Disabled $1.00 Between Jackson/Wagner & Dexter Under 65 $2.00 Senior or Disabled $1.50 From Jackson/Wagner to Beyond Dexter Under 65 $3.00 UM ID Holders Between Jackson/Wagner & Senior or Disabled Free Dexter Under 65 $0.50 UM ID Holders From Jackson/Wagner to Senior or Disabled Free Beyond Dexter Under 65 $1.50 WAVE offers the senior/disabled rate to AATA Fare Deal Card Holders Source: WAVE
75 Ridership, Revenues, and Expenditures During Fiscal Year 2009, seniors or seniors with a disability accounted for 30% of WAVE’s total 24,478 riders, 44% were non-senior with a disability, and 23% were choice riders. The most common trip purposes for WAVE riders were medical needs, special trips, and employment. Table 40 shows the Fiscal Year 2009 operating budget and Table 41 displays the WAVE Fiscal Year 2009 miles and ridership. WAVE uses a variety of funding sources including partnership with AATA, federal funds for vehicles, fares from community shuttles and events, and the City of Chelsea debt forgiveness program.
Table 40 FY-2009 Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express Revenues and Expenses Operating Revenues $454,018 Operating Expenses $429,932
Operating Gain (Loss) $24,086 Source: WAVE
Table 41 Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express Transit Data for FY-2009 Average Daily Ridership 75 Annual Ridership 24,478
Average Daily Vehicle Miles 472 Annual Vehicle Miles 153,706 Source: WAVE
Vehicles WAVE’s fleet consists of seven vehicles, including vans and buses. WAVE’s oldest vehicle is a 2004 minivan, and its newest is a bus purchased in 2009. Seating capacities range from six passengers to 18+2 passengers. Table 42 shows WAVE’s current vehicle fleet.
Table 42 WAVE Vehicle Fleet Wheel Chair Quantity Type Seating Capacity Entry Vehicle Age 1 Minivan 6 Ramp 2004 2Medium Bus 18 + 2 Lift 2005, 2009 1Small Bus 12 + 2 Lift 2004 2 Extened Van 7 + 1Lift and aisle 2005 (2) 1Small Bus 14 + 2 Lift 2008 A '+' indicates wheelchair tie down locations. Add two more seats per wheelchair tie down location if the tie down is not in use. For example: 18+2 = 22 seats without wheelchairs, or 18 seats with two wheelchairs Source: WAVE
76 Manchester Senior Services The Manchester Senior Services (MSS) is a non-profit volunteer organization that provides transit service to all seniors who live in or near the Village of Manchester.
Service and Ridership Table 43 shows revenues, mileage, and ridership from 2009. Funding for the MSS transportation service comes from grants, village/township subsidies, and fares.
Table 43 Manchester Senior Services 2009 Revenues, Mileage, and Ridership Ridership 3,700
Operating Revenues $19,000 Mileage 10,000 Source: Manchester Senior Services
Services provided by MSS include shopping trips, transportation for local and out-of-town medical appointments, and transportation for special events. Demand response services operate Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays from 9:00 am until 2:00 pm. The MSS provides transportation to its meal program, which provides meals to seniors in and around the Village of Manchester every Tuesday and Thursday at Emanuel Fellowship Hall.
Fares The fare for service within the village is $1.00. Beyond the village limits, the fare is $2.00 for a 2-5 mile trip, $3.00 for a 5-10 mile trip, and $5.00 for a 10-20 mile trip. Fares for social trips vary.
Fleet In 2009, MSS purchased a 2010 model 12+1 passenger van with wheelchair lift.
77 Other Transportation Services Rail Amtrak provides passenger rail service to Washtenaw County with a stop in Downtown Ann Arbor. Of the 17 stops along Amtrak’s Detroit-Chicago corridor, Ann Arbor’s station consistently boards the second highest number of riders behind Chicago. In 2009, 431,128 passengers rode the train on the Wolverine Line, a 9.1% decrease from the previous year. Chart 12 compares ridership and ticket revenues from 1995 to 2009.
Chart 12 AMTRAK Wolverine Line Ridership, 1995-2009 $17 500
$16
$15 450
$14 400 $13 Millions)
Thousands)
Revenue (in $12 (in 350 Ridership $11 Revenue
$10 300 Ridership $9
$8 250
Source: Amtrak
Public demand, gasoline prices, and persistent road construction along corridors have given rise to a proposed commuter rail service that would use existing freight lines between Ann Arbor and Detroit and Howell and Ann Arbor.
SEMCOG, with the help of other public and private agencies, has investigated the options and the subsequent alternatives for rapid transit between Ann Arbor and Detroit. The study focused on a 50-mile long, 5 to 10 mile wide corridor incorporating enhanced fixed-route service, improved community transit, and establishment of regional transit links. There are five commuter rail station locations under consideration for the service including Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Michigan Avenue at Merriman Road (Metro Airport connection), Dearborn, and Detroit (New Center Area).
The North/South corridor from Ann Arbor to Howell is another possible rail corridor. This service would use existing rail lines owned by the State of Michigan and operated by Great Lakes Central Railroad. Potential riders of the service include commuters traveling into Ann Arbor. The University of Michigan employs approximately 4000 people who live north of Ann Arbor in proximity to the proposed commuter line. Surveys show that 1200 of these employees, who pay up
78 to $1200 per year for parking permits, would take the commuter rail 4 to 5 days a week. This would significantly reduce the congestion on US-23 and parking demand in Downtown Ann Arbor and University of Michigan campus. Proposed stations for the Howell to Ann Arbor service include City of Howell train station, Chilson Road in Genoa Township, Hamburg Township, Eight Mile Road in Whitmore Lake, and Plymouth Road near Barton in Ann Arbor.
Ridesharing Multiple ridesharing opportunities are available throughout Washtenaw County. AATA and SEMCOG jointly operate mirideshare.org, which helps match commuters with carpools and vanpools in Southeast Michigan. The state’s MichiVan program, operated by VPSI, provides 7 to 15-passenger vans to commuters. There are nearly 400 of these vanpools statewide, 100 of which originate in or travel to Washtenaw County.
Ten park-and-ride and commuter lots located throughout Washtenaw County allow rideshare participants to meet and continue their commute. These lots do not require a special permit, are free, and allow overnight parking. The AATA buses service five of these lots, allowing users to complete a commute using public transit, while reducing cost for parking, congestion, and improving air quality.
