Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

CHAPTER 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Urban and Regional Planning Program Taubman College of Architecture & Urban Planning University of Michigan April 2012 Prepared by: Joel Batterman|Becca Homa|Shintaro Hori|Kimberly Jongsma|Moyin Li|Gautam Mani|Julia Roberts Cover photo source (left to right): AATA Route 4-Washtenaw (Joel Batterman), proposed Grand Rapids Silver Line (NC3D), and Eugene, Oregon Emerald Express (Wildish Land Co.). Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Prepared by:

Joel Batterman Becca Homa Shintaro Hori Kimberly Jongsma Moyin Li Gautam Mani Julia Roberts

Urban and Regional Planning Program, Taubman College of Architecture & Urban Planning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor | April, 2012 Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue ii sity ofMichigan Taubman College of Architecture andUrbanPlanning. Finally, we would like to acknowledge theenthusiastic ofJonathan Levine guidanceandsupervision andEricDueweke oftheUniver Nathaniel Voght, Washtenaw County Conrad Venema, Interurban Transit Partnership (TheRapid) Tom Schwetz, LaneTransit District Richard Murphy, CityofYpsilanti Paul Montagno, Pittsfield Township Kari Martin,Michigan Department of Transportation Paul Lott,Michigan Department of Transportation Joe Lawson, Ypsilanti Township Teresa Gillotti,Cityof Ypsilanti Anya Dale,University ofMichigan (formerly Washtenaw County) Eli Cooper, CityofAnnArbor Pat Cawley, CityofAnnArbor Terri Blackmore, Washtenaw Area Transportation Study organizations: Invaluable assistance alsocame from thefollowing members oftheRe-Imagine Washtenaw Joint Technical Committee andother are alsodueto AATA’s MichaelBenhamandJeff Murphy. study, whichwould nothave beenpossiblewithoutencouragement andadvicefrom Chrisandtheentire AATA staff. Particularthanks The authors would like to thankChrisWhite andtheAnnArborTransportation Authority(AATA) for theopportunity to complete this Acknowledgements - Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue iiiiii 1 xi vi xii 35 xiii

Page

10 13 36 37 44 52 52 2 4

Table of Contents Table Corridor Conditions of Bus Delay Points Delay Speed and Moving of Bus Travel A Snapshot Transportation Conditions Transportation Introduction Corridor Governance Conclusion Analysis Source 4 Delay 2: Route Chapter Methodology

Executive Summary Executive Corridor Washtenaw 1: The Chapter Tables of of Figures List List 4 and Study Area Route Map of AATA Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue iv Table ofContents Conclusion Phase Phase Three: Two: Bus Phased Bus Chapter 5:Implementation Rapid Improvements Conclusion Rapid Transit for Transit Washtenaw Lite Vision Transit Chapter 4:Recommendations Conclusion Roadway Treatments Chapter 3:Transit Improvement Toolkit Bus RapidTransit Implementation in Michigan Phase One:EnhancedBus Recommendations by Segment Corridor-Wide Applications Putting Together the Transit Improvement Puzzle: BRT Expidited Boarding Practices Intersection Treatments 134 132 130 128 128 124 111 103 98 92 87 80 67 56 Page 137 127 97 55 Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue v 141 Page 142 152 154

Table of Contents Table Methodology Calculation Appendix C: Benefits Studies Appendix A: Case in the US Rapid Transit Appendix B: Bus

Appendices Appendices Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue vi List ofFigures Figure 1.21.Unsignalized mid-blockcrossing nearPlatt Figure 1.20Washtenaw andFountain Square entrance drive, asignalized intersection lackingpedestrian crossing facilities Figure 1.19.Intersection of Washtenaw andGolfside, lackingsidewalks andcurb ramps Figure 1.18.Sidewalk Gaps ontheCorridor Figure 1.17.Informal Washtenaw Avenue trail, Ypsilanti Figure 1.16.Bicyclist onmuti-usepath, Washtenaw and Platt Figure 1.15.Average annualautomobile crashes instudy area, 2006-2010 Figure1.14b. Level onthecorridor (Westbound) ofservice Figure1.14a. Level onthecorridor(Eastbound) ofservice Figure1.13. Automobile Traffic Volumes Figure1.12. Municipalboundaries Figure1.11. Washtenaw Avenue features aglobalmixofeateries Figure1.10. Multifamily residential, Pittsfield Township Figure 1.9.Single-family residential, Ypsilanti Figure 1.8.Smallstrip commercial development, AnnArbor Figure 1.7.Large commercial development, AnnArbor Figure 1.6.LandusesalongandneartheWashtenaw Avenue Figure 1.5.Ypsi-Arbor Lanesbowling alley, now closed Figure 1.4.Underusedcommercial property onWashtenaw Figure 1.3.Washtenaw Avenue at US-23 andArborlandMall Figure 1.2.“Ypsi-Ann” interurban trolley, downtown AnnArbor, 1901 Figure1.1 Heavy traffic on westbound Washtenaw, inAnnArbor west of US-23, duringthemorningrush-hour Chapter 1 Page 22 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 16 15 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 5 5 5 4 2

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue vii 38 39 40 42 43 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 24 25 26 28 29 30 30 31 32 Page List of Figures List Figure 2.11: PM Peak Bus Speeds Between Stops on the Corridor (to Ann Arbor) Ann on the Corridor (to Stops Speeds Between Bus 2.11: PM Peak Figure Bus Activity (both directions) by Time on Corridor, 4 Travel Route 2.12: Total Figure Figure 2.6: AM Peak Bus Speeds Between Stops on the Corridor (to Ypsilanti) on the Corridor (to Stops Bus Speeds Between 2.6: AM Peak Figure Ypsilanti) on the Corridor (to Stops Between Bus Speeds 2.7: Off-peak Figure Ypsilanti) on the Corridor (to Stops Bus Speeds Between 2.8: PM Peak Figure Ann Arbor) on the Corridor (to Stops Bus Speeds Between 2.9: AM Peak Figure Ann Arbor) on the Corridor (to Stops Between Bus Speeds 2.10: Off-peak Figure Figure 2.2: PM Peak Bus Traffic Light Delay on the Corridor Delay Light Bus Traffic 2.2: PM Peak Figure on the Corridor Delay Light Traffic Bus 2.3: Off-peak Figure Time on the Corridor Bus Dwell 2.4: Peak Figure Time on the Corridor Bus Dwell 2.5: Off-peak Figure Figure 1.29. AATA On-time performance by Percentage, Selected Routes Selected Percentage, by On-time performance 1.29. AATA Figure 2 Chapter on the Corridor Delay Light Bus Traffic 2.1: AM Peak Figure Figure 1.26. AATA Route 4 riders by payment method payment by 4 riders Route 1.26. AATA Figure (Westbound) on Route4 Boardings Daily 1.27(a). Average Figure (Eastbound) on Route4 Boardings Daily 1.27(b). Average Figure 4 Route day- time of by percentage Performance 1.28. On-time Figure Figure 1.22. Pedestrian and bicycle crashes on Washtenaw, 2004-2009 on Washtenaw, crashes and bicycle 1.22. Pedestrian Figure routes AATA 4 and other Route for ridership weekday 1.23. Average Figure map system Authority Transportation 1.24. Ann Arbor Figure corridor 4 Route amenities on 1.25. Bus stop Figure Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue viii Figure 3.20:Illegal BackDoorBoarding Figure 3.19:BothDoors OpenonMetro Orange Figure 3.18:LasVegas SDX Vending Machine Figure 3.17:Twin CitiesGo-To Card Figure 3.16:MedianTransitway, Eugene, Oregon Figure 3.15:Pittsburgh’s East Busway Figure 3.14:SouthMiami-DadeBusway Figure 3.13:MedianTransitway Alignment Figure 3.12:LasVegas SDX BusinMedianOnlyLane Figure 3.11:LasVegas MAXBusExclusive Lane Figure 3.10:Exclusive BusLanewithBollards inBoston Figure 3.9:Confusing BusLaneSigninSanFrancisco Figure 3.8:VTA Bus Operating inMixed Traffic Lanes Figure 3.7(b):BusandBike Priority LaneinSeattle Figure 3.7(a):BusPriorityLaneinAlbany New, York Figure 3.6:BusLaneSigninNew York City Figure 3.5:QueueJumpSigninPortland, Oregon Figure 3.4(C):QueueJumpLaneinOakland,CA Figure 3.4(b):QueueJumpLaneinChandler, AZ Figure 3.4(a):QueueJumpLaneinPortland, OR Figure 3.3:BusQueueBypass LaneIllustration Figure 3.2:BusQueueJumpIllustration Figure 3.1:Aconfiguration for Active TSP Chapter 3 List ofFigures Page 86 85 83 82 78 77 77 77 74 74 73 72 70 68 68 68 66 66 65 65 64 62 57 Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue ix 88 88 89 90 90 91 104 107 108 110 112 113 114 116 117 119 120 120 122 123 105 105 Page List of Figures List Figure 4.13. Proposed Queue Jump with Transit Signal Priority at Golfside Road Golfside Signal Priority at Queue Jump with Transit 4.13. Proposed Figure Plaza Fountain at Location Stop 4.14. Current Figure Road Hewitt Signal Priority at Queue Jump with Transit 4.15. Proposed Figure Figure 4.9. Proposed Queue Jump Lanes with Transit Signal Priority at Yost Boulevard Yost Signal Priority at Queue Jump Lanes with Transit 4.9. Proposed Figure Road Carpenter/Hogback Signal Priority at Queue Jump Lanes with Transit 4.10. Proposed Figure Road Deake Shopping Mall at Crossing 4.11. Glencoe Figure Road at Golfside Location 4.12. Stop Figure Figure 4.4. Intersections with High Need for Transit Signal Priority Signal Transit for with High Need 4.4. Intersections Figure Queue Jump Lanes for Locations 4.5. Proposed Figure and Platt Manchester between Lane 4.6. Bus Through Figure and Platt Manchester Priority Lane between Transit 4.7. Potential Figure Parkway Huron Signal Priority at Queue Jump Lanes with Transit 4.8. Proposed Figure Figure 4.1(a) Map of Proposed BRT-Ready Stations (Eastbound) Stations BRT-Ready 4.1(a) Map of Proposed Figure (Westbound) Stations BRT-Ready 4.1(b) Map of Proposed Figure Station Rapid Transit 4.2. Los Angeles Figure in Cleveland Station BRT Machine at Vending 4.3. Fare Figure Figure 3.25: Metro Rapid Bus With Covered Wheels Covered Rapid Bus With 3.25: Metro Figure in Cleveland Vehicle BRT 3.26: Docking Figure 4 Chapter Figure 3.21: BRT Station, Community Transit Community Station, BRT 3.21: Figure Screen Time Information 3.22: Real Figure Station Orange Metro Near Path 3.23: Bike Figure Doors Bus With Three 3.24: RapidRide Figure Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue x Table 5.5:BusRapidTransit Improvements Table 5.4:Average TimeSavings inSeconds Per RunofQueue JumpLanes Table 5.3:BusRapidTransit Lite Improvements Table 5.2:Average TimeSavings inSeconds Per Runfor Transit SignalPriority Table 5.1:EnhancedBusImprovements Chapter 5 Table 4.1(c):Types ofTransit Recommendations by Segment on Washtenaw Avenue (3of3) Table 4.1(b):Types ofTransit Recommendations by Segment on Washtenaw Avenue (2of3) Table 4.1(a):Types ofTransit Recommendations by Segment on Washtenaw Avenue (1of3) Chapter 4 Table 3.3:Capital Costs ofFareboxes Table 3.2:Types ofBenefits Observed with TSP, United States Table 3.1:TheCapital andOperating Costs of Transit SignalPriority Chapter 3 Table 2.3:Moving Delay for Afternoon Peak Trips Table 2.2:Moving Delay onMid-Day Trips Table 2.1:Moving Delay for theAMPeak Period Chapter 2 Table 1.1.Roadway Segment Characteristics Chapter 1 List ofTables Page 132 131 131 129 129 102 101 100 81 60 59 46 45 45 13

