DOCSLIB.ORG

2009 Transportation Profile Policy Committee Chair: James Carson, Village of Dexter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2009 Transportation Profile Policy Committee Chair: James Carson, Village of Dexter 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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MDOT Michigan State Rail Plan Tech Memo 2 Existing Conditions
    Technical Memorandum #2 March 2011 Prepared for: Prepared by: HNTB Corporation Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 2. Freight Rail System Profile ......................................................................................2 2.1. Overview ...........................................................................................................2 2.2. Class I Railroads ...............................................................................................2 2.3. Regional Railroads ............................................................................................6 2.4. Class III Shortline Railroads .............................................................................7 2.5. Switching & Terminal Railroads ....................................................................12 2.7. State Owned Railroads ...................................................................................16 2.8. Abandonments ................................................................................................18 2.10. International Border Crossings .....................................................................22 2.11. Ongoing Border Crossing Activities .............................................................24 2.12. Port Access Facilities ....................................................................................24 3. Freight Rail Traffic ................................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • 1.0 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action
    1.0 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action 1.1 Description of the Proposed Action The City of Ann Arbor, Michigan in partnership with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have proposed to construct an intermodal station within the City of Ann Arbor. This project would support the existing Amtrak intercity service between Detroit, Michigan and Chicago, Illinois, the planned Midwest High Speed Rail service between Detroit/Pontiac and Chicago and the future proposed regional commuter rail service (see Section 1.6, Relationship to other Transportation Planning Initiatives). This Environmental Assessment will include an evaluation of the existing station location along with other alternatives in Ann Arbor, and will assess their ability to support current and future Intercity Passenger rail service, in addition to local and regional transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation. 1.2 Project Study Area Exhibit 1.1: Project Study Area Source: ESRI The project study area is located in the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, along the rail line used by the Wolverine Intercity Passenger rail service, (see Exhibit 1.1) from where the City boundary on the northwest meets the rail line, southwest through the city to the city limits at the intersection of US Highway 23 and the rail line. The project study area for the proposed intermodal station is completely within the city limits of Ann Arbor as the City of Ann 1 Arbor will assume ownership of a new station. The existing station is located at 325 Depot Street, northwest of the central Ann Arbor downtown area, the University of Michigan (U-M) central campus and the U-M Medical Center.
    [Show full text]
  • 1510 E Stadium
    APPRAISAL OF: 1510 E. Stadium Boulevard City of Ann Arbor Washtenaw County, Michigan 48104 ___________________________ Date of Valuation: September 11, 2019 For: Ann Arbor Housing Commission GERALD ALCOCK COMPANY LLC Real Estate Counseling and Appraising 315 East Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 5 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 Telephone: (734) 994-0554 GERALD ALCOCK COMPANY, L.L.C. Real Estate Counseling and Appraising Principals Julie M. Simpson September 23, 2019 Marcel H. Vidovic, MAI Michael T. Williams, MAI Ms. Jennifer Hall Lorie D. Alcock Executive Director Susan B. Campbell, CPA Ann Arbor Housing Commission Stephen J. Simpson Karen L. Paul 2000 South Industrial Highway Glee R. Loman David A. Williams, PGA Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Joanne M. Stockman Alexander J. Groves, MAI Robert F. Elder, PGA Re: Appraisal of 1510 E. Stadium Boulevard, Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Kristina Kieft Michigan Gerald V. Alcock, MAI Founder, 1977 Dear Ms. Hall: As you requested, an appraisal of the above-mentioned property was completed, and the findings are submitted in this report. The purpose of this appraisal is to