Private Transportation Providers In Washtenaw County, 54 private companies provide transportation services. Of the 54 providers, the state licenses and registers 37 to provide public transportation. Providers serve residents in the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and the surrounding townships. While many providers operate in rural areas, services may be cost prohibitive for low-income users. The following lists describe registered providers in the county. Airport Shuttle Amazing Blue Airport Cars LLC provides door-to-door, curb-to-curb, and demand response services seven days a week, 24 hours a day. They offer same day reservations, but prefer 24 hour advance scheduling. They serve trips to Detroit Metro Airport in Southeast Michigan. Fares are $43.00 for flag drop plus $2.25 per mile. Ann Arbor Metro provides door-to-door services seven days a week, 7:00am to 7:00pm. Available to the public for airport trip purposes only in the Ann Arbor area. Fares are $40.00 for one person and $50.00 for 2-5 persons. Transit Passenger Services provides curb-to-curb airport shuttles from Ann Arbor to Metro Airport. The rate ranges from $30.00 to $45.00.
Bus Greyhound is the largest provider of intercity bus transportation in the US, serving more than 2,300 destinations with 13,000 daily departures across North America. Greyhound has a station located downtown Ann Arbor, which connects passengers to destinations around the country. Michigan Flyer has 52-passenger coaches that provide intercity service between Detroit Metro Airport, East Lansing, Jackson, and Ann Arbor. The service operates eight trips in each direction daily Sunday through Friday, and seven trips in each direction on Saturday. Free wireless internet access and power outlets are available on all coaches. Prepaid one-way
79 tickets leaving from Ann Arbor cost $15. AATA's Route 36 - Wolverine Tower Shuttle provides local weekday bus service to passengers making connections to five of the eight daily Michigan Flyer departures. Megabus is a low-cost express bus service serving 28 cities from two hubs at New York and Chicago. Buses are luxury double-deckers that offer free Wi-Fi and panoramic windows. Ann Arbor arrivals and departures are located in the commuter Park & Ride lot on the west side of S. State Street about half a mile north of E. Eisenhower Parkway. The stop is located on the east side of the lot between the entrance and exit. Please note that overnight parking is not available in the Park & Ride lot. One way fares to Chicago range from $1 to $30.
Car Sharing Zipcar is a for-profit, membership-based car sharing company providing automobile rental to its members, billable by the hour or day. The service came to the University of Michigan in 2006, and has grown to 26 cars parked in 11 lots throughout Ann Arbor. Zipcar collaborates with the University and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s getDowntown program to provide affordable and sustainable transportation to the Ann Arbor area. University affiliates receive a $15 discount from the $50 yearly fee, and are waived the application fee. Limousine A Night Out Limousine LLC provides curb-to-curb limousine service for special events. Their rate is $60.00 per hour. They serve all trip purposes in Washtenaw and Wayne Counties. Royal Limousine West LLC provides door-to-door limousine service with a seating capacity of 14 people. The rate is $90.00 per hour plus tip with a six-hour minimum. The service area includes Livingston, Oakland, and Washtenaw Counties. Medical Paratransit Angel Care Transportation provides door-to-door, curb-to-curb, and ADA Para Transit services seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Fares are $24.50 plus an additional $1.60 per mile outside the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti area. HVA Mobility Transportation offers door-to-door service to senior citizens and people with physical disabilities in Washtenaw, western Wayne, and southeast Oakland counties for medical related trips. Vans are able to accommodate wheelchairs. Contact HVA Mobility for fare information. Mobile Health Resources provides curb-to-curb and ADA Paratransit services for clients that have Blue-Caid insurance. Trip purpose is limited to medical appointments. Mobile Health Resources services only Washtenaw County. Clients pay nothing out of pocket for this transportation service, but are required to have a Blue-Caid insurance ID number. Royal Med Transportation provides door-to-door service for senior citizens and the public. They can accommodate fold up wheelchairs, however vehicles are not equipped with wheelchair lifts. Rides are available for all trip purposes except medical emergencies. Royal Med’s service area includes Washtenaw, Oakland, Macomb and Wayne Counties. Contact Royal Med for fare information.
80 Southern Michigan Transportation provides door-to-door, door-thru-door, and ADA Paratransit services. Trip purpose is limited to medical appointments only. The rate is $40.00 plus $1.70 per mile and a $15.00 per hour charge for waiting time. The service area includes the cities of Ann Arbor, Lansing, Battle Creek and Jackson. Medical Paratransit/Shuttle 4 Stars Limo Airport Services LLC provides ADA Para-transit, door-to-door, as well as curb-to-curb services seven days a week, 24 hours a day. They offer same day reservations, but prefer 24 hour advanced scheduling. They also serve medical and personal event trip purposes in Washtenaw County. The airport shuttle seats four passengers with a $45.00 fare. The limousine seats eight passengers and has a $110.00 minimum fare. Care Transport provides door-to-door service available seven days a week 24 hours a day. Rides are available to the public for all trip purposes except medical emergencies in the Ann Arbor area. The load rate is $75.00 plus $2.00 per mile each way. Reservations must be made one business day in advance. Health Plus Transportation provides door-to-door and ADA Paratransit transportation in Washtenaw and Wayne Counties. Rides are available for all trip purposes except medical emergencies. The fare rate is $52.00 plus $2.50 per mile. The ADA Paratransit rate is $70.00 plus $2.80 per mile. Hour Transportation provides door-to-door and ADA Paratransit transportation to all of Washtenaw County. Eligible riders include senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and personal care attendants. Rides are available for all trip purposes except medical emergencies. The rate for door-to-door service is $30.00 plus $2.50 per mile; ADA Paratransit trips are $35.00 plus $3.00 per mile. Jays Transport 24/7 provides curb-to-curb, door-to-door, door-thru-door and ADA Paratransit to all of Washtenaw County. Jays Transport is Medicaid approved and accepts vouchers. Rides are available for all trip purposes except medical emergencies. The standard fare is $2.50 per mile; the ADA Paratransit rate is $60.00 per one-way trip. M&I Transportation provides door-to-door service in Washtenaw and Wayne counties. M & I can accommodate manual wheelchairs, but do not have wheel chair lifts in their vehicles. Rides are available for all trip purposes except medical emergencies. The basic medical trip fare is $75.00. Service area includes all of Washtenaw and Wayne Counties. Select Ride Inc. provides door-to-door and curb-to-curb services for the public and ADA Paratransit. Rides are available for all trip purposes except medical emergencies. The rate for taxi and shuttles is $2.25 per mile; limousines are $60.00 per hour plus tip. Select Ride services all of Washtenaw County. Trusted Loving Care provides door-to-door, door-thru-door, and curb-to-curb services. Eligible riders are senior citizens, persons with disabilities and the public. Eligible trip purpose can be for anything except medical emergencies. The rate for round trip 10-15 miles is $65.00. Outside Washtenaw County, it is $30.00 per hour, plus $.50 per mile. If requested, the driver will accompany customer to their doctor's appointment with up to 2 hours of wait time, after 2 hours there is an additional charge of $15.00 per half hour.