UV10 UV10

Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue Transit UV1 UV20 UV20 Ann Arbor

Downtown Ann Arbor AATA Route 4 and Study Area Æa\\

UM Campus Arborland EMU \ Ypsilanti t \ Downtown \ Ypsilanti Æa

Ann Arbor Pittsfield Ypsilanti Ypsilanti Legend Township Township LegendMunicipal Boundaries AATA Route 4 Washtenaw Legend Miles Other AATA Bus Routes 0 1 2 3 Miles ¯ aÆ Study Area Miles 0 1 2 3 0 $ 1 2 3 ¯ aÆ AATA Transit Center

Data source: AATA. Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue xiii

Executive Summary Executive

due to rising bus commutes to Ann Arbor and the University Arbor and the University Ann to rising bus commutes due to Plan marks Master Countywide and the AATA of Michigan, on However, transit. high-capacity future for Washtenaw been reliability has historically bus of congestion, account time 4 travel Route and the scheduled 45-minute poor, is not Ypsilanti Ann Arbor and downtown downtown between automobile. by time travel with competitive of is a 4.5-mile segment of this report area The study in Ann Avenue Stadium running from Avenue Washtenaw target corridor is the This in Ypsilanti. Summit Street Arbor to which initiative, Washtenaw Re-Imagine of the collaborative transit- encourage to governments local together has brought redevelopment. oriented Bus service along Washtenaw is the most frequent in the AATA in the AATA frequent most is the Bus service along Washtenaw during headways ten minute and five buses alternate system, years, recent in significantly grown has Ridership peak hours.

very day, thousands of people use the Route 4 - Washtenaw 4 - Washtenaw use the Route thousands of people day, very and lacks consistent pedestrian and bicycle facilities. and bicycle pedestrian consistent and lacks Washtenaw Avenue was the site of Michigan’s first interurban interurban first of Michigan’s the site was Avenue Washtenaw trunkline M-17, it later state line. As the Michigan streetcar suburban development. auto-oriented for a major axis formed times, travel during peak congestion significant suffers It now Conditions Current Ypsilanti, of Ann Arbor and city centers Connecting the historic improvements and transformative long-term changes that can that changes long-term and transformative improvements place. accessible and prosperous a more the corridor make 4.5 miles between Stadium Boulevard in Ann Arbor and the in Ann Boulevard Stadium 4.5 miles between and sources delay analyzes study This tower. water Ypsilanti reducing for measures recommend to practices best national immediate including both along Washtenaw, delay transit Avenue bus to access central Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and and Ypsilanti, Ann Arbor, access central bus to Avenue in the route Yet the most-travelled between. in destinations is often system (AATA) Authority Ann Arbor Transportation congested in the conditions, particularly traffic by slowed E AATA Route 4 and Study Area 4 and Study Route AATA Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue Transit Avenue Washtenaw Reimagining Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue xiv Executive Summary at majorintersections and nearUS-23. Delays are greatest duringafternoon peakhours, particularly Delay consisted ofthree types: primary corridor outofmotion,sitting at redlights andbus stops. spend themajorityoftypical 22-minute tripthrough the along Washtenaw. Thisanalysis found that Route 4buses identifying appropriate measures for streamlining service An analysis ofspecificdelay sources was thefirst step in Route 4Delay Source Analysis • • • (14% total travel timeduringPM Peak) congested conditions Moving delay, timemoving at slow speedsin (26% total travel timeduringPM Peak) Dwell timedelay, timepaused atbus stops (49% total travel timeduringPM Peak) Signal delay, timepaused at traffic signals

Transit delays ofthekindobserved onWashtenaw are not Transit Improvement Strategies these treatments, forming amodeofhigh-qualityservice Over thepast decade cities across theUnited States combined improvement. built onWashtenaw Avenue for significant transit system Pedestrian amenities,sidewalks and crosswalks, must be overlapping strategies. practices for combating them generally fit into three broad, unusual incongested urbanenvironments. National best • • • in dwell time. and fare pre-payment, can reduce inconsistencies Boarding treatments, suchasconsolidated stops can reduce moving delay. Roadway treatments, suchasdedicated buslanes, around traffic signals. priority andqueue-jumplanes,can reduce delay Intersection treatments, includingtransit signal

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue xv

Provide transit signal priority (early or extended signal priority (early or extended transit Provide peak hours at green) intersections, key queue-jump lanes at Construct right-of-way acquiring after Mark right-turn lanes as bus through lanes and lanes and lanes as bus through Mark right-turn signal priority transit implement rail-like as distinct stops additional Consolidate payment with pre-board stops” “super Complete the pedestrian network the pedestrian Complete them to moving stops, and improve Consolidate of intersections the far-side • • • • • • Executive Summary Executive

3-7) (years Lite Bus Rapid Transit Phase Two: service limited-stop new, a distinctive, This phase creates reduce substantially would that Avenue along Washtenaw Like enhancing servicecorridor. on the intersections, at delay the Bus Rapid cities, it meets in other U.S. systems lite” “BRT funding, for Small Starts allowing federal for criteria Transit $75 million. of up to assistance capital Phase One, plus:

while piloting selective use of delay reduction strategies. reduction use of delay while piloting selective Phase One: Enhanced Bus (years 1-3) Phase One: Enhanced Bus (years at be implemented can that This phase includes measures planned or already expense, including many low relatively for riders safety enhanced provides phase first This underway. by corridor segment (Chapter 4). These measures are grouped grouped are 4). These measures (Chapter segment corridor by build cumulatively phases that implementation in three 5). (Chapter Based on the delay analysis, national best practices, and practices, best national analysis, Based on the delay of a range recommends this study interviews, stakeholder Corridor in the Washtenaw measures improvement transit of opportunities description a detailed and provides area study and Implementation Recommendations pedestrian accessibility, integration with other transportation transportation with other integration accessibility, pedestrian it distinguish to and marketing branding modes, and enhanced bus service. local traditional from BRT also includes rail- also includes BRT (BRT). Transit Bus Rapid termed improved vehicles, high-capacity distinctive stations, like Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue xvi Executive Summary strong institutional foundation forthis process. Re-Imagine Washtenaw Joint Technical Committee provides a Fortunately, theclose working relationship established by the through careful planning andlong-term investments. without furtherdelaying othertraffic, canonlybe overcome challenge ofreducing busdelay, usinglimited right-of-way cooperation among Washtenaw’s diverse stakeholders. The These recommendations require intensive, ongoing Phase OneandTwo, plus: gains. congestion alongmuchofthe route, bringingmajor reliability authority (CIA).Theselaneswould allows busesto bypass acquisition, likely fundedthrough a corridor improvement segments ofthecorridor, requiring majorright-of-way Phase Three establishes adedicated busway alongparticular Phase Three: BusRapidTransit (years 7-15)

• • (accordion-like) buses Purchase distinctive high-capacity articulated lanes asfeasible Acquire right-of-way andconstruct new bus-only

CHAPTER 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

INTRODUCTION Figure 1.1: Heavy traffic on westbound Washtenaw, in Ann Arbor west of US-23, during the morning rush hour. Linking the city centers and universities in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw Avenues’ five lanes carry tens of thousands of travelers daily. Public transit ridership on the Ann Arbor Transpotation Authority’s Route 4-Washtenaw bus line, the most-used in the system, reached an all-time high of 885,490 riders in 2011,1 accounting for approximately seven percent of travelers in the corridor.2 In January 2012, AATA doubled peak-hour bus frequencies along the corridor in response to growing demand. This frequency increase, combined with AATA’s potential countywide expansion should further boost ridership in the coming years. However, Accelerating transit along Washtenaw would be a priority vehicular congestion creates particular difficulties for transit on the basis of ridership alone, but plans for transit-oriented riders. Route 4 reliability has historically been poor, adding redevelopment make it especially imperative. The Re-Imagine delays to a trip which, at a total 45 minutes from end to end, Washtenaw initiative, a collaborative planning effort initiated Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s cannot compete with driving on the basis of time alone. by the County, seeks enhanced transit that will catalyze mixed-use redevelopment along the corridor, just as roadway investments helped transform Washtenaw from a rural road to a major commercial center over the previous century. As Ann Arbor’s service-oriented economy expands, the sustainability of the county at large relies on increasing transit access from points eastward. 2 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Transforming Washtenaw transit, however, requires attention into the causes of bus delay. This chapter assesses the current to a number of challenges. To reduce delay and make transit state of the Washtenaw corridor to provide a foundation for travel competitive with driving, transit vehicles must be able this plan. to bypass congestion. Yet the tightly limited existing right- of-way on Washtenaw makes this a difficult task without compounding congestion further by removing general traffic lanes on the busiest segments of the corridor. In addition, providing safe and comfortable access to transit will require a complete pedestrian and bicycle network on a road that frequently lacks basic sidewalks, adequate crossing facilities and bicycle infrastructure.

All of these challenges can be overcome with time, money, and the willingness to plan collaboratively. An increasing number of U.S. regions have implemented measures to reduce bus delay and improve overall service as part of a unified package of enhancements called Bus Rapid Transit, which can offer the quality transit typically associated with rail systems at a fraction of the cost. This study reviews these measures, outlines recommendations for the Washtenaw corridor, and sets forth a three-phase plan for implementing Bus Rapid Transit on Washtenaw over a period of years, based on an analysis of the Washtenaw study area and a detailed inquiry

3 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

CORRIDOR CONDITIONS

Corridor History Until the mid-20th century, farmland lined most of Washtenaw Postwar investment in automobile infrastructure catalyzed Avenue’s eight miles between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. Washtenaw’s rapid development. Developer A. Alfred Interurban trolleys like the one shown in Figure 1.2, plied Taubman completed Arborland Center, the county’s first major rails along Washtenaw from 1891 to 1963. However, as their mall, in 1961.3 As seen in Figure 1.3, its red “A” sign would name suggests, these served through traffic between Ann beckon motorists along adjacent US-23, which opened a direct Arbor, Ypsilanti and cities east and west. They did not foster link between Washtenaw and the new I-94 expressway one development along the corridor between them. year later. Smaller auto-oriented retail strips filled much of the Figure 1.2: “Ypsi-Ann” Interurban trolley, Downtown Ann corridor’s remaining length. Arbor, 1901 Over the last decades of the century, the area between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti continued to gain more housing, but new commercial development elsewhere sapped Washtenaw’s former retail strength as demonstrated by Figure 1.4. Within

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s Ann Arbor, the real estate market is robust, as demonstrated by the reconstruction of Arborland, the construction of Huron Village and the proposed Arbor Crossings. However, east of US-23, the real estate market is somewhat weaker. The 2011 closing of the iconic Ypsi-Arbor Lanes bowling alley, shown in Figure 1.5, symbolized the passing of the corridor’s first, postwar commercial phase.4 Source: Hildebrandt and Churchill, 2009 4 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Figure 1.3: Washtenaw Avenue at US-23 and Arborland Mall

Figure 1.5: Ypsi-Arbor Lanes Bowling Alley (now closed)

Figure 1.4: Underused Commercial Property on Washtenaw

Source: Concentratemedia.com, 2010

5 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

Land Use and Demographics Figure 1.6: Single-family Residential, Ypsilanti Washtenaw Avenue connects the major employment and educational assets of the County. The campuses of the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University are situated adjacent to the historic downtown cores of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, respectively. The University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Health System, located along Route 4, employ the most people within Washtenaw County.5 Eastern Michigan University is also a top employer.6

The Washtenaw study area, from Stadium to Cross, consists primarily of late 20th-century auto-oriented development. Most development fronting the corridor is one-story strip Figure 1.7: Multifamily Residential, Pittsfield Township commercial, including large centers like Arborland and smaller commercial properties, interspersed with some residential dwellings. Flanking the corridor are relatively dense residential

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s neighborhoods, consisting primarily of single-family homes (Figure 1.6) and large apartment complexes (Figure 1.7) in the townships. Figure 1.8 shows this particular mix of land uses.