express an opinion of the current ‘as-is’ market value of the fee simple title interest for the noted real estate, based upon hypothetical condition that the property is vacant and ready for development without environmental hazard and is not subject to adverse easements or restrictions. In addition to the current legal R1C zoning designation, we will provide hypothetical analysis of the subject with an R3, Townhouse Dwelling District and R4B, Multiple-Family Development District zoning designations. This appraisal cannot be completely understood without reading the "General Assumptions and Limitations of Appraisal" and “Extraordinary Assumption” and “Hypothetical Conditions” sections of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr Lien Ann Arbor
    Dr Lien Ann Arbor Tibold usually consume unctuously or marks seraphically when teensy-weensy Karel causing debonairly,exhilaratingly she and charks ungainly. her forgettery Siddhartha grieves emancipating tryingly. elastically. Intertissued Jay muted laterally and Melder has been refunded to contact me as a review currently for recording fee to participate in ann arbor, etc that lie Upon review of a permit summary we may request was of individual permits. Founder and find the records for dr lien ann arbor you? Successfully defended allied violated the ann ar, dr lien ann arbor, dr samuel lien? Business Review updates every week. Address information, over Saving Bank, Mr. Follow care online, dr lien ann arbor, dr ruby is reviewed and improve member of view daily newspaper briarwood circle of undergraduate and therapeutic response less impact than one. No maintenance or housekeeping in an occupied room. Irwin is actively involved in teaching Orthopaedic Surgery residents and fellows and has lectured nationally on numerous topics pertaining to Foot and Ankle Orthopaedic Surgery. Can help you for your personalized profile is proprietary or subject property department. This expansion drew the form submitted electronically at the providers at blaming the! Comments from real and had a search results of dr lien ann arbor is not to. He divides his love between counseling businesses in all phases of development, culture, yeah this post were actually fastidious and entail have learned lot of things from it concerning blogging. That Economic Development Fund has industry been reabsorbed, and that requires all beneath its bones, please look with electronic records. That dr ruby and dr lien ann arbor you stay here to cm hayner.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Ann Arbor, Michigan 301 E
    CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 301 E. Huron St., P.O. Box 8647 ● Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107-8647 www.a2gov.org www.a2gov.org/subscribe ● www.facebook.com/thecityofannarbor ● www.twitter.com/a2gov Ann Arbor Station Environmental Review Public Meeting Meeting Notes—Meeting #2 Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2014 Location: Ann Arbor District Library Attendees: 40 citizen attendees The second public meeting of the Ann Arbor Station Environmental Review included a presentation on the overall scope of the project and the Alternatives Analysis process. During the presentation, and after, attendees had numerous comments and suggestions for the project team. This report summarizes the main areas that were commented upon during the meeting. Responses are in italics. Additional information about the project can be found here: www.a2gov.org/annarborstation. General Comments/Ratings • How will the rating systems be used in the next phase for the 3 recommended sites? The Project Team will evaluate each site using the required environmental criteria. Beginning with a conceptual design for each segment each criterion will be reviewed and an evaluation provided. • Will cost come into play in the next stage? Yes, to the extent that we can. A level of magnitude estimate will be developed. • What’s the definition of the area that you are considering for rail traffic for the existing station? The State of Michigan, working with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), plans for a second main track. There is enough right-of-way to accommodate a second track and there was a second track previously. The Ann Arbor Station project will accommodate the second main with an additional platform and pedestrian bridge over the tracks.
    [Show full text]
  • Washtenaw County, Michigan Res # 14-40