81 Shuttle A2 Area Metro Ride provides door-to-door, door-thru-door, curb-to-curb, and airport pickup/drop off services seven days a week, 4:00 am to 11:00 pm. They offer same day reservations, but prefer 24 hour advance scheduling. A2 Metro Ride also serves events and airport trip purposes in Manchester, Chelsea, Detroit, and Lansing. The fares range from $50.00-$55.00. American Metro Car Minivan Service LLC provides curb-to-curb services seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Same day reservations are taken, however, customers must make reservations several hours in advance. Serves all trip purposes except medical emergencies in Washtenaw and Wayne counties. Custom Transit provides curb-to-curb and airport shuttle service available seven days a week. Local service is available for all trip purposes except medical emergencies in the Ann Arbor area. Within Ann Arbor, the fare is $45, outside of the city fares begin at $15 plus $3 per mile. Fares to Detroit Metro Airport begin at $30. They offer same day reservations, but prefer 24 hour reservation. Golden Charters Inc. provides door-to-door, shuttle, and ADA Para Transit services, available seven days a week, 24 hours a day. They offer same day reservations but prefer 24 hour advanced scheduling. Purposes include medical and personal trips in the Ann Arbor area. Contact Golden Charters Inc for fare information. Helpful Neighbor Services LLC provides door-to-door and private contract services in Washtenaw County. Service hours are seven days a week, 7:00am to 8:00pm. Cost for door- to-door service is $30.00 plus mileage. Same day reservations are available; however, 24 hour advance scheduling is preferred. Mack's Transportation provides curb-to-curb service for commuters travelling between Chelsea and Dexter to Ann Arbor or Metro Airport. Rides are available for all trip purposes except medical emergencies. The fare includes a $30.00 flat fee, plus $1.50 per mile. Metro airport destinations are a $75.00 flat fee. Service area is Chelsea and Dexter. Michigan Transportation Services provides door-to-door transportation services to the public. They operate in Livingston and Washtenaw counties. Their fee is $19.00 for most trips, and they are available Monday through Friday from 6:00am to 6:00pm and by appointment on the weekends.
Taxicab Across Town Cab services Ann Arbor, South Lyon, Whitmore Lake, Brighton and the surrounding areas. Rate to Metro Airport is $50.00. Amazing Blue Taxi, LLC® serves the greater Ann Arbor area, in particular, the University of Michigan. Amazing Blue Taxi offers full taxi service, airport service, package delivery, and special event transportation. The City of Ann Arbor sets taxicab rates as follows: the flag drop is $3.00; rate per mile is $2.25, and driver-waiting time is $24.00 per hour. Ann Arbor Argus Cab Company offers taxi service for the cities of Ann Arbor, Saline, Dexter, Chelsea, and surrounding communities. Fares are $2.25 per mile with a $3.00 boarding fee and $.40 per minute travel time. They take online reservations.
82 Ann Arbor Taxi provides regional and interstate transportation to the city of Ann Arbor and Southeastern Michigan for airport, business, and entertainment trips. Trips cost $3.00 plus an additional $2.25 per mile. Ann Arbor Taxi accepts online reservations. Reliable Cab located in the city of Ypsilanti delivers services at standard and corporate rates, as well as special events and sporting events. Trips cost $3.00 plus an additional $2.25 per mile. The Blue Cab Company provides service to the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and surrounding areas 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Blue Cab provides door-to-door services as well as shared rides. Door-to-door trips cost $3.00 plus an additional $2.25 per mile. Shared rides are $5.00 plus $2.25 per mile. Veterans Cab provides curb-to-curb service in Washtenaw County and the cities of Belleville and Canton. The rate includes a $2.50 boarding fee plus $2.50 per mile. Yellow Cab is a subsidiary of SelectRide Inc providing cab service to the greater Ann Arbor area. Rides are available to the public for all trip purposes except medical emergencies. The rate for taxi service is $2.25 per mile.
Human Service Agency Transportation Providers The Washtenaw County Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan identifies 17 human service agencies that either provide transportation or fare assistance in the county. Agencies typically provide transportation to clients for specific trip purposes. Note that these agencies typically provide services to residents in the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and most are located on or near fixed route service. Eight of the identified agencies have vehicles and provide transportation to their clients and ten provide trip fare assistance in the form of tokens, cab fare, and or vouchers. Transportation Providers American Cancer Society has a volunteer program that provides door-to-door services for cancer patients living in Livingston, Monroe, and Washtenaw counties to treatment at no charge. Rides must be scheduled one week in advance and clients must be ambulatory. Children or caregivers are able to ride as well. Friends in Deed provides free non-emergency medical transportation for low-income individuals. Assistance requires 48 hour advanced request. Service is limited by volunteer availability. Customers must be ambulatory, as vehicles are not equipped with wheel chair lifts. Car repair services are available for employed patients or those who require dialysis. Client must provide valid driver’s license, proof of insurance and registration. Jewish Family Services provides door-thru-door transportation to any older adult or person with disabilities to medical appointments, errands, shopping and social events. Service provided in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti for a $6.00 round trip fee. Passengers must complete an intake prior to scheduling rides; sliding scale fees are available. Users must schedule rides at least one week in advance. Milan Senior Center has a one-year pilot program funded through Milan Area Foundation and Milan Area Council to pick up seniors at home and transport them to the senior center. Service is limited to the city limits, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays between 9:15am to 9:30am and returns home by 2:00pm.