6 Land Use by Parcel, Washtenaw Avenue Corridor and Surrounding Areas

Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Figure 1.8: Land Uses along and near the Washtenaw Avenue

Land Use by Parcel, Washtenaw Avenue Corridor and Surrounding Areas Land Use by Parcel, Washtenaw Avenue Corridor and Surrounding Areas

Miles 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 Land Use Land Use Legend Land Use by Pabrcy ePla, rWceal shtenaw Avenue Corridor and Surrounding Areas by Parcel Agricultural Golfside_Ypsi2 Airport Agricultural Carpenter_Golfside Commercial Airport Pittsfield_Carpenter2 Land Use Governmental / Institutional Commercial Huron_Pitts Data source: City of Ann Arbor Legendby Parcel Industrial Miles US_23 0 0.5 1 Governmental / Institutional Agricultural Multi-family residential Arterial_Rd Agricultural Multiple-family residential Miles Legend Industrial route4 ¯ AAirportirport PParks,arks, R Recreation,ecreation, an dand O peOpenn Sp aSpacece 0 0.5 1 Golfside_Ypsi2 Multiple-family residential CCommercialommercial SSingle-familyingle-family re residentialsidential Carpenter_Golfside GGovermental/Institutionalovernmental / Institutional TTransportation,CU Communication, and Utility Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Huron_Pitts Miles IIndustrialndusPtirttisaflield_Carpenter2 WWaterater Single-family residential 0 0.5 1 Multirpoluet-ef4amily residential TCU Parks, RecreatMioinle,s and Open Space Water 0 0.5 1 1.5 Single-family residential TCU 7 Water Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

Typical Development along the Washtenaw Corridor Figure 1.9: Large Commercial Development, Ann Arbor. Despite relative consistency in design characteristics along its length, the Washtenaw corridor is highly diverse in other respects. Businesses range from big-box national retail chains to small independent businesses, and the population includes a wide spectrum of students, professionals and working families. Figures 1.9 and 1.10 illustrate the different types of commercial development along Washtenaw. The Ann Arbor portion of the corridor is higher-income, with an average median income of $64,437 in census tracts west of US-23.7 Meanwhile, census tracts east of US-23 have an average median income of $50,829.8 Municipal planners indicate that affordable real estate and housing makes the area an attractive Figure 1.10: Small Strip Commercial Development, Ann Arbor. home for immigrants, who own a number of local businesses,9 a number of which are shown in Figure 1.11. Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s

8 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Figure 1.11: Global Mix of Eateries

9 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

CORRIDOR GOVERNANCE

Figure 1.12: Municipal Boundaries

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !( US 23 !(!(

(! Miles (! (! Huron Pkwy 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 (!(! (! (! (! (! !( (! (!

(! (! (! (!

(! Dr Golfside Legend (! (! (! Rd N Hewwit !( (! ( (! (! (! (! (! St Mansfield

(! St Oakwood Manchester Rd Manchester (! (!

Platt Rd Platt (! (! Pittsfield Blvd Pittsfield (! (!

Golfside_Ypsi2 Blvd Yost (! (! Carpenter Rd Carpenter (! !( Carpenter_Golfside !( !( Pittsfield_Carpenter2 Huron_Pitts Legend US_23 Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s Data source: Jurisdiction file from TIGER. Legend(! stop_to_aa_selection Arterial_Rd Legend (! stoBusp_to _Stopypsi_selection Miles Legend route4 Automobile Crashes rorouRouteutet4e4 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 p¯ Miles 9 - 13 GCCoitCityliyft yso ifod A feof nA_nn Y AnnAnpr Absoir2 brArboror 0 0.5 1 p CCCaitCityriytp yoe fo nY foft pYespr iYpsilanti_lsaGinlatoinltfiside 14 - 17 !( HPPuitPittsfieldrittsotfsnief_iledPl dCit hCtsahrtae rrt ChartereTor wTnoswhni psTownshiphip !( !( Ypsilanti Charter Township p PiYttpYpsilantissfilealndt_i Cha arCharterprteenr tTeorw2 nTownshipship !( !( 18 - 26 (!(! !( route4 !( (!(! (!(! (! Miles 10 (! !( (! !( (! (! 0 0.5 1 1.5 (! (! j !(!( (! (! 27 - 44 (! (! (! p (! (! Miles (! p (! (! (! ! (! p 0 0.5( 1 1.5 (! (! (!(! !( (! !( (! (! ( p (! (! (! p (! (! !( !( (! (! ( ( !(! (! ( (! (! (! (! (! (! j (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! !( ( (! j (! (! (! (! !( (! (! (! !( p !( p !( Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Corridor Jurisdiction and Stakeholders and bicycle accessibility, as well as new development on Public investments in transportation infrastructure helped the land they govern. However, all have worked closely for transform Washtenaw from rural road to busy commercial years, and they have cooperated more formally since MDOT’s strip, and have the potential to reshape the corridor initiation of the Washtenaw County Access Management once again. However, a wide variety of public actors have Plan, completed in 2008. Like those prepared for other state jurisdiction over its elements. The roadway itself is the trunklines, the plan focused on reducing the number of access property of the Michigan Department of Transportation points (commercial driveways) along Washtenaw. In response (MDOT), which refers to Washtenaw as state trunkline M-17. to local interest, it also noted potential transit, pedestrian, and The cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti maintain the road and bicycle improvements, and the potential for transit-oriented its traffic signals under a Memorandum of Understanding redevelopment at nodes such as the US-23 interchange. with MDOT, while the Washtenaw County Road Commission (WCRC) does so within the Ypsilanti and Pittsfield townships. Meanwhile, the 2008-9 preparation of the Ann Arbor Region The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority communicates Success Strategy by local public and private sector leaders regularly with these units of government, although it has no stimulated County interest in redeveloping the Washtenaw formal role in corridor management. Long-term transportation corridor. Under the Re-Imagine Washtenaw initiative, the planning responsibilities for the corridor rest with the County convened the four municipalities, shown in Figure 1.12, Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), the County’s and MDOT, as well as other public and private stakeholders, to transportation planning organization, while local governments discuss coordinated, transit-oriented corridor redevelopment. hold zoning power. The resulting 2009 Re-Imagine Washtenaw vision report established a Joint Technical Committee (JTC) to explore The interests of these stakeholders vary. In general, MDOT implementation options, including coordinated zoning and prioritizes motor traffic flow more than local jurisdictions, creation of a Corridor Improvement Authority (CIA). Legislation which are more likely to seek improvements in pedestrian to establish a Corridor Improvement Authority, which would

11 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

allow tax-increment financing (TIF) for redevelopment, was All the major actors along the corridor agree that Washtenaw introduced in the 2011-2012 Michigan State Legislative Session must do a better job accommodating all modes of but without crucial interest from lawmakers has languished transportation. At present, however, Washtenaw Avenue itself in committee. The JTC continues to meet monthly. It provides continues to reflect its history of planning for automobiles a forum for inter-municipal cooperation, and has drawn alone. significant federal attention, as recognized in major grants for more frequent bus service ($2.6M), from the Federal Transit Administration, and overall corridor sustainability ($3M), from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Sustainable Community Initiative.

“Washtenaw Avenue is the primary transportation corridor linking the region’s job and education centers, the City of Ann Arbor and the City of Ypsilanti. Existing land use practices along this five-mile stretch have resulted in a sprawling and congested, auto-centric development pattern limiting the ability to provide the high quality of place residents and visitors expect. The City of

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township, Ypsilanti Township and the City of Ypsilanti recognize that Washtenaw Avenue has potential to be transformed using smart growth and transit- oriented development (TOD) principles.” -Re-Imagine Washtenaw Corridor Redevelopment Strategy, 2010

12 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS

Roadway Design Within the study area, Washtenaw Avenue has a standard five- The corridor contains eleven signalized intersections, as well lane cross-section, including four through lanes and a center as a large number of intersecting streets and driveways. An turning lane. Raised concrete medians separate traffic along additional signal may also be installed at Platt in the near the segment near Arborland between Chalmers and US-23, as term. The 2008 Washtenaw County Access Management Plan well as at either end of the study area, at Stadium and Cross. recommends gradual consolidation of commercial driveways Posted speed limits vary from 35 to 45 mph, although MDOT along the corridor to reduce traffic conflicts from turning and the Michigan State Police are proposing to increase speed vehicles. Most do not meet its standard that driveways be limits on the lower-speed sections east of US-23.10 Table 1.1 placed at least 230 feet from intersections on 40 mph speed- shows the current characteristics of the roadway. limit roads.11

Table 1.1 : Roadway Segment Characteristics Middle Number Segment of Corridor Speed Limit Width Type Lane of Lanes 45 mph to 40 mph Stadium to Chalmers 62’ Asphalt Turn Lane 5 at Huron Pkwy Chalmers to 40 mph 105’ Asphalt Median 6 Carpenter Rd Carpenter Rd to 40 mph 64’ Concrete Turn Lane 5 Hewitt Hewitt to Ypsilanti 35 mph 64’ Concrete Turn Lane 5 Data source:The Greenway Collaborative, Inc. Washtenaw Avenue Corridor Non-motorized Transportation Study. (2010).