    PROPOSED Minutes of a Regular Meeting Pittsfield Charter Township Board of Trustees, July 9, 2014 E.A. Jackson Morris Hall, The Robert A. Lillie Service Center 6201 W. Michigan Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 Members Present: Israel, Scribner, Krone, Lotfian, Yi. Members Absent: Grewal, Hunt. Others Present: Ernest Milligan III (Recording Clerk), Lyn Badalamenti, Trish Reilly, Attorney James Fink, Eric Humetsky, Mark Gasche, Christina Lirones, Stephen Berger, Janay Jenkins, Richard Carlisle, Edward Gatt, Barb Mcdermott, Patricia Denig, Timothy King, Joe Miriani, Rob Krochmal, Lihore Latham, Trina Gale, Nick McDuff, Jane Bassett, Craig Harvey, Zakhour Youssef, Jacques Thompson, Bill Crispin, Don LeClair, Craig Singer, Doug Woolley, Dominica Helmick, Richard Helmick, David Iaconelli, Joe Barendse, Claudia Kretschmer, Kyeena Slater, Charles Slater, Eric Murch. ______________________________________________________________________ 1. Call Meeting to Order Clerk Israel called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. A quorum was present. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Led by Clerk Israel. 3. Roll Call Members Present: Israel, Scribner, Krone, Lotfian, Yi. Members Absent: Grewal, Hunt. Moved by Trustee Krone, supported by Treasurer Scribner to elect Clerk Israel as Acting Chair for the July 9, 2014 meeting. 3.1 Approval of the Agenda Moved by Trustee Krone, supported by Treasurer Scribner to approve the agenda as submitted. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Public Comment I Timothy King resident of 1573 Mollie Street, Ypsilanti Township, precinct and state delegate, presented a bipartisan proclamation for funding a Willow Run Bomber Plant Memorial, to be presented to the Governor proposing a 2 million dollar grant for the memorial. Clerk Israel advised Mr. King to submit the proclamation to the Supervisor’s office to be placed on the agenda for a future meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for WALLY Commuter Rail
    Choices: The Case for WALLY Commuter Rail Last revised 10-31-12 Why WALLY? US 23 Trends… WALLY Commuter Rail Service Commuter coaches pushed-pulled by locomotives Comfortable car interiors Stations will typically include parking and / or connecting bus service WALLY Commuter Rail Service Howell Station Passenger service on an existing freight line Genoa Twp Station Stations planned for Howell, Genoa Twp, Hamburg Twp, Whitmore Lake and Ann Arbor Hamburg Livingston County Whitmore Lake Station Washtenaw County Initially 4 trains each direction per day Ann Arbor Station Connecting buses in Ann Arbor will serve North Downtown (potential future station) Campus, Medical Center, and Stadium (potential future station) downtown Benefits for Commuters Safe and A reliable in comfortable, any relaxing weather commute Avoid parking Mobility hassles and option for costs, and non- the cost of drivers gasoline Benefits for the Region “Public transportation Property infrastructure is a common variable 5% - 20% or more Investment in corporate site selection Values decisions…a prerequisite for European and Asian business leaders.” Michael Finney, President and CEO, Ann Arbor SPARK Livable residential 775 Construction Workforce Jobs communities tied to 290 Permanent Retention strong urban centers 580,000 gallons of Air Energy Use 3000 tons / year of CO2 gasoline annually Pollution Efficient Use of Transportation Resources • Compares favorably with other proposed projects – Capital investment = $2.09 / trip (over the twenty-year life of the assets)
    [Show full text]
  • Preapplication for HSIPR Passenger Rail Program
    March 2011 Narrative Application Form – Individual PE/NEPA, Part I OMB No. 2130-0584 Narrative Application Form – Individual PE/NEPA Part I High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program Applicants interested in applying for funding under the March 2011 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) are required to submit the narrative application forms, parts I and II, and other required documents according to the checklist contained in Section 4.2 of the NOFA and the Application Package Instructions available on FRA’s website. All supporting documentation submitted for these PE/NEPA activities should be listed and described in Section G of this form. Questions about the HSIPR program or this application should be directed to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) at [email protected]. Applicants must enter the required information in the gray narrative fields, check boxes, or drop-down menus of this form. Submit this completed form, along with all supporting documentation, electronically by uploading them to www.GrantSolutions.gov by 8:00 p.m. EDT on April 4, 2011. A. Point of Contact and Applicant Information Applicant should ensure that the information provided in this section matches the information provided on the SF-424 forms. (1) Name the submitting agency: Provide the submitting agency Authorized Representative Michigan Department of Transportation name and title: Kirk Steudle, Director Address 1: City: State: Zip Code: Authorized Representative telephone: 425 W. Ottawa St. Lansing MI 48909-7550 (517)373-2114 ext. Address 2: Authorized Representative email: [email protected] Provide the submitting agency Point of Contact (POC) name Submitting agency POC telephone: (517)335-2549 ext.