83 Neighborhood Senior Services has a volunteer door-to-door service, free of charge, to senior citizens 60 and over living in Washtenaw County to medical and other health related appointments. Low-income seniors experiencing frailty receive priority for this service. Users must schedule appointments one week in advance and rides are available seven days per week from 8:30am to 5:00pm. Although there is no fee, a cost sharing contribution level is determined on an individual basis. Voucher Providers Area Agency on Aging 1-B has two programs that fund transportation for their clients. Care Management (people 60 and over) and Medicaid Waiver (people 18 and over in nursing homes) where clients are provided with medical trips and sometimes trips for other purposes. Both programs are funded by a combination of state and federal dollars. Blueprint for Aging has a pilot voucher program that provides fare subsidy for Washtenaw County senior citizens for any trip purpose. The Blueprint for Aging is studying approaches to addressing transportation issues for seniors at the systems level. Michigan Rehabilitation Services provides gasoline vouchers for clients until they receive their first paycheck. They also provide AATA Fare Deal bus passes. Car repairs are available, but limited and determined on a case-by-case basis. New Hope Outreach Clinic has a voucher program with Blue Cab for clients 55 years and older for trips to their clinic. Clients must live within the cities of Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti to use this service. Saline Area Social Services referrers its clients to People’s Express but covers the cost of medical and work trips. SOS Crisis Center provides referral and transportation assistance during crisis or emergency situations. Silver Club contracts with Brown Chapel Church in Ypsilanti to provide standing order transportation for clients traveling from their homes to the Turner Geriatric clinic. They must be members of the Silver Club and live in Ypsilanti City or Township in order to use this service. St. Joseph Mercy Hospital Academic OB/GYN Maternal Support Services Program provides transportation vouchers to high-risk pregnant women who either have Medicaid or are Medicaid eligible in Washtenaw County. University of Michigan Health System (UMHS): Department of Social Work Guest Assistance Program provides coordination, emergency financial assistance, and referrals to community resources of non-medical emergency transportation trips and other needs of UMHS patients. Ypsilanti City Senior Center provides vouchers to clients from Blueprint for Aging. Ypsilanti Township Recreation Center provides vouchers to clients from Blueprint for Aging.
84 RIDE CONNECT RideConnect is a coordination call center that provides individuals with information on available transportation options in Washtenaw County and selected areas in Jackson, Lenawee, Livingston, Monroe, Oakland, and Wayne Counties. RideConnect also coordinates transit services among existing public, private, and non-profit transportation providers. Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Peoples Express, and Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express (WAVE) sponsor Ride Connect.
RideConnect operates Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm in Scio Township and closes on all government-recognized holidays. RideConnect's Transportation Coordinators provide the following services: Trip Planning that identifies, refers, and schedules trips for individuals that call the center. Assessment of customer's financial limitations determine if they qualify for subsidized fares and mobility accommodations in order to identify the most appropriate transportation provider. Individual Travel Training Sessions to small groups of residents on how to access and use the public and demand response transportation services available in the county. Staff assists the residents in developing trip plans to their most frequently traveled destinations. Trip Fare Assistance Program facilitates short-term financial assistance to pay for public transportation trips for Washtenaw County residents 55 years and older who have low incomes or disabilities. Trip purposes include non-emergency medical appointments, grocery shopping, employment, education and other vital trips. Blue Print for Aging funds this program.
85
86
NON-MOTORIZED
V. NON-MOTORIZED
Washtenaw County residents recognize non-motorized transportation as a desirable amenity for the region. Community benefits include improved air quality, economic development, public health, and reduced congestion. Non-motorized transportation includes facilities that engage the use of bicycles as transportation, and pedestrian facilities that allow for walking trips or connect to transit.
WATS completed the Non-Motorized Plan for Washtenaw County in 2006. The Plan includes data on existing non-motorized facilities, destination accessibility, facility comparison to national guidelines and locally preferred standards, deficiencies, and proposed improvements. Table 44 shows data for existing facilities by municipality as of 2009. Map 13 and Map 14 follow the table, and display existing walking and biking facilities.
89 Table 44 Existing Non-motorized Facilities by Municipality in Miles Pedestrian Bike facility Off Road Shared Bike 3ft +Paved Walking Path Sidewalk Use Lane Shoulder Urban Ann Arbor 15.79 398.25 25.10 35.88 1.81 Ann Arbor Twp 1.38 10.02 3.29 11.23 9.07 Barton Hills 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.58 0.00 Dexter 0.00 29.30 2.68 1.48 0.00 Milan 0.00 12.19 0.00 0.00 0.27 Pittsfield Twp 2.04 76.49 3.21 4.11 4.71 Saline 0.00 57.56 0.00 2.31 0.00 Scio Twp 0.56 19.08 0.64 12.97 15.98 Superior Twp 0.00 28.00 3.64 7.16 1.15 Ypsilanti 0.00 110.97 6.16 4.46 0.00 Ypsilanti Twp 0.27 193.87 1.11 11.14 9.42 Urban Total 20.04 935.73 45.81 93.32 42.40 Urban Fringe Chelsea 0.00 35.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dexter Twp 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.00 Lodi Twp 0.00 4.10 0.00 4.56 3.14 Northfield Twp 0.00 8.12 0.00 10.66 5.34 Salem Twp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.60 Webster Twp 0.00 3.90 0.00 2.11 0.00 York Twp 0.00 0.10 0.00 9.68 5.98 Urban Fringe Total 0.00 51.49 2.68 27.01 17.06 Rural Augusta Twp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 Bridgewater Twp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Freedom Twp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 Lima Twp 0.00 0.16 0.00 7.80 3.89 Lyndon Twp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manchester 0.00 9.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manchester Twp 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 Saline Twp 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sharon Twp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sylvan Twp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rural Total 0.00 11.13 0.00 7.80 7.41 Total 20.04 998.35 48.50 128.13 66.87 Source: WATS Non-Motorized Plan for Washtenaw County *Note: Sidewalks, Shared Use Paths, and Bike Lane numbers reflect total miles rather than centerline miles*
90 Map 13 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Source: WATS Non-Motorized Plan for Washtenaw County
91 Map 14 Existing Bike Lanes and Paved Shoulders (3+ feet)
Source: WATS Non-Motorized Plan for Washtenaw County
92 Table 45 shows miles of missing sidewalk and bike facilities within Washtenaw County communities. The missing non-motorized infrastructure identified in the table is limited to transportation corridors eligible for federal funding using the National Functioning Classification (NFC) System. However, this is not an exhaustive list, as many local roads lack facilities. Complete data was not available for City of Ann Arbor sidewalks, Barton Hills, or City of Milan.