13 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

Automobile Traffic Conditions Washtenaw Avenue is among the most-travelled and most congested roads in the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti area. The chief bottleneck is the study area’s western segment, which provides access to Ann Arbor via the US-23 interchange. Figure 1.13 illustrates the traffic volumes in the corridor. Carrying nearly 40,000 motor vehicles per day, several segments, particularly around US-23 currently receive a Level of Service (LOS) grade of “D” or “E” during peak time. These grades are shown in Figure 1.14 and indicate operation at full capacity. East of Carpenter, however, Washtenaw carries less than 30,000 vehicles per day, and receives an LOS grade of “A” or “B,” indicating reasonably free flow of traffic. The Washtenaw study area also includes some of the highest-crash intersections in the county, including Carpenter-Hogback and Golfside which average thirty-nine and forty-four crashes per

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s year, respectively (see Figure 1.15).12

14 Miles 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2

Legend

Golfside_Ypsi2 Carpenter_Golfside Pittsfield_Carpenter2 Huron_Pitts US_23 Arterial_Rd Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor route4 Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Figure 1.13: Automobile Traffic Volumes

Miles 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2

US 23 Legend Huron Pkwy

Golfside_Ypsi2 Carpenter_Golfside MilesMiles 0 00.2 0.02.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.2 Pittsfield_Carpenter2 Manchester Rd Manchester Oakwood Huron_Pitts Platt Rd Platt Pittsfield Blvd Pittsfield Carpenter Rd Carpenter US_23 LegLegndend Rd N Hewit St Mansfield Golfside Dr Golfside Arterial_Rd Legend route4 GolfGsiodlefs_idYep_sYi2psi2 ¯ CarCpeanrpteern_tGero_lfGsiodlefside Golfside_Ypsi2 PittsPfiettlsdf_ieClda_rCpeanrpteern2ter2 Carpenter_Golfside HurHonu_roPnit_tsPitts Huron_Pitts Pittsfield_Carpenter2 US_U2S3_23 Data source: Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, 2011. route4 Legend ArteAriratel_rRiadl_Rd TrafficLegL eVolumes(vehicles/day)gndend routreo4ute4 Miles ¯¯ 0 0.5 1 1.5 G25,000olfGsiodlefs_idYep_sYi2psi2 C29,968arCpeanrpteern_tGero_lfGsiodlefside H37,700urHonu_roPnit_tsPitts P39,922ittsPfiettlsdf_ieClda_rCpeanrpteern2ter2 routreo4ute4 MileMsiles 0 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1.5 1.5

15 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

Figure 1.14(a): Peak Time Level of Service on the Corridor (Eastbound) Eastbound

US 23 Huron Pkwy Golfside Dr Golfside N Hewitt Rd N Hewitt Oakwood St Oakwood Manchester Rd St Mansfield Platt Rd Platt Yost Blvd Yost Carpenter Rd Carpenter

Figure 1.14(b): Peak Time Level of Service on the Corridor (Westbound) Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 Westbound Legend (Level of servie) BTC A US 23 Miles Huron Pkwy 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 B C D

Golfside Dr Golfside E Legend Rd N Hewitt Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s Oakwood St Oakwood Manchester Rd St Mansfield Platt Rd Platt Yost Blvd Yost Carpenter Rd Carpenter Golfside_Ypsi2 Carpenter_Golfside Pittsfield_Carpenter2 Huron_Pitts US_23 Data source: Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, 2011. Arterial_Rd Miles Legend route4 0 0.5 1 1.5 ¯ Golfside_Ypsi2 Carpenter_Golfside 16 Huron_Pitts Pittsfield_Carpenter2 route4 Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Figure 1.15: Average Annual Automobile Crashes in Study Area, 2006-10.

pp US 23 p pHuron Pkwy p j

Miles Dr Golfside 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2

Manchester Rd Manchester j Rd N Hewwit

p St Mansfield Yost Blvd Yost Oakwood St Oakwood

Legend Rd Platt Rd Carpenter p

Golfside_Ypsi2 Carpenter_Golfside Pittsfield_Carpenter2 Legend Huron_Pitts Automobile Crashes route4 US_23 Data sources: Jurisdiction file from TIGER. Crash data from the Greenway Collaborative,Legpen Inc.d Washtenaw Avenue Corridor Non-motorized Transportation Study. (2010). 9 - 13 City of Ann Arbor Arterial_Rd ALuetgoemnodbile Crashes route4 Miles LegendpLegend City of Ypsilanti route4 ¯ Legenpd 149 -- 1173 0 0.5 1 1.5 AutomobileAutomoGbol ifCrashessleid eC_Yrpassi2hes Criotyu toef4 Ann Arbor Autompobile Crashes rPoRouteuittsef4ield 4 Charter Township pp 9-139 - 13 CCitiyty o of fY Apnsnila Anrtbi or Carp1e4nt e- r1_7Golfside City of Ann Arbor pp 9 - 13 Ypsilanti Charter Township CCityity o fof An Annn Ar bArboror p 18 - 26 City of Ypsilanti pHuron14-17_Pitts PCitittsyf ioefld Y Cpshialarntetir Township 14 - 17 !( 14 - 17 p CCityity o fof Yp Ypsilantisilanti Pit1ts4f ie- l1d_7Carpenter2 YPpisttislafinetlid C Chhaartreter rT Toowwnnsshhipip !( p 18-26 Pittsfield Charter Township !( 18 - 26 route4 PPittsfieldittsfield Cha rtCharterer Town sTownshiphip !( !( p Ypsilanti Charter Township p Ypsilanti Charter Township 27-4418 - 26 !( jp Miles YpYpsilantisilanti Ch aCharterrter Tow nTownshipship !( 1287 -- 2464 0 0.5 1 1.5 pp Miles !( j !( p 0 0.5 27 - 44 1 1.5 !(!( j p Miles pp 27 - 44 (! p 27 - 44 (! j (! 0 0.5 1 1.5 (! p 27 - 44 (! p Miles (! p 17 (! pp Miles !( j ( (! p 0 0.5 1 1.5 pp p 0 0.5 1 M1il.e5s (! p p (! p p 0 0.5 1 1.5 (! (! p !( j (! !( p (! p j (! (! !( (! j ! p ( j (! (! (! (! (! j (! (! p (! j (! (! (! (! p (! (! (! j !( (! j (! !( p p !( j pp !( p pp Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

Bicycle Facility and Traffic Conditions Figure 1.16: Bicyclist on Multi-use Path, Washtenaw and Platt Dedicated bikeways along Washtenaw within the study area are minimal. Asphalt shared-use paths now parallel the roadway on either side at the western end of the study area, between Stadium and Platt. Although the 2007 Ann Arbor Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan recommends in- street bicycle lanes along Washtenaw between Huron Parkway and Yost, the limited right-of-way bars implementation of preferred minimum-width 5’ bicycle lanes, which do not exist anywhere within the study area. Off-street paths along Huron Parkway and Hewitt (part of the County Border-to-Border Over the long term, additional protected bicycle infrastructure Trail) provide connections to the north. along the corridor, such as cycle tracks or extended off-street paths as shown in Figure 1.16 would greatly facilitate east- Limited data exists on bicycle traffic in the corridor. Although west access in the area. This would require overcoming right- the Border-to-Border Trail provides a parallel northern route of-way issues and planning to avoid conflicts with turning for long-distance bicycle travel between Ann Arbor and motor traffic. Another future opportunity is the southwest

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s Ypsilanti, it is too distant to provide a convenient alternative extension of the existing rail trail between Hewitt and route for travel within the corridor itself. To the south, Packard Oakwood, over the abandoned Ypsilanti-Saline railroad right- Road also lacks bicycle facilities. As a result, Washtenaw will of-way, which crosses Washtenaw east of Golfside, adjacent continue to be the east-west route of choice for local bicycle to the Fountain Plaza mall. This trail would provide a valuable traffic within the corridor, despite the poor level of service it connection through Pittsfield Township to the Carpenter Road currently provides. commercial corridor. Improved bicycle access to and along Washtenaw would also enhance transit.

18 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Pedestrian Facilities Figure 1.17: Informal Washtenaw Avenue Trail, Ypsilanti Despite the volume of transit and pedestrian activity on Washtenaw, the 2010 Washtenaw Avenue Corridor Non- Motorized Transportation Study characterized the pedestrian facilities as poor.13 Sidewalks are intermittent in the more recently developed parts of the study area, especially on the south side of Washtenaw between Platt and Mansfield, although well-trodden trails testify to substantial pedestrian traffic, such as the informal trail in Ypsilanti seen in Figure 1.17. Sidewalk deficiencies in this area have resulted in closer bus stop spacing, as shown in Figure 1.18.

However, all local governments recognize the need for completing the sidewalk network. Pittsfield Township recently filled the sidewalk gaps on the north side of Washtenaw within its jurisdiction. MDOT will include new multi-use paths under US-23 in an upcoming interchange improvement project. The key task is identifying funding for the remaining gaps, since few local governments have a dedicated funding source for new sidewalk construction.

19 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

Figure 1.18: Sidewalk Gaps on the Corridor Eastbound

US 23

Huron Pkwy

Manchester Rd Golfside Dr Golfside Rd N Hewitt Mansfield St Mansfield Oakwood St Oakwood Platt Rd Platt Blvd Yost Carpenter Rd Carpenter Foster Rd Foster

Westbound LegendLegend Miles stopBus_to_ stopYpsi_copy 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 misMissingsingsidew sidewalksalk_EB

Miles 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 US 23

Huron Pkwy

Legend Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s Manchester Rd

Golfside_Ypsi2 Dr Golfside Rd N Hewitt Mansfield St Mansfield Carpenter_Golfside St Oakwood Platt Rd Platt Blvd Yost Pittsfield_Carpenter2 Rd Carpenter Foster Rd Foster Huron_Pitts

US_23 Data sources: AATA and Google Maps. Arterial_Rd Miles Legend route4 0 0.5 1 1.5 ¯ Golfside_Ypsi2 20 Carpenter_Golfside Huron_Pitts Pittsfield_Carpenter2 route4 Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

The American with Disabilities Act requires sidewalks to Crossing Washtenaw is a particularly dangerous endeavor feature curb ramps with red “warning strips” or truncated for pedestrians, since marked crosswalks are few and domes to warn visually impaired people that they may far between. In Figure 1.20 pedestrians scramble across encounter oncoming traffic.14 Many intersections on Washtenaw at the Fountain Square entrance drive, a Washtenaw, however, especially east of Goldside, lack ramps signalized intersection lacking pedestrian crossing facilities. as well as ADA warning strips, as shown in Figure 1.19. The Along three segments of the study area, crosswalks are well-worn ground demonstrates intensive pedestrian usage, more than one-half mile apart, four times the one-eighth often from the heavily used bus stop nearby yet neither mile spacing required for convenient use.15 Most signalized sidewalks nor curb ramps are provided. crosswalks must also be activated by pedestrians, resulting in longer waiting periods for crossing. Figure 1.19: Intersection of Washtenaw and Golfside, Lacking Sidewalks and Curb Ramps Two signalized intersections on Washtenaw, at Yost (adjacent to Arborland) and Fountain Plaza, currently omit pedestrian crossing facilities altogether. Two others, at Pittsfield and the Glencoe Crossing entrance drive, include pedestrian crossings of Washtenaw on only one side of the intersection. This omission is particularly hazardous at Arborland, since it requires bus riders to wait at three different signalized crossings to reach the eastbound (south side) bus stop from Arborland, though the City of Ann Arbor plans to add a fourth crosswalk over the coming year. In practice, most bus riders simply cross against vehicle traffic.

21 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

Figure 1.20: Washtenaw and Fountain Square Entrance Drive Finally, a mid-block crossing between Platt and Arlington shown in Figure 1.21, at the County Recreation Center, currently lacks a median island or lighting, making it an unusually difficult crossing, even for Washtenaw. It is likely to be removed if a new signal with pedestrian crossing is installed at Platt.

Figure 1.21: Unsignalized Mid-block Crossing Near Platt. Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s

22 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Given the rate of informal crossing, serious pedestrian-vehicle crashes on Washtenaw are a virtual certainty as shown in Figure 1.22. The pedestrian injury rate in vehicle-pedestrian crashes at speeds of 36-45 mph is roughly 63%, and the fatality rate roughly 23%.16 The most recent pedestrian fatality on Washtenaw was a 54-year-old man struck and killed when crossing near the unsignalized Fountain Plaza intersection at midday.17 Thankfully, pedestrian and bicycle fatalities have been relatively rare on Washtenaw in recent years, but there is a clear imperative to improve facilities to prevent more such tragedies and provide a safe, comfortable environment for all road users. Pedestrian facilities are also a vital precondition for enhanced transit.