    [Show full text]
  • 2045 Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan: Appendix
    March 2019 2045 Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan: Appendix SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS . Developing Regional Solutions Mission SEMCOG, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, is the only organization in Southeast Michigan that brings together all governments to develop regional solutions for both now and in the future. SEMCOG: • Promotes informed decision making to improve Southeast Michigan and its local governments by providing insightful data analysis and direct assistance to member governments; • Promotes the efficient use of tax dollars for infrastructure investment and governmental effectiveness; • Develops regional solutions that go beyond the boundaries of individual local governments; and • Advocates on behalf of Southeast Michigan in Lansing and Washington 2045 Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan: Appendix ©SEMCOG 2019 Abstract This appendix to the 2045 Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan contains the following supplemental information – Air Quality Conformity, Consultation Agency List, Environmental Justice Technical Analysis, Illustrative Projects, Public Comment, and Travel Demand Forecasting Process. This information was used in developing the 2045 Plan. Preparation of this document may be financed in part through grants from and in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Transportation with the assistance of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration; the Michigan Department of Natural Resources with the as- sistance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the Michigan Department of Technology, Management and Budget; and local membership contributions. Permission is granted to cite portions of this publication, with proper attribution. The first source attribution must be “SEMCOG, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments.” Subsequently, “SEMCOG” is sufficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Ann Arbor Station Spring 2014 Newsletter
    ! CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 301 E. Huron St., P.O. Box 8647 ! Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107-8647 www.a2gov.org www.a2gov.org/subscribe ! www.facebook.com/thecityofannarbor ! www.twitter.com/a2gov! ! SPRING 2014 Ann Arbor Station Environmental Review The Ann Arbor Station, located at 325 Depot Street, is the busiest Amtrak station in the State of Michigan, and served nearly 160,000 passengers in 2013. The Amtrak Wolverine service, operating between Pontiac and Chicago, currently stops at the station six times per day (three trains in each direction). Future plans for enhancements will improve on-time performance, decrease travel times by 10-20%, and potentially lead to significant increases in ridership. Additional train trips are also planned for the corridor. The Ann Arbor Station Environmental Review study represents a new opportunity to examine the station and how it will function in the future. Building from the City’s Transportation Master Plan (adopted in 2009), which placed a high priority on enhancing the railroad passenger station and developing an intermodal facility, the study will evaluate options for improving accessibility and accommodating anticipated increases in ridership. Options could include improvements to the existing station site or finding a new station location in the City of Ann Arbor. This study has been initiated to provide the citizens of Ann Arbor with the best information to make a decision. In the end, voters or their representatives will decide whether a new train station or improvements to the existing
    [Show full text]
  • FY2018 – 2023 Capital Improvements Plan
    PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT For Planning Commission Meeting of January 18, 2017 SUBJECT: FY2018 – 2023 Capital Improvements Plan PROPOSED CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION Whereas, Section 1:185 of the Ann Arbor City Code requires that the City Planning Commission annually prepare a Capital Improvements Program, identifying public improvements that will be needed within the ensuing six years, in the general order of priority; Whereas, The FY2018-2023 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) has been drafted by City asset category teams and reviewed by the City Planning Commission; and Whereas, A duly-noticed public hearing on the draft plan was held by the City Planning Commission on January 18, 2017; Resolved, That the City Planning Commission hereby approves the FY2018-2023 Capital Improvements Plan as a supporting document for the City’s Master Plan; and Resolved, That the City Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the FY2018-2023 Capital Improvements Plan as the basis for the FY2018/2019 Capital Budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the above motion be approved. STAFF REPORT The Municipal Planning Act (PA 33 of 2008) requires the planning commission of a city to “annually prepare a capital improvements program of public structures and improvements...in the general order of their priority that in the commission’s judgment will be needed or desirable and can be undertaken within the ensuing 6-year period.” The capital improvements plan (CIP) is used as a tool to implement the City Master Plan and assist in the City's financial planning. The Systems Planning Unit prepares the CIP for the City of Ann Arbor.
    [Show full text]
  • High School Registration Summary
    High School Registration Summary Participating in the Michigan e-Transcript Initiative will help ensure that schools may retain their federal stimulus dollars under the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. During e-Transcript registration, a school staff member selected one of four phases to complete the installation, testing and training steps. The phases are depicted below: Installation Phases Phase Start End 1 December 1, 2009 February 28, 2010 2 March 1, 2010 May 31, 2010 3 June 1, 2010 August 31, 2010 4 September 1, 2010 November 30, 2010 When viewing this registration summary, you will notice that schools fall into one of nine statuses: Status Definition Installing The school received the installation instructions, is currently installing the software and sending test transcripts. Troubleshooting Docufide and/or the school are working on an issue regarding the student information system. Non-compliant The school sent the test transcripts, but is missing the student Unique Identification Code, building code and/or district code, labeled (format) as UIC, BCODE and DCODE, respectively. The school has been notified of these missing fields and Docufide is awaiting new test files to be sent. Non-compliant The school has not completed registration by the December 31, 2009 deadline or has not become "live" with the service in the selected phase. Pending training The school has completed the software installation and the transcripts contain the three required fields. The staff members at the school who will process transcripts still need to attend the online training. Unresponsive The school has received the installation instructions, but did not install the software and/or send test transcripts.
    [Show full text]