Table 45 Deficient Facilities by Municipality in Miles Miles of Missing Miles of Missing Bike Facilities (includes Sidewalk pedestrian facilities in rural areas) Urban Ann Arbor N/A 99.81 Ann Arbor Twp 27.70 36.18 Dexter 3.20 4.10 Milan ‐‐ ‐‐ Pittsfield Twp 174.63 86.28 Saline 9.40 20.79 Scio Twp 164.26 48.18 Superior Twp 30.20 72.36 Ypsilanti 10.89 32.42 Ypsilanti Twp 186.79 115.96 Urban Total 607.06 516.08 Urban Fringe Chelsea 61.90 48.58 Dexter Twp 21.33 57.30 Lodi Twp 65.32 54.44 Northfield Twp 5.58 51.60 Salem Twp 26.98 55.52 Webster Twp 22.60 48.81 York Twp 89.92 81.26 Urban Fringe Total 293.62 397.51 Rural Augusta Twp ‐‐ 52.80 Bridgewater Twp ‐‐ 52.20 Freedom Twp ‐‐ 48.80 Lima Twp 3.96 47.88 Lyndon Twp ‐‐ 53.12 Manchester 65.92 7.28 Manchester Twp ‐‐ 51.94 Saline Twp 9.84 68.04 Sharon Twp ‐‐ 54.30 Sylvan Twp ‐‐ 54.42 Rural Total 79.72 490.78 Total 980.40 1404.37 Source: WATS Non-Motorized Plan for Washtenaw County *Note: Sidewalks, Shared Use Paths, and Bike Lane numbers reflect total rather than centerline miles*
93 PARKING The City of Ann Arbor Zoning Code requires non-governmental public use buildings to provide off-street bicycle parking. Ann Arbor’s getDowntown campaign encourages bicycle commuting as well by providing bike racks and bike lockers available for rent throughout the city. Additionally, building owners are required to have outdoor open space, which can include bicycle parking.
Although Ann Arbor is the only city that provides for bicycle parking in the city zoning code, the cities of Ypsilanti, Saline, and Chelsea and the villages of Manchester and Dexter have added bike racks to their downtowns. Ypsilanti’s bike racks were unveiled as part of the Michigan Steps Up campaign, promoting community health. Pick Up the Pace Saline (PUPS) used grant money to install whimsical bike racks in downtown Saline. Community focus groups believe the artful racks will encourage cycling downtown.
94 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN CRASH ANALYSIS WATS compiled and analyzed bicycle and pedestrian crash information from 2005 to 2009 to identify seasonal and geographic patterns within Washtenaw County. There were 424 pedestrian crashes and 404 bicycle crashes during the five-year period. During the five-year period, 94% of pedestrian crashes, and 93% of bicycle crashes occurred in urban communities. This compares to only 77% of crashes involving all types of vehicles in urban communities. Table 46 displays the pedestrian crash data by community and bicycle crash data is shown on Table 47. While total pedestrian crashes countywide do not exhibit a clear trend, the number of Urban Fringe pedestrian crashes tripled in 2009. Bike crashes appear to be increasing over time.
Table 46 Reported Pedestrian Crashes by Community 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Urban Ann Arbor 4536525242 Ann Arbor Twp11101 Barton Hills 00000 Dexter 10010 Milan 01111 Pittsfield Twp611593 Saline 00400 Scio Twp 13243 Superior Twp 10000 Ypsilanti 1112126 13 Ypsilanti Twp 1117115 13 Urban Total 77 81 88 78 76 Urban Fringe Chelsea 00001 Dexter Twp 00010 Lodi Twp 01101 Northfield Twp01102 Salem Twp 00010 Webster Twp10000 York Twp 10002 Urban Fringe Total22226 Rural Augusta Twp 00000 Bridgewater Twp00000 Freedom Twp00000 Lima Twp 11100 Lyndon Twp 00000 Manchester 00100 Manchester Twp00000 Saline Twp 10001 Sharon Twp 00000 Sylvan Twp 01021 Rural Total 22222 Washtenaw Total8185928284 Source: www.MichiganTrafficCrashFacts.com
95 Table 47 Reported Bicycle Crashes by Community 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Urban Ann Arbor 2850345861 Ann Arbor Twp 0 0 0 1 1 Barton Hills 0 0 0 0 0 Dexter 1 0 1 1 0 Milan 11221 Pittsfield Twp 6 4 6 1 4 Saline 11121 Scio Twp 3 0 4 3 1 Superior Twp 1 2 2 0 1 Ypsilanti 6 10 7 8 12 Ypsilanti Twp 6 6 12 11 8 Urban Total 5374698790 Urban Fringe Chelsea 31101 Dexter Twp 0 0 0 1 1 Lodi Twp 0 0 0 0 1 Northfield Twp 2 1 1 0 2 Salem Twp 1 0 0 0 0 Webster Twp 2 0 0 0 0 York Twp 0 1 0 0 0 Urban Fringe Total83215 Rural Augusta Twp 0 0 0 2 0 Bridgewater Twp 0 0 0 1 0 Freedom Twp 0 0 0 0 0 Lima Twp 0 0 0 0 0 Lyndon Twp 1 0 0 0 0 Manchester 1 0 0 0 1 Manchester Twp 0 0 0 0 0 Saline Twp 0 0 0 2 0 Sharon Twp 0 0 0 0 0 Sylvan Twp 1 2 0 0 0 Rural Total 3 2 0 51 Washtenaw Total6479719396 Source: www.MichiganTrafficCrashFacts.com
Although Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti account for only 37% percent Washtenaw County’s population, nearly 75% of countywide bike commutes and 89% of countywide pedestrian commutes occurred within the two cities. Proportional to total non-motorized trips, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti have fewer bike and pedestrian crashes than the rest of the county. Combined, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti account for 68% of countywide bicycle and 66% of countywide pedestrian crashes. Map 15 and Map 16 show bicycle and pedestrian crash locations in Washtenaw County.
96
Map 15 Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Locations
Source: Roadsoft GIS
97 Map 16 Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Locations
Ann Arbor Ypsilanti
Source: Roadsoft GIS
98 An alternative method for evaluating the relationship of non-motorized crashes in urban versus rural areas is to examine at what speeds crashes occur. Research revealed that 47% of bicycle crashes and 43% of pedestrian crashes take place in areas where the speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph) or less. This compares to less than 17% of all crashes on facilities with the same speed limit. Thirty-three percent of all pedestrian crashes and 35% of all bike crashes took place where posted speed was 25-35 mph. Twenty-three percent of pedestrian crashes and 18% of bike crashes took place where posted speed was greater than 35 mph. The likely explanation for crashes taking place at low speeds is that cyclists and pedestrians are more likely to make trips in urbanized areas, which have lower posted speeds than rural areas.
Table 48 and Table 49 show the relationship between posted speed and injury severity. The majority of injuries sustained by both pedestrians and cyclists were non-incapacitating. Forty-four percent of combined fatal and incapacitating pedestrians crashes took place in areas with posted speeds over 35 mph, despite most pedestrian trips occurring in lower speed urban areas. Only 13% of fatal and incapacitating bike crashes took place in areas with posted speeds over 35 mph.