23 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

Figure 1.22 Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes on Washtenaw, 2004-2009

Æó Æó Æý Æó Æó

Æý Pkwy Huron Æó Æó Æý Æý Æó Æó US 23 Æý Æó Æý Æó Æý Æó Æó Æó ÆóÆó Æý Æý Æó Æý Æý Æý Æý Æó Æó ÆóÆó Æó Æý Æý Æó ÆóÆý Æý Æý Æýó Æý Æó Æý ÆóÆý Æóý Æó Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý ÆýÆó Æó ÆýÆý Æý Æó Æó Æó Æó Æý Æý Æý Æó Æý Æý Dr Golfside Æý Æý Æý Æý Æó Æó Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æó Æó Æý Æý Æý Rd Manchester Æý Æý Æý Æó

Æý St Mansfield Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý St Oakwood Æó Æó Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Miles Æý Æý 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 Æý Æý Æý Rd Platt Blvd Pittsfield Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Legend Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Rd Carpenter Æý Æý Æý Golfside_Ypsi2 Æý Æý Carpenter_Golfside Æý Pittsfield_Carpenter2 Huron_Pitts Miles US_23 Data source: The Greenway Collaborative.0 0.5 1 1.5 Legend

Arterial_Rd Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s Miles LeÆógendBicycle crashes route4 0 0.5 1 1.5 ¯ Æý Æó Æý GolPedestrianfside_Ypsi2 crashes Æý Carpenter_Golfside Æó Æý Huron_Pitts Æý Æý Pittsfield_Carpenter2 route4 Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5

24 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

AATA Route 4 Conditions Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor and the Ypsilanti Transit The preceding descriptions provide context for the primary Center in downtown Ypsilanti, as well as the “third hub” of subject of this study, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s the UM Central Campus Transit Center (CCTC). At present, the Route 4-Washtenaw bus. Route 4 carries more people than route has two variations: 4A, which spans 9 miles and serves any other AATA route (Figure 1.23), averaging nearly 4,000 the University of Michigan Medical Campus, and 4B, which riders per weekday.18 provides a more direct 8-mile connection to downtown Ann Arbor through the Central Campus Transit Center. Both follow As shown in Figure 1.24, Route 4 provides the most direct the same route through the study area. connection between the AATA system’s two hubs, the Blake

Figure 1.23: Average Weekday Ridership for Route 4 and Other AATA Routes Average Daily Ridership Riders 4000 3500 1 Pontiac 3000 2 Plymouth 2500 3 Huron River 2000 4 Washtenaw 1500 5 Packard 1000 6 Ellsworth 500 7 S. Main 0 8 Pauline 9 Jackson 10 Ypsilanti Northeast 11 Ypsilanti South 12 Miller - Liberty 13 Newport

Data source: AATA.

25

d

R

o

r o b D x e 10 i x UV te

D r An N n A rb H or ur Rd on Rd

Pk uth d Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor M wy lymo R P il le t

r R r d o

t p

S

w

n e i

a N Figure 1.24: Ann Arbor Transportation Authority System Map

M d D M R ex i t l N e le d r r Rd r A

Glazier Way R

e v

e uller Rd Jackson R n F

d o

r

g o a Ave W Huron St

W n E Huron St b ackso x 10

J i UV D ty St 201 d r Ge UV Libe dd N UV R W es

Ave Geddes Rd Æa

e 2

l H V u U p ron d a R Pk uth Pauline Blvd d w o M Mi y lym R P l le t

W Stadium Blvd r R

r o d 3

t

8 1 p V y 1 U E Stadium Blvd S UV

w w

S k n e i t P I W a Rd a N U cio Church S n sh

S t P n e C na 1 d w d M UV

a o 2

e A

U V

r ve D Mi B R

t u c ex

2

s k u te ll N

a e r V Rd r U a Scio Church R r 1 t t H d A t Glazier Way r r e ve d

S R

i d S S ller u n F a

R r S l g

H d e a ss St w v E Cro W i ve Huron St W on A E Huron St s 7 d enhower Pkwy y Jack W Eis R 9 R 1 UV 609 e t UV UV in N ty S 20 l d ber Ge UV a Li dde UV1 R W s S r- Ave Geddes Rd Æa 5 12A Æa

e UV d

bo l UV8 UV3 R r p A n r e e Blvd

d aulin a n M P A t UV

R sworth Rd 4 n Ell orth Rd E Ellsw l e um Blvd

o W Stadi p

S o r ve d y

E Stadium Blv

a h

M A w

c C n a S k Miles UV14

a S g t P hi d I Wa 7 p R UV

c io Church S n 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 sh 1.2 e c i S P te d na l M a on w 34

e A UV n e r ve W t u c

o k u

R a s t a t t H Morgan Rd t d

S Rd r r

E Morgan UV S

3

i d S S

a

3 r S l R

10 e UV H d oss St w v E Cr d senhower Pkwy i 6 R W Ei y R 1 e UV 36 n N UV

d i

al 2 Legend 2

R 11

U V -S Æa UV

t r d

t Textile Rd bo a

r R l A

r d

P n

e

d

R n t A R th Rd

r swor Rd n Ell

Textile E Ellsworth Rd 20 e

e UV l

o Golfside_Ypsi2 UV5 g p UV6

S

o r n ve

a h

Ma A

u

d c C an

R S g M Carpenter_Golfside hi k p c Merritt Rd e i e l M

e e W n r o

R C t Morgan Rd d S E Morgan PRdittsfield_Carpenter2 y Legend n o t

S Huron_Pitts

d

R

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s

USt _23 t

d Textile Rd

a l

R Data source: AATA Legend

Miles

d

P Legend

o R

r Arterial_Rd

r o 0 1 2 3

UV13 e Miles Legend

b x $ g Route 4 10 i Route4 UV

route4 n D

0 1 2 3 d UV1 ¯

N R u M Merritt Rd k RoutesG_2o0lf1s1ide_Ypsi2 1 e Other AATA bus routes UV 2

H e V uron r U Rd C Pk uth Carpenter_Golfside Mi d wy lymo y Service Area R P l on

l t er UV2 t

R S

r o d 3 t Huron_Pitts

8 1 p

V 1 U S UV

w 12B n UV e i Miles

a N U Pittsfield_Carpenter2

1 C d M 12A 17 UV 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.4

2

U V D Mi UV UV B

R ex

2

te lle N

r V r U Rd r A Glazier Way 1 e ve uller Rd route4 n F UV14 g UV22 a ve W Huron St W on A E Huron St s 7 Jack UV7 UV18 9 Miles 1U UV 609 1 UV UV UV ty St 20 d ber Ge UV Li dde UV1 0 0.5 1 1.5 R W s Ave Geddes Rd UV36 5 12A Æa e UV

l UV8 UV3 p

Pauline Blvd a M 26UV4 W Stadium Blvd E Stadium Blvd UV15 y w 3 S k UV UV14 t P Rd I Wa 33 UV7 cio Church S n sh UV S P ten d a on aw 34 e r Ave UV

t u c k u a s a 34 t t H t UV r r

UV S

3

i d S S

a

3 r S l R

10 e UV H d oss St w v E Cr d senhower Pkwy i 6 R W Ei y R 1 e UV 36 in N UV al 5 2

2 11 V S UV U r- Æa UV bo d 11 r R

UV A

n r e n d A t

R sworth Rd n Ell E Ellsworth Rd 6 20

e UV UV l o UV5 p UV6

S o r ve

a h

Ma A c C an

S g hi p c e i l M

e W n

o

R t Morgan Rd d

S E Morgan Rd

d

R

t

t Textile Rd

a

l

d

P

R

r

e

g n d

R u M Merritt Rd k e e r C y on t S Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Route 4 boasts the most frequent service in the AATA system. Since January 2012, thanks to a $1.7 million federal grant, Route 4 buses have run even more frequently, alternating between 5- and 10-minute headways (spacings) during weekday peak hours (6-9:30 AM and 3-5:30 PM). Weekend service is far less frequent, and as with the rest of the AATA system, does not extend past 5:30 pm.

Stops averaging higher numbers of boardings typically include shelters, benches and bus schedules, but in some cases, given the limited right-of-way and frequent sidewalk gaps, stops may consist simply of a freestanding sign, unattached to a concrete bus pad. Figure 1.25 shows the stop conditions along Route 4. A transfer station existed on the Arborland Mall property until the mall terminated its lease with AATA in 2009,19 forcing relocation of the stops to Washtenaw at Pittsfield. AATA constructed a new bus pullout there with federal stimulus funds, and plans future construction of a distinctive shelter, although the absence of a signalized pedestrian crossing of Washtenaw on the west side of Pittsfield impedes access to the mall.

27 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

Figure 1.25: Bus Stop Amenities on Route 4 Corridor Eastbound

BTC Ann Arbor Ypsilanti W of PlattE of Platt Manchester Pittsfield Carlton Deake Huron Pkwy Carpenter Foster GolfsideWelman BrooksideHewitt Berkeley YTC MansfieldRooseveltOakwoodSummit

Westbound Legend Schedule èéíèéíèéí èéí BTC Miles èéí èéí Trash can 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 èéí èéí Shelter Bench èéí

Legend Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s Ann Arbor Sheridan Arlington GlenwooHuron Pkwy Missing sidewalks 18 Chalmers èéí 59 Pittsfield Route 4 stop 9 73 CrystalGlencoe Golfside_Ypsi2 èéí èéí Ypsilanti DeakeFoster èéí GolfsideWelman 37 Brookside 3 W HewittE HewittBerkeley Carpenter_Golfside èéí èéí 22 MansfieldRoosevelt èéí 18 McKenny Pittsfield_Carpenter2 èéí èéíèéíèéí YTC Huron_Pitts US_23 Data sources: AATA Arterial_Rd Miles Legend route4 0 0.5 1 1.5 ¯ Golfside_Ypsi2 28 Carpenter_Golfside Huron_Pitts Pittsfield_Carpenter2 route4 Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

As with other major AATA routes, Route 4 primarily serves Authority and participating downtown employers. Seven commuters to UM and downtown Ann Arbor. Nearly half percent of riders paid using a transfer from another bus, of all 2011 riders were UM community members, whose though the MCard and go!pass users may include transfers MCards provide them with unlimited free access to AATA as well. Figure 1.26 summarizes the breakdown of payment under a contract between the two organizations. Twelve methods.Because of the high proportion of student riders, percent of riders used a go!pass, which provides unlimited ridership varies significantly according to academic schedules. access subsidized by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development

Figure 1.26: AATA Route 4 riders by Payment Method

15%

M-Card 8% Legend M-Card Cash 45% Cash go!Pass Go! Pass 12% Transfers Transfers Other Other

21%

29 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

Due to the prevailing east-to-west commute pattern, westbound buses have high ridership; morning ridership on eastbound buses is sparse. The stops at Golfside and Pittsfield have the most daily boardings as shown in Figure 1.27.

Figure 1.27(a): Average Daily Boardings - Figure 1.27(b): Average Daily Boardings -

Route 4 (Westbound) # Passengers (getting on per day) Route 4 (Eastbound) # Passengers (getting on per day) # Passengers (getting on per day) # Passengers (getting on per day) 180 180 160 160 140 140 120 120 100 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s 20 0 20 0

Data source: AATA. Data source: AATA.

30 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

On-Time Performance Figure 1.28: On-time Performance Percentage by time of day- Route 4 Like other vehicles, AATA buses frequently face delays due to congestion along Washtenaw. The buses are equipped Route 4 On Time Performance Percentage: Eastbound with Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems that enable Eastbound Fall 2011 Winter 2012 98 Fall 2011 communication between the bus and the dispatch center at 96 95 96 85 83 Winter 2011 AATA headquarters. AATA monitors on-time performance by 76 74 evaluating arrival times at nine locations. A bus is defined as on-time if it arrives within five minutes of schedule.