Table 48 Severity of Pedestrian Crashes by Speed Limit, 2005-2009 Posted Speed at Crash Site Type of Injury 0‐25 mph 26‐35 mph >35 mph No Injury 10 4.4% 14 7.7% 7 5.6% Non‐Incapacitating 196 85.6% 137 74.9% 74 59.7% Incapacitating 20 8.7% 30 16.4% 27 21.8% Fatality 3 1.3% 2 1.1% 16 12.9% Total 229 100% 183 100% 124 100% Source: http://www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org/
Table 49 Severity of Bicycle Crashes by Speed Limit, 2005-2009 Posted Speed at Crash Site Type of Injury 0‐25 mph 26‐35 mph >35 mph No Injury 26 10.5% 16 8.8% 5 5.4% Non‐Incapacitating 206 83.1% 153 84.1% 76 81.7% Incapacitating 15 6.0% 13 7.1% 6 6.5% Fatality 1 0.4% 0 0.0% 6 6.5% Total 248 100% 182 100% 93 100% Source: http://www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org/
Pedestrian crashes occur evenly throughout the year. Approximately half of pedestrian crashes occurred between April thru October, and the other half occurred between November and March. Bike crashes did not distribute evenly throughout the year, as 80% of bike crashes occurred between April and October, and only 20% occurred between November and March. This trend can be associated with warm riding months and poor road conditions in the winter.
99 PLANNING The WATS 2006 Non-Motorized Plan for Washtenaw County serves as an important resource coordinating non-motorized planning throughout the county. The plan establishes countywide non-motorized goals and policies by identifying improvements needed for the system, including recommendations to expand and maintain the existing system. Communities that have adopted their own non-motorized plans, incorporated the WATS Non-motorized plan by reference, or have a designated non-motorized section in their master plan include Pittsfield, Northfield, Scio and Ypsilanti Townships, as well as the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and Saline.
In 2009, the League of American Bicyclists awarded the City of Ann Arbor a silver ranking for being a bicycle friendly community, improving on its previous bronze ranking. This certification recognizes Ann Arbor’s efforts towards becoming bicycle friendly. Examples of the criteria used to certify bicycle friendly cities are: bicycle facilities included as part of the master plan, a designated organization managing bicycle facilities, and consideration of significant and recent projects that accommodate bicycling. This recognition symbolizes the diverse measures used to foster non- motorized transportation, and the growing segment of the population dependent on or who enjoy non-motorized transportation.
Many communities in Washtenaw County are collaborating in their efforts to develop non- motorized transportation plans. Below are a list of regional planning groups, and communities with unified efforts towards non-motorized transportation: . Chelsea/Dexter Area Planning Team (CAPT/DART) – Chelsea City, Dexter Village, Dexter, Scio, Lima, Lyndon, Webster, and Sylvan Townships . Saline Sustainability Circle (SCC) – City of Saline, Lodi, Pittsfield, Saline, and York Townships . Washtenaw Metro Alliance (WMA) – City of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, Pittsfield, Scio, Superior, and Ypsilanti Townships and the City of Ypsilanti
EDUCATION Groups such as the Washtenaw Biking and Walking Coalition, GetDowntown.org, Car Free Ann Arbor, Programs to Educate All Cyclists (PEAC), and the Washtenaw County Health Department play an important role in promotion of walking and bicycling in Washtenaw County. These groups educate the public regarding the incorporation of cycling as a commuting option, security and registration of bicycles, safe practices for both bikes and cars, and promotion of bicycle-oriented paths. WATS promotes safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists by publishing a series of Rights and Responsibilities brochures.
Many bicycle and pedestrian groups go beyond education; they also solicit involvement from community members. Activities promoted include do-it-yourself safety improvements, developing the Depot Trail in Saline, and International Walk to School Day. Another organization, Programs to Educate All Cyclists (PEAC), enhances the lives of individuals with disabilities by using cycling for transportation, integrated recreation, fitness, and therapy. PEAC helps individuals with cognitive, physical, and emotional disabilities reach their cycling goals by providing basic skills programs, family rides, club rides, bicycle commuter training, mechanical skills, and spinning classes.
100
FREIGHT
VI. FREIGHT
Washtenaw County is home to a variety of freight transportation modes. Four rail lines, eight truck freight providers, and three air cargo providers operate facilities in the county. Three expressways and two airports provide infrastructure for local, regional, and international freight delivery. Current trends in freight, the need for just-in-time delivery and the global economy, require freight service that is capable of making global deliveries quickly. These trends have created a thriving airborne freight industry at Willow Run Airport, one of the nation’s busiest hubs.
RAILROAD Four rail lines traverse Washtenaw County. The lines are owned by Norfolk Southern, CSX, Ann Arbor Railroad, and MDOT. Great Lakes Central Railroad operates on the MDOT owned line. Neither CSX nor NS have terminals in Washtenaw County, but operate terminals used for bi-modal freight services out of Detroit.
Norfolk Southern (NS) Norfolk Southern (NS) owns two lines that pass through the county. The northern rail line runs east/west through Washtenaw County, crossing portions of Ypsilanti, Superior, Ann Arbor, Scio, Webster, Lima and Sylvan townships, Dexter Village, and through the cities of Ypsilanti, Ann Arbor, and Chelsea. NS owns another line that crosses southeastern Washtenaw County through Augusta Township, York Township, and Milan. The southeastern line connects with the Ann Arbor Railroad in Milan.
CSX The CSX rail line crosses a small northeast portion of Washtenaw County through Salem Township.
Great Lakes Central (GLC) MDOT owns a line that Great Lakes Central (GLC) operates, which runs north/south through Washtenaw County, crossing portions of the City of Ann Arbor and Ann Arbor and Northfield Townships. GLC operates short rail service from Ann Arbor, to the northwestern portion of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. The connection made in Ann Arbor, via an Ann Arbor Railroad terminal, links with NS and CSX in Toledo.
Ann Arbor Railroad Ann Arbor Railroad’s line runs north/south through Washtenaw County, crossing portions of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield and York Townships, and the City of Milan. Ann Arbor Railroad offers Short Rail service to Toledo. This route provides an opportunity for NS, CSX, Canadian Nation (CN), Wheeling, and Lake Erie Railroads in Toledo to connect with NS and GLC in Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor Railroad also owns a small spur line from Ann Arbor to the Ford factory in Saline.
103 TRUCKING A survey of trucking companies in Washtenaw County identified eight specialty carriers, including moving services, freight, courier services, and inventory management. Companies range in size from locally owned regional services to international, multimodal services. Map 17 shows major freight terminals including post offices.
Old Dominion Freight Line Inc Old Dominion Freight is a national “less-than-truckload” motor carrier providing one-to-five day service among six regions in the United States. The Company offers an array of products that provide direct service to 48 states. In addition to domestic “less-than-truckload” services, the Company offers assembly, distribution services, and delivery services between North America, Central America, South America and the Far East. The company also offers a broad range of expedited and logistical services for both its domestic and global markets. Old Dominion’s Ypsilanti facility employs 16 and dispatches an average of 15 trips daily to local and regional destinations.
Rightaway Delivery Rightaway Delivery is a local delivery company in Ann Arbor that specializes in time sensitive scheduled and critical/emergency deliveries. Rightaway handles deliveries that range from lab work and legal documents, to white glove delivery of large televisions and delicate furniture. The company operates a 12,000 square foot facility in southern Ann Arbor, which processes between 200 and 400 shipments per day.
United Parcel Service (UPS) The United Parcel Service or UPS operates a customer service and shipping facility in Ypsilanti, which handles deliveries in Washtenaw County and the Pinckney area. The facility employs approximately 175, handling between 30,000 to 35,000 packages per day, for shipments within the operating region. The Ypsilanti location operates five cubic meter and 13 cubic meter capacity trucks. The facility provides international and domestic delivery services to many small and large businesses, to public agencies, and to individuals. The maximum weight for a package is 150 pounds, and the maximum girth is 165 inches. The UPS freight facility in Romulus handles packages exceeding those limits.
Con-Way Con-Way is a large international shipping and supply chain management company, with executive offices in Ann Arbor. Con-Way delivers automotive, high-tech, retail/consumer, chemical, government, and industrial goods. Con-Way’s Ann Arbor office manages the 2,600 tractors and more than 8,000 trailers it operates in North America. The company recently added $5.4 million of safety technology in a new fleet of 2010-model tractors. The technology added includes front collision warning system, a rollover stability feature, lane departure warnings, and adaptive cruise control tested in partnership with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. The company also operates a 30-tractor distribution center in Whitmore Lake.
104 Schneider National Schneider National is a freight company specializing in a variety of trucking options including long haul, regional, expedited, dedicated, and bulk. Nationwide, Schneider has over 19,000 contractors and employees, 12,000 tractors, and 33,000 trailers. The company also provides multi-modal transportation, moving freight between oceanic, rail, and truck-based systems. Schneider provides trucks and trailers to Georgia Pacific in Milan, a box and paper company. The company ships products from the facility daily throughout the Midwest.
R+L Transfer R+L Transfer is a nationwide “less-than-truckload” freight operator which works with residential, commercial, and industrial shipments. They provide local and regional services out of their Washtenaw County operation in Ypsilanti. The facility is a 192 bay terminal, with approximately 80 shipments per day. R+L employs 151 people at the Ypsilanti facility.
A2 Global Shipping A2 Global Shipping is a licensed interstate transporter and forwarder of household goods, whose specialties include ocean vessel transportation, air cargo, and household moving. Their primary market is University of Michigan students and graduates returning home to countries in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East requiring an inexpensive method to ship belongings.
Turri Logistics Turri Logistics is a freight carrier in Whitmore Lake. Turri offers expedited trucking, less-than truckload, truckload, airfreight, and logistics through a broad network of associated carriers.
Trucks and Roadways Guidelines for vehicle weight were established at the federal level for the interstate highway network in 1991 and are currently at a maximum of 40 tons per vehicle on 5 axles (8 tons/axle). Under the weight restrictions, states can retain previously established weight limits for highways. Michigan allows 82 tons per vehicle on 11 axles (7.4 tons/axle). A study by MDOT evaluated the differences between federal and state load configurations. The study placed road wear into two categories, cracking and faulting. Michigan trucks (85 tons on 11 axles) caused less cracking than trucks following federal guidelines (40 tons, on 5 axles), due to the reduced load per axles. However, more axles were associated a greater amount of rutting, which is associated with faulting. The study recommended more research before making policy recommendations regarding weight and axle configurations.
Lodi, Northfield, Webster and York Townships have local ordinances that restrict through truck traffic on some or most of the roads within each township. These restrictions may force trucks to avoid the most direct route and travel though bordering municipalities, increasing the strain on the bordering community’s roads.
Road budget shortfalls caused by the economic downturn and improved fuel efficiency have required Michigan lawmakers to consider policy revisions to increase road funding or reduce road maintenance costs. One such policy is raising the $0.15 per-gallon diesel fuel tax (12 cents for fuel containing 5% biodiesel) to match the $0.19 per gallon unleaded fuel tax. In addition, lawmakers have considered lowering Michigan’s freight load limit to match federal standards. While the impacts this policy would have on road wear are unclear, the change would result in an additional
105 15,000 trucks on Michigan roadways per year. Map 18 shows the National Trucking Network Peak Period Congestion by 2035. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) already projects many of Michigan’s roadways will operate beyond capacity, not including additional traffic from lowering the weight restrictions.
106 Map 17 Major Freight Terminals and Post Offices
Source: WATS
107 Map 18 National Trucking Network Peak Period Congestion, 2035
Source: FHWA
108 AIR FREIGHT Willow Run Airport, located in Ypsilanti Township and operated by the Wayne County Airport Authority, handles over 400,000,000 pounds of cargo annually, making it one of the nation's busiest cargo airports. Carriers based at Willow Run Airport transport a wide variety of cargo, including high-value automotive and electronic components, emergency medical supplies, on-demand freight, mail, and packages. Three airfreight carriers operate out of Willow Run airport. Charter passenger flights also operate from Willow Run, but account for a much smaller portion of airport traffic. Specialty services at the airport include several freight forwarding and logistics companies, flight schools and clubs, and the Yankee Air Museum.
Willow Run holds a unique position being located in both Wayne and Washtenaw Counties. An economic impact study completed by the University of Michigan in 2006 revealed that Willow Run generates $200 million dollars of economic impact for Michigan, responsible for nearly 2,000 airport related jobs. SEMCOG predicts Willow Run will act as a catalyst for additional businesses locating in Michigan. An expansion of Willow Run would expand Michigan freight infrastructure, and boost economic development.
Ameristar Jet Charter Ameristar Jet Charter is a carrier specializing in air-cargo and charter service in the Western Hemisphere. Based out of Dallas, Texas, the company operates a cargo hub at Willow Run Airport. As of 2007, Ameristar’s fleet includes ten Bombardier Learjet-24, five Bombardier Learjet-25, two DC-9-10, thirteen Dassault Falcon-20, and one Boeing 737-200.