Weekday AM peak travel experiences favorable on-time performance in both directions. However, performance is AM Peak Midday PM Peak Late PM less reliable on mid-day and PM peak runs. The service- Route 4 On Time Performance Percentage: Westbound frequency increase, effective January 2012 significantly Westbound Fall 2011 increased on-time performance over the few months since Fall 2011 Winter 2012 - After Frequency Increase 99 Winter 2011 95 95 92 its implementation as shown in Figure 1.28. With rush-hour 87 riders distributed across more buses boarding and alighting 75 74 76 is quicker. Over time, however, increased frequency could foster greater ridership and lead to crowded buses once again. Among the highest ridership routes in the AATA system, Route 4 performs about average for on-time performance (Figure

1.29). AM Peak Midday PM Peak Late PM Data Source: AATA

31 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor

FigureOn Time 1.29 AATAPerformance On-Time Performance of AATA by High Percentage, Ridership Selected Routes Routes ( From Downtown) AM Peak MidDay PM Peak Late PM From Downtown AM Peak 96 96 93 92 90 91 90 88 87 85 84 MidDay 82 82 80 74 74 PM Peak 64 66 Late PM 49 36

2On - Plymouth Time Performance3 - Huron River of5 - Packard AATA High6 - Ellsworth Ridership36 - Wolverine Routes Tower (To Downtown) (operates as loop) AM Peak MidDay PM Peak Late PM To Downtown

97 97 92 94 92 92 89 88 83 84 82 79 82 76 76 74 64 64 66

44 Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s

2 - Plymouth 3 - Huron River 5 - Packard 6 - Ellsworth 36 - Wolverine Tower (operates as loop)

Data source: AATA.

32 Chapter 1 The Washtenaw Corridor Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

As stated in the Re-Imagine Washtenaw Implementation NOTES Strategy, a revitalized Washtenaw requires “increasing 1 Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.(2012)Ridership Data. 2 Washtenaw County and the Washtenaw Avenue Action Team. (2009). Re-imagining residential density, improving walkability, and supporting and Washtenaw Avenue: A Vision for Corridor Redevelopment. 3 Lance, L. (2009, June 18). Arborland’s Bumpy Bus Ride. The Lucy Anne Lance Show. providing a higher level of public transit service.” In effect, the Retrieved from http://lucyannlance.com/?p=915. corridor must be redesigned around the principle of transit 4 Ochoa, W. (2011, April 25). Ypsi Arbor Lanes to Close after 47 Years. Washtenaw Voice. Retrieved from http://www.washtenawvoice.com access, rather than automobile access alone. Over time, 5 Crain’s Detroit Business. (2012, January 22). Crain’s List: Washtenaw County’s Largest Employers. Retrieved from http://www.crainsdetroit.com more travelers can be expected to choose transit and other 6 Crain’s Detroit Business. (2012, January 22). Crain’s List: Washtenaw County’s Largest automobile modes, as many are already doing today. Employers. Retrieved from http://www.crainsdetroit.com 7 U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2010). Median Income in the Past Twelve Months (In 2010 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) –ACS 5 Year Estimates [Data File]. Retrieved From http:// factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml This transition will take time. In the near term, automobile 8 U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2010). Median Income in the Past Twelve Months (In 2010 capacity on Washtenaw cannot be significantly reduced Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) –ACS 5 Year Estimates [Data File]. Retrieved From http:// factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml without worsening congestion, particularly west of US-23. 9 Gillotti, T. (2012). Personal Interview. March 20, 2012. 10 Lawson, J. (2012). Personal Interview. March 20, 2012. The challenge before the area is improving transit along 11 Washtenaw Area Transportation Study. (2008). Washtenaw County Access Management Washtenaw, as well as pedestrian and bicycle access, without Plan. 12 Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. (2012) SEMCOG Transportation Data Map. adversely affecting automobile travel. To expedite AATA transit Retrieved from http://www.semcog.org/Data/Maps/roads.map.cfm. 13 The Greenway Collaborative. (2010). Washtenaw Avenue Corridor Non-Motorized service, however, the sources of transit delay must first be Transportation Study. Retrieved from http://www.greenwaycollab.com understood. 14 United States Department of Justice. (2010). ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAStandards. 15 AARP Policy Institute. (2009). Planning Complete Streets for an Aging America. Retrieved from http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/liv-com/2009-12-streets.pdf 16 Perkins, T. (2012, April 2). Speed limits to increase along several Ypsilanti area roads. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from http://www.annarbor.com/news/ 17 Lockwood, H. (2010, October 11). Pittsfield Police Investigate Crash that Killed Man Crossing Washtenaw Avenue. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from http://www.annarbor.com/ news/. 18 Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.(2012). Ridership Data. 19 Baker, J. (2011, November 14). Construction Under Way for New AATA Bus Pullout on Washtenaw near Arborland. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from http://www.annarbor.com/news/. 33

CHAPTER 2 Route 4 Delay Source Analysis

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 36 Chapter 2BusDelay Analysis frequency ofRoute and sixafter 4service, thechange. 4:30 and6:30.Sixtotal trips were taken before AATA increased trips took placeduringthePMpeaktravel period,between afternoon, between 12:00and2:00PM.The remaining four and 9:00AM.Anotherfour took placeduringtheearly occurred duringtheAMpeaktravel period,between 7:00 varied duringdifferent travel periods. Four ofthesetrips to determine whether potential sources ofbusinconsistency Route 4.Theteam attempted to target different timesof day took atotal of12round trips for delay data collection on Between 23andFebruary January 15,2012,theproject team the recommendations that follow thischapter. causes andlocations ofdelay. The results ofthe study inform measurement andobservation, to determine theprimary so theproject team conducted astudy, usingdirect Existing data proved insufficient to provide thisunderstanding, relative contribution toirregularity inon-timeperformance. on understanding thesources andlocations ofdelay andtheir O METHODOLOGY ptions for reducing transit delay along Washtenaw depend

(GPS)-based application My Tracks™ for bothAndroid and the team usedthesmartphoneglobalpositioning system In order to collect data abouttheprogress ofthebusenroute, encountered enroute andat stops. methods andloads,aswell asany unusualcircumstances The team alsonoted observations ofpassenger payment particular time. as thevolume andnature ofothertraffic onthe road ata on delays related to physical infrastructure for buses,aswell of thecorridor, were obtained. Thesedata reveal information particular points, andbusmovement alongdifferent segments quantitative data onscheduleinconsistencies observed at into thesoftware whenappropriate. From thesoftware, at particular stops andtraffic lights bymanuallyaddingpoints of thebusevery second. Inaddition,the team assesseddelays iPhone, whichautomatically recorded thespeedandposition

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 37

Chapter 2 Bus Delay Analysis Delay 2 Bus Chapter particular segments of the corridor. The next section addresses section addresses The next corridor. of the particular segments of the bus along these segments. the performance particular on the westbound route during the afternoon peak afternoon the during route westbound particular on the of the intersection. on the nearside are these stops because a and then make clear the intersection to The bus is unable for multiple signal it out of motion keeping potentially stop, cycles. movements, controlling necessaryare a part of signals Traffic signals Traffic traffic. in mixed particularly as the bus operates not are and on their own cycles, on designated operate unpredictable more When added to of inconsistency. sources or construction times, dwell such as increased events of frustration a source can create they however, congestion, in the bus. riders for compound can points at these problematic Multiple delays along inconsistencies potential the bus faces that ensure to team observed situations where the bus got caught at the caught got the bus where situations observed team the inability both of one run because twice in light same traffic in a problem This was this pullout. from access and exit to POINTS OF BUS DELAY BUS OF POINTS pullouts and traffic lights create further delays for the bus. On further delays create lights pullouts and traffic time periods, the spanning the three occasions several locations. During the afternoon peak, the stops at Arborland stops peak, the afternoon During the locations. delay. light red a high average also faced Mall (Yost) of stop the presence and Arborland (Yost), both Golfside At three time periods (Figure 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3). In addition to addition 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3). In time periods (Figure three intersections times, the stopping red light high demonstrating also areas are intersections and Carpenter Huron, Golfside, at at these for the bus to long delays times, leading of high dwell The bus spent a significant amount of time at red lights near red lights at of time amount a significant The bus spent Carpenter Parkway, at Huron Red lights intersections. key Road led Road, and Mansfield Hewitt Road, Golfside Road, for buses during all time stopped average the highest to the effect that time spent at stops and red lights might have in have might red lights and stops at time spent that the effect runs. different time across in travel inconsistencies creating Lights Red and stops particular at the delays examined The study of inconsistency sources potential to determine intersections to determine was goal The the day. throughout and variation 0 0 . L 2 e 0 g . 4 e n rou Art U H Pit C Go d S_ uro arp t er lf t s e s 23 f ial_ n_ en ie 4 0 i de_ . 8 ld Pit t e R _C r_ Y d t s p Go a s rpe i 2 lf 1 s . 2 nt M i de i l er e s 2 èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí

Let’s Roll:èéí Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 38 Chapter 2BusDelay Analysis 1 èéí 8 Figure 2.1:AMPeak BusTraffic Light Delay ontheCorridor Ann Arbor Data source: AATA Ann Arbor 0 0 BTC èéí . 5 èéí BTC èéí èéí 5 èéí 9 èéí 1 èéí èéí 9 èéí èéí èéí 1 èéí èéí . èéí 5 M èéí èéí i l èéí e 7 èéí s 3 èéí èéí ¯ 0 Manchester Rd Manchester Rd èéí 3 èéí 7 0 . èéí 3 5 Platt Rd Platt Rd

L Huron Pkwy Huron Pkwy 2 èéí 2 e èéí 9 2 g e 1 C Pit Go H rou n èéí 1 arp uro d èéí t 8 lf s t

e US 23 s f en n_ US 23 ie 4 i de_ ld èéí 2 t Pit e _C èéí 5

r_ Carpenter Rd Carpenter Rd Y 1 t 8 s . p Go 5 a M s rpe i 2 i lf l e s 1 nt èéí s i de 8 er 2 èéí èéí èéí èéí 8 Golfside Dr èéí

2 Golfside Dr 2 Westbound Eastbound N Hewitt Rd N Hewitt Rd 4 èéí 8 1 èéí 2 èéí Mansfield St 3 Mansfield St 1 èéí 0 èéí 2 Oakwood St Oakwood St 2 Ypsilanti Ypsilanti èéí èéí YTC èéí YTC (seconds) Average busred light delay De P DEL_ P L De P DEL_ P L èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí M M e M M e èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí l_Dur l_Dur g g _ _ _ _ e e A Y A Y DUR DUR n n H ro Art U 4 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 H Art U ro 4 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 P P A A 30-58 13-29 5-12 0-4 Route 4 8 3 0 8 3 0 8 3 0 8 3 0 o S_ o S_ d d - - - - u u A A

Y

Y riz e riz e ------t 9 9 9 9 t e e ria ria A A 2 P 2 P 7 4 2 7 4 2 7 4 2 7 4 2 4 4 o o 3 3 3 7 2 3 7 2 3 7 2 3 7 2 _ _ _ _ n n l l _ _ t t m m m m a R a R l_ l_ d d e e e e R R r r r r d d g g g g e e e e _ _ _ _ s s s s e e e e l l l l e e e e c c c c t t t t i i i i o o o o n n n n Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue n n n n o o o o i i i i t t t t 39 c c c c e e e e l l l l e e e e s s s s _ _ _ _ e e e e g g g g d d r r r r R R e e e e d d l_ l_ R a R a m m m m t t _ _ l l n n _ _ _ _ 2 7 3 2 7 3 7 3 2 7 3 2 3 3 o o 4 4 2 4 7 2 4 7 4 7 2 4 7 2 P 2 P 2 A A ria ria e e 9 9 t t 9 9 ------e riz e riz Y

Y

A A u u - - - - d d S_ o S_ o 0 3 8 0 3 8 3 8 0 3 8 0 0-9 10-22 23-47 48-73 4 Route A A P P 3 1 2 4 U 3 1 2 4 Art H ro 2 4 ro 3 1 2 4 3 1 U Art H n n DUR DUR Y A Y A e e _ _ _ _ g g l_Dur l_Dur èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí e M M e M M èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí De L P DEL_ P L P DEL_ P De Average bus red light delay delay light bus red Average (seconds) èéí èéí YTC YTC èéí èéí èéí

Ypsilanti

Ypsilanti St Summit 8

èéí 1

Oakwood St Oakwood Oakwood St Oakwood

3 Mansfield St Mansfield Mansfield St Mansfield 1 èéí 2 7 èéí 2

2

èéí Chapter 2 Bus Delay Analysis Delay 2 Bus Chapter N Hewitt Rd Hewitt N N Hewitt Rd Hewitt N Eastbound Westbound 3 èéí

7

3 èéí 5 Golfside Dr Golfside 2 Dr Golfside èéí èéí èéí èéí 2 er de i 8 s nt s èéí 1 e l lf i 2

i rpe

s M Carpenter Rd Carpenter a 5 Go p . s t

1 Y 3 r_

_C 7 Carpenter Rd Carpenter e èéí Pit t ld 9 de_ 1 èéí i 4 ie n_ en

f

s

e

US 23 US t s 9 lf US 23 US èéí t d uro arp 0 n 2 rou H Go Pit C èéí 1 e

g

9 2 Huron Pkwy Huron e 5

èéí 2 èéí

L

2 Pkwy Huron

4 èéí

Platt Rd Platt Platt Rd Platt 5 . 3 èéí 0 7 8 èéí 3 èéí 1

èéí

Manchester Rd Manchester 0 Manchester Rd Manchester ¯ èéí 3 s èéí èéí 7 e èéí l èéí i èéí M 5 èéí èéí . èéí 1 èéí èéí 9 èéí èéí èéí 1 èéí 9 5 èéí BTC BTC 5 . 0

Ann Arbor Figure 2.2: PM Peak Bus Traffic Light Delay on the Corridor Delay Light Traffic Bus Peak 2.2: PM Figure Ann Arbor Data source: AATA. source: Data 0

8 èéí 1

èéí

èéí

èéí

èéí

èéí

èéí

èéí èéí èéí 2 s e er l i de i M nt 2 . s 1 lf 2 i rpe s a Go p s t d Y r_ _C R e Pit t ld 8 . de_ i 0 4 ie n_ en ial_ f 23 s e s t lf er t uro S_ arp d H U Go C Pit Art rou n e 4 . g 0 e 2 L . 0 0 0 0 . L 2 e 0 g . 4 e n rou Art U H Pit C Go d S_ uro arp t er lf t s e s 23 f ial_ n_ en ie 4 0 i de_ . 8 ld Pit t e R _C r_ Y d t s p Go a s rpe i 2 lf 1 s . 2 nt M i de i l er e s 2 èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 40 Chapter 2BusDelay Analysis 1 èéí 8 0 Data source: AATA. Ann Arbor Ann Arbor Figure 2.3:Off-peak Bus Traffic Light Delay ontheCorridor 0 . èéí 5 BTC èéí èéí 5 BTC 9 èéí 1 èéí 9 1 . 5 M èéí i èéí l èéí e 7 s 3 ¯

0 Manchester Rd Manchester Rd 3 èéí 7 èéí 3 0 . 5 Platt Rd Platt Rd 2 L èéí Huron Pkwy

2 Huron Pkwy èéí e 1 g èéí 4 e 1 4 C Pit Go H rou n èéí arp uro 6 d t 2 lf s t

e US 23 s f US 23 en n_ ie 4 i èéí de_ 9 ld 2 t Pit e _C

Carpenter Rd èéí Carpenter Rd 3 r_ Y 1 t 4 s . p Go 5 a M s rpe i 2 i 1 lf èéí l e 8 s nt s i de er èéí 2 èéí èéí 2 èéí

Golfside Dr 9 Golfside Dr èéí 3 5 Westbound Eastbound N Hewitt Rd N Hewitt Rd èéí 1 4 èéí Mansfield St Mansfield St 3 2 èéí 8

Oakwood St Oakwood St èéí 1 Ypsilanti Ypsilanti 3 èéí 0 YTC YTC (seconds) Average busred light delay De P DEL_ P L De P DEL_ P L èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí M M e M M e èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí l_Dur l_Dur g g _ _ _ _ e e A Y A Y DUR DUR n n H Art U ro 4 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 H ro Art U 4 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 P P A A 8 3 0 8 3 0 8 3 0 8 3 0 o S_ o S_ d d - - - - u u A A

Y

Y riz e riz e ------30-43 0-29 9 9 t t 9 9 Route 4 63-92 44-62 e e ria ria A A 2 P 2 P 7 4 2 7 4 2 7 4 2 7 4 2 4 4 o o 3 3 3 7 2 3 7 2 3 7 2 3 7 2 _ _ _ _ n n l l _ _ t t m m m m a R a R l_ l_ d d e e e e R R r r r r d d g g g g e e e e _ _ _ _ s s s s e e e e l l l l e e e e c c c c t t t t i i i i o o o o n n n n Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 41

Chapter 2 Bus Delay Analysis Delay 2 Bus Chapter and Carpenter stops are all “time points”, where the bus waits the bus where all “time points”, are stops and Carpenter prior and alighting boarding schedule if it finishes to adjust to at these times Thus, long dwell time. published departure to of perceptions customers’ augment potentially could points the bus stop up at show if they that know since they reliability, will not miss the bus. the published time, they or at before allow could ultimately measures reduction delay Nevertheless, 4. These measures Route schedules for new establish to AATA to customers time and allow reduced dwell anticipate would with less potential quickly, more their destinations at arrive the next. to one day from inconsistency Not all dwell times constitute a source of schedule irregularity, irregularity, of schedule a source constitute times Not all dwell the bus help time might dwell longer a points, certain and at Mall, Golfside, schedule. The Arborland a consistent maintain

times, the bus was often unable to reach these pullouts, and reach these pullouts, to unable was often times, the bus to traffic. returning in stalled was when it finally did, it variation during different times of day. The long dwell times long day. The times of during different variation result direction) (in the westbound Arborland and Golfside at re-enter the bus to require the bus pullouts that in part from peak During and alighting. of boarding completion upon traffic As the maps of dwell times (Figures 2.4 and 2.5) depict, the 2.4 and times (Figures of dwell As the maps at 4 occurred Route on stops at times dwell average longest Boulevard/Yost), Arborland Mall (Pittsfield Parkway, Huron little showed This pattern and Hewitt. Carpenter, Golfside, from continuing on the route. The team observed these issues team observed The route. on the continuing from at and during the trips, frequently and alighting with boarding along the route. stops numerous wheelchair boarding, or confusion over route stops can lead to lead to can stops route over or confusion wheelchair boarding, addition, despite motion. In into the bus back in getting delays still alight door alighting, some passengers a policy of rear the bus a jam and preventing creating door, the front from motion at a particular stop. Delays may occur at stops due stops at may occur Delays stop. at a particular motion struggling to people in particular, and alighting; boarding to loading, bicycle cards, fare malfunctioning change, exact find Dwell Time at Stops Time at Dwell out of the bus spends that of time the amount time is Dwell 0 0 . L 2 peak d duration d duratio n d L e w w w e 0 g . g 4 e e e e e l l l n l l l rou Art U H Pit C Go _ _ _ n 25- 15- 9-1 4-8 0-3 71- 1 7-1 3-6 0-2 rou 71- 1 7-1 3-6 0-2 roa d 1-7 1-7 S_ uro arp p o o d t er lf t s e f f 24 4 9 0 t 9 0 ds e s 3 e 23 f f f 0 0 ial_ n_ en ie 4 a 0 i 5 4 p p de_ . 8 k ld e e Pit t e _ R _C a a r_ Y Y d t k k s p Go a P _ _ s rpe A Y A i 2 lf 1 P A A s . 2 nt M i A Y _ de i l er e A M P s 2

e s s r e e g l l e e e c c t t i i peak d duration d duration d L duration d du rat ion d L peak d o o w w w e w w w e n n g g e e e e e e e l l l e l l l l l l l l l _ _ _ n 0-2 rou 71- 1 7-1 3-6 0-2 25 - 15- 9-1 4-8 0-3 71- 1 7-1 3-6 roa _ _ _ n rou 71- 1 7-1 3-6 0-2 25- 15- 9-1 4-8 0-3 71- 1 7-1 3-6 0-2 roa 1-7 1-7 1-7 1-7 p o o o o p d d e f f t 9 0 24 4 9 0 ds f f e t 9 0 24 4 9 0 ds e 3 e 3 f f 0 0 f f 0 0 a a 4 5 p p 4 5 p p k k e e e e _ _ a a a a Y Y k k k k P _ _ P _ _ A Y A A Y A 7 P 4 A A P A A A A Y _ Y _ A M P A M P

e e s s s s r r e e e e g g l l l l e e e e e e c c c c t t t t i i i i o o o o Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue n n n n 42 Chapter 2BusDelay Analysis 5 Data source: AATA. Figure 2.4:Peak BusDwell TimeontheCorridor 1 0

7 Manchester 9

0

1 . 5 Sheridan 1 3 0 3

5 Arlington 4 1

5 E of Platt 2

9 Huron Pkwy 6

8 Huron Pkwy Huron 7 1 . 2 5 M 9 2 i l

e 5 Pittsfield

3 s Chalmers 2 1 1 7

4

4 Pittsfield 2 1 5 ¯ 2 0 Carpenter 5 3 3

2 Crystal 5 Carlton 0 .

5

1 Glencoe 2 4 0 5 7 L

e Deake g

1 Deake 1 e 1

Foster 9 C Pit Go H rou 9 n 1 arp uro

d

t 8 Foster 7 lf s t 8 e s f 8 en n_ 3 ie 4 i

de_ Golfside ld t Pit e 1 _C r_

Y 1 7

t 3 s Golfside 6 . p Go 5 a 0 M s rpe i 2 i lf l

e

s 2 nt s Welman i 6 de 9 Westbound er 0

2 Eastbound W Hewitt W 1 Hewitt 9 2

4 E Hewitt E 5 Berkeley Mansfield a d L a d L fte fte w w

e e

1 Mansfield 2 g g 2 e e 5 r r e e l l l l n _ n _ 8 3 1 4 0 8 3 1 4 0

5 8 5 -1 -3 5 8 5 -1 -3 A A Roosevelt d d 6 - - - - Oakwood - - 8 3 4 8 3 4 M M 1 4 7 1 4 7 1 0 0 _ _ 1 2 2 A A Summit A A 1 Y Y 6 P P $ $ (seconds) (seconds) 0 0 befor d befor d L befor d befor d L befor d L befor d L w w w w e e Bus dwell time Bus dwell time w w e e g g e e e e g g e e 0 0 e e l l l l . . e e l l 4 4 l l l l l l _ _ n _ _ n rou 31- 23- 10- 2-9 0-1 43 21 9 0 roa 5 rou 31- 23- 10- 2-9 0-1 43 21 9 0 roa 5 Route 4 Route 4 n _ n _ 2 1 7 3 0 69-142 33-68 2 1 7 3 0 46-78 30-45 20-32 13-29 9-19 0-8 2-12 0-1 1 3 -1 -6 1 3 -1 -6 o o o o A A d d - - d - - d ------1 2 2 2 20 8 f f t 69 30 2 ds 1 2 2 2 20 8 f f t 69 30 2 ds M M e e f f f f 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 4 4 4 p p p p . . 2 2 _ _ 09 2 09 2 9 9 e e e e Y Y a a a a P P k k k k A A _ _ _ _ A A Y A Y A P P A A A A 1 Y 1 Y . . 8 8 M M A A P P i i l l e e s s Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue s s e e l l i i P P A A M M 8 8 . . 43 Y Y 1 1 A A A A P P A Y A Y A A _ _ _ _ A A k k k k P P a a a a Y Y e e e e 9 9 2 09 2 09 _ _ 2 2 . . p p p p 4 4 4 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 f f f f e e M M ds ds 22 30 69 t 22 30 69 t f f f f 8 20 8 20 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 ------d d - - - - d d A A o o o o -6 -1 3 1 -6 -1 3 1 0-2 3-35 0-1 2-17 36-53 18-41 54-60 42-52 61-95 53-171 0 3 7 1 2 0 3 7 1 2 _ _ n n Route 4 Route Route 4 Route 5 5 roa roa 0-1 2-9 10- 23- 31- rou 0 9 21 43 0-1 2-9 10- 23- 0 31- 9 rou 21 43 n n _ _ _ _ l l l l l l 4 4 l l e e . . l l l l e e 0 0 e e g g e e e e g g e e w w Bus dwell time dwell Bus time dwell Bus e e w w w w before L d before L d L d e r o f e b d before L d before d before 0 0 (seconds) (seconds) $ $ P P 5 Y Y 1 A A 0

A A 6 1 Summit 2 2 _ _ 0 0 4 McKenny 7 4 1 7 4 1 M M 4 3 8 4 3 8 - - 0 - - - -

d d

A A 3 -3 -1 5 8 5 -3 -1 5 8 5 0 4 1 3 8 Oakwood 0 4 1 3 8 _ _ n n Roosevelt l l l l e e r r 5 e e 3 g g 3 8 e e w w fte

fte Mansfield

L d a L d a Mansfield 7 2 5

5 E Hewitt

Chapter 2 Bus Delay Analysis Delay 2 Bus Chapter 2 Hewitt er de i Eastbound s nt s e l 0 lf 3 i 2 Westbound i 6 2 rpe 5 s M a 5 Go 3 p . Welman s t 1 Y r_ _C 2 e

0 Pit t

ld Welman 5 0 3 de_ i 4 ie n_ en 4 Golfside f s e t s lf t d uro arp

7 3

n rou H Pit Go C Golfside 1 7 8 1 e

1 Foster

g 5 8 Foster 9 e 4

Deake L Deake 7 5 . 5 9 7 0 2 4 Glencoe 5

3 4 Carlton

3 Crystal 1 3 5 0

¯ Carpenter 2 5 9

1 Pittsfield 7 7 1 7 1 Chalmers 1

5

s Pittsfield 5 e l 0 i 9 1 M 5 . 1

9 Huron Pkwy Huron 9 2

2 1 Platt of E 1

5 W of Platt of W 3 4 0

7 Sheridan 1 5 .

0 Manchester 9 7 0 1 Data source: AATA. source: Data Figure 2.5: Off-peak Bus Dwell Time on the Corridor Time on the Dwell Bus 2.5: Off-peak Figure 5

n n n n

o o

o o

i i

i i t t

t t

c c

c c

e

e e

e e

e

l

l

l

l

g

g

e

e

e

e

r

r

s s s

s e

e

P

M

A

P

M

A

_

_

Y

Y

A

A

A

A

P

A A

4 P Y

A A Y

A A 7

_ _ P

_ _ P

k k k

k Y Y

a a a

a _ _ e e e e k k p p 4 5 p p 4 5 a a 0 0 f f 0 0 f f e 3 e 3 ds t 0 99

4 24 99 0 e f f ds t 99 0

4 24 99 0 e f f d d p o o p o o 1-7 1-7 1-7 1-7 roa rou 7-1 1 71- 0-2 3-6 25- 9-1 15- 0-3 4-8 71- 3-6 7-1 1 0-2 n _ _ _ roa rou 71- 7-1 1 0-2 3-6 25- 4-8 9-1 15- 0-3 1 71- 3-6 7-1 0-2 n _ _ _ l l l l l l l l l e l l l e e e e e e e g g e w w w e w w w n n d peak d duration L d duration d peak d duration duration L d o o i i t t c c e e e l l 2 g s e e r e er l i s s de e i

M nt 2 . s P 1 M A lf 2 i _ Y rpe A s a Go A A P p s t d Y r_ Y A A _C R e _ _ P t Pit ld 8 k k . de_ Y i 0 4 ie en n_ ial_ a a f 23 _ s e s t e e lf er k t arp uro S_ d p p 4 5 a 0 0 f f e 3 Go C Pit H U Art rou ds 0 99 t 99 4 24 0 f e f n d o p o e 1-7 1-7 4 . roa 0-2 3-6 7-1 1 71- rou 1 71- 0-3 4-8 9-1 15- 25- 0-2 3-6 7-1 n _ _ _ g 0 l l l l l l e e e e e g 2 L . e w w w 0 peak d duration d L d duration 0 Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 44 Chapter 2BusDelay Analysis This delay study defined “moving delays” asany situation the busarrives at itsnext scheduledstop ontime. and perceived delay for riders onboard, even incases where particular, slow-moving buses can beasource offrustration delays away from thesepoints can bemore unpredictable. In and boarding/alighting timesmight stay relatively constant, away from intersections and stops. Whiletraffic light cycles the busesto operate at speedsslower thanplanned,even congestion, emergency situations, and road workmight force Route 4busalsoencounters delays whileinmotion. Traffic Beyond time stopped at traffic lights andbus stops, the Inconsistencies inMotion speed across thecorridor duringdifferent timesof day. seeks to show boththecongestion delay andthe variation in particular road segments that degrade reliability. The study throughout theWashtenaw Avenue corridor to determine This study alsoexamined thespeedofRoute 4buses SPEED AND MOVING DELAY

the speedlimitthroughout muchofthecorridor, from Huron more than5seconds at atime.Thisspeedislessthan50%of where thebusisprogressing at lessthan20milesperhourfor significantly greater thaneastbound delays. (Tables 2.1,2.2,and2.3),thoughwestbound delays are Moving delay varies littleacross bustrips inagiven direction along Washtenaw Avenue. congestion asthemaindeterminant ofthemoving bus’s speed accidents orconstruction, sothe study isolates vehicular rides inthestudy, theteam didnotencounter any roadway of motion”timediscussedinthe previous section.Duringthe and deceleration, andalso to avoid double-counting the “out intersections andbus stops to account for normalacceleration The study excluded theareas immediately around signalized had itmoved at 20milesperhour. and thetimebus would have taken to travel thedistance difference between travel time attheactualoperating speed, to Hewitt. The study then calculated moving timedelay asthe

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 45 Chapter 2 Bus Delay Analysis Delay 2 Bus Chapter overall reliability. overall one minute (Table 2.1). (Table one minute 2.2), (Table in delay variability higher show trips The mid-day commuting the heaviest place during not taking despite variability to the higher be due may periods. This situation as during mid-day on the road vehicles in the number of trips vehicle Total with the AM and PM rush hours. compared of regular because predictable be more during rush hour may take may drivers however, During mid-day, commutes. work or one of destinations retail to as-needed trips infrequent, the bus may the next, to one day From downtowns. the two making it difficult congestion, of levels different encounter time during these travel a consistent establish the bus to for 4 must of Route the reliability improve to measures Any hours. during these times, of inconsistency sources account into take the route’s improve to peak periods, in order and not just Even during the AM Peak period in the direction of Ann Arbor, Arbor, of Ann the direction period in the AM Peak during Even the town, to commuting were and students when workers less than small, relatively was times delay in moving variation 86 168 167 148 152 126 174 143 253 161 170 269 Moving Delay to to Delay Moving Moving Delay to to Delay Moving Ypsilanti (seconds) Ypsilanti Ypsilanti (seconds) Ypsilanti 52 166 207 127 244 186 117 148 151 192 200 173 Moving Delay to to Delay Moving Moving Delay to to Delay Moving Ann Arbor (seconds) Ann Arbor (seconds) Ann Arbor 1-Feb 3-Feb 1-Feb 23-Jan 27-Jan 23-Jan 27-Jan 15-Feb Average Average Variation Variation Date of Trip Date Date of Trip Date Table 2.2: Moving Delay on Mid-Day Trips on Mid-Day Delay Moving 2.2: Table Table 2.1: Moving Delay for the AM Peak Period Peak the AM for Delay 2.1: Moving Table Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 46 Chapter 2BusDelay Analysis segments. section addresses thesemultiplesources ofdelay asspeed acted to slow down thebusontheseoccasions. Thenext onto thecongested US-23. Traffic beyond Washtenaw Avenue because thebuscould get stuck behindtraffic waiting topull periods, theUS-23 intersection was particularly problematic Road, andHewitt Road. The team observed that duringpeak near Huron Parkway, Yost Boulevard, Carpenter Road, Golfside points. Aswithtraffic light delay, thebus saw slow speeds areas ofslow speedasitneared ordeparted from these removed from theanalysis, thebusstill experienced itslargest Though theareas immediately around intersections were longer thantheotherthree. peak may bedueto onerunwhere moving delays were far of variability inthedirection of Ypsilanti duringthe afternoon Route 4from oneday to thenext. Inaddition, thehighlevel create more predictable, ifstill problematic, moving delay for smaller volume oftraffic headed towards AnnArbor may afternoon peakis generally flowing towards Ypsilanti, the trip times(Table 2.3). Given that vehicular traffic duringthe moving delay, thesedelays hadthesmallest variations ofall While afternoon peaktrips to AnnArbor still facedsignificant

vulnerabilities to delay en route. show thesegments between busstops that face particular run. Thefollowing analysis ofaverage speedattempts to together create inconsistencies intravel timeinthelong and congestion can combine to slow down thebusesand As thesectionsabove illustrate, dwell times, traffic lights, Speed Segments Table 2.3:Moving Delay for Afternoon Peak Trips Date ofTrip Variation Average 23-Jan 27-Jan 6-Feb 1-Feb Ann Arbor(seconds) Moving Delay to 186 185 187 200 172 28

Ypsilanti (seconds) Moving Delay to 243 218 380 137 158 172 Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 47

Chapter 2 Bus Delay Analysis Delay 2 Bus Chapter speeds greater than 25 miles per hour during all times of day. than 25 miles per hour during all times speeds greater particular, at the segments near Arborland (Pittsfield and (Pittsfield near Arborland at the segments particular, the bus stops and intersections and Hewitt Golfside, Yost), consistently time periods. These three during all down slowed from could benefit they that suggest areas problematic as stop as well infrastructure, roadway to improvements times. and alighting boarding improve design, to Ann Arbor To speed between the average 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11 show Figures no were There route. Ann Arbor to the Ypsilanti for stops at travelling the buses were on average, where, segments The buses of day. time any less than 15 miles per hour during Ypsilanti- to the similar locations speeds at lower at moved Hewitt, Golfside, around with the segments bound routes, speeds. lowest producing the again and Arborland (Pittsfield) at operated they Parkway, River Once the buses passed Huron Still, during all times of day, the buses slowed down at certain at certain down slowed the buses day, all times of Still, during speed. In operating of the absolute regardless segments,

time periods, again likely due to reduced traffic and passenger and passenger reduced traffic to