Kalitta Air Kalitta Air is an air carrier specializing in moving freight worldwide. Kalitta began service in November 2000 with three Boeing 747 aircraft, since then the fleet has grown to twenty-one B747 freight carriers. The company provides scheduled or on-demand cargo services for any industry. Kalitta’s headquarters are located at Willow Run, where they employ 300-400 of the company’s 1000 global employees.
National Airlines National Airlines is a cargo and charter carrier headquartered at Willow Run Airport. The company can accommodate freight to destinations worldwide, including Bagram Air Base and Kandahar International Airport in Afghanistan. National Airline’s current fleet includes two Boeing 747- 400BCF, two Douglas DC-8-63CF, one Douglas DC-8-71F, one Saab 340A, and two Jetstream 31. Their cargo aircraft can accommodate payloads up to 45 tons. In 2011, National Airlines will introduce two Boeing 757-200 to their fleet.
ANN ARBOR AIRPORT The City of Ann Arbor owns and operates a Class-D general aviation airport three miles south of downtown. The airport maintains a 3,500' concrete runway and a 2,750' seasonal turf runway to serve general and business flights, medical flights, flight instruction, and charter services. The Federal Aviation Administration provides air traffic control daily from 8 am to 8 pm at the Ann Arbor Tower. The airport houses over 170 aircraft and handles about 57,000 operations (take- off/landings) per year. The Airport owns and leases 150 T-hangars, 6 new box hangars, and a few other hangars for aircraft storage. The Airport provides tie down spaces on the airport ramp on a short-term (daily/overnight) or long-term (monthly/annual) basis. Several flying clubs based at the
109 airport offer aircraft repair and maintenance services. Image 1 and Map 19 show airport layout and location.
Image 1 Aerial Photo of the Ann Arbor Airport
Photo Courtesy of City of Ann Arbor via annarbor.com
Map 19 Ann Arbor Airport
Source: Ann Arbor Aviation Center Note: This information is not intended for flight planning purposes. For official data, you must reference a current airport facility director.
110
APPENDICES
VII. APPENDICES APPENDIX A) DATA COLLECTION WATS collected data from many agencies involved in transportation planning and implementation for this report, including transit agencies, local road agencies, county, city, and township governments, state and regional organizations, educations intuitions, and private transportation companies. The differences between these organizations and their data needs lead to various data categorization systems. This creates problems with the aggregation of sets of data from different areas/subdivisions and sources; for example combining the same data collected for Washtenaw County, WATS, minor civil division, school districts or particular service areas. WATS, where possible, has modified the data to establish compatibility that facilitates comparison and analysis. For some elements of the transportation system, data was either unavailable or incomparable.
The two most referenced sources in this evaluation are the 2000 United States Census and SEMCOG data. The US Census, distributed to households every ten years, is useful for evaluating past and current statistics, while the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) creates data forecasts. WATS uses these two sources to establish trends for Washtenaw County.
The American Community Survey (ACS) is another important source of data for this report. The ACS is an ongoing data collection instrument administered by the US Census Bureau that publishes data on a yearly basis.
Journey to Work flow data is also available from the US Census. Data from Journey to Work provides information regarding trip origination, work destination, travel time, and mode, which are critical for evaluating the impact of travel behavior on the transportation system of Washtenaw County.
SEMCOG Data: Population: Numbers represent total population – including group quarters and household population. Household: A Household is an occupied housing unit. Employment: Numbers are by place-of-work. They include wage and salary jobs as well as self- employed, but do not include Farming, Construction, and Military jobs. Due to rounding errors, the sum of employment by industry may not equal total employment. Blank cells: At the sub-regional level, SEMCOG blocks employment numbers for communities that do not meet minimal publishing conditions in order to keep local establishments confidential. These conditions follow the rule, set up by Michigan law and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, that no numbers may be published if a cell contains: 1) fewer than three establishments, or 2) an establishment with 80 percent or more of that cell’s employment.
113 APPENDIX B) ORGANIZATIONS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS REPORT
A2 Global Shipping Norfolk Southern American Air Northfield Township Ameristar Jet Charter Old Dominion Freight Line Inc Ann Arbor Airport People’s Express Ann Arbor City Engineering Department Pick up the Pace Saline (PUPS) Ann Arbor City Planning Department Pittsfield Township Ann Arbor Downtown Development R+L Transfer Authority Ride Connect Ann Arbor Railroad Rightaway Delivery Ann Arbor Township Safe Routes to School Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Salem Township (AATA) Saline Township Annarbor.com Schneider National Augusta Township Scio Township Bridgewater Township Sharon Township Center for Neighborhood Technology Southeast Michigan Council of Governments City of Ann Arbor (SEMCOG) City of Chelsea Superior Township City of Milan Sylvan Township City of Saline The AARP City of Saline Engineering Department The Ann Arbor Chronicle City of Ypsilanti The League of American Bicyclists City of Ypsilanti Engineering Department The University of Michigan Transportation City of Ypsilanti Planning Department Research Institute Con-Way Think First Foundation CSX Turri Transportation Dexter Township United Parcel Service (UPS) Federal Highway Administration United States Census Bureau Freedom Township University of Michigan Transportation Great Lakes Central (GLC) Village of Dexter Kalitta Air Village of Manchester Lima Township Washtenaw County Public Health Lodi Township Department Lyndon Township Washtenaw County Road Commission Manchester Area Senior Citizens Council Webster Township Manchester Township Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express Michigan Department of Transportation Willow Run Airport Michigan Secretary of State’s Office York Township National Airlines Ypsilanti Township National Transit Database Transportation Modeling
114 Technical Advisory Subcommittee
Chair: Eli Cooper, City of Ann Arbor Planning
1st Vice-Chair: Paul Montagno, Pittsfield Township
2nd Vice-Chair: Christine Linfield, City of Chelsea
Chris White Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Homayoon Pirooz City of Ann Arbor Engineering Susan Pollay Ann Arbor DDA Rhett Gronevelt Village of Dexter Patrick Sloan Dexter Township Dieter Otto Eastern Michigan University Ola Williams Michigan Department of Transportation - Lansing Planning Kari Martin Michigan Department of Transportation - University Region Robert Grostick City of Milan Gary Roubal City of Saline Steve Dolen University of Michigan Roy Townsend Washtenaw County Road Commission Engineering Lily Guzmán Washtenaw County Public Health Stan Kirton City of Ypsilanti Joe Lawson Ypsilanti Charter Township Dave Reid Disabled Representative Timothy Fischer Environmental Representative Lance Hagler Freight Representative Larry Deck Non-motorized Representative Wes Armbruster Senior Representative
Ex officio Members: Rachael Tupeka Federal Highway Administration Jeff Tumidanski Southeast Michigan Council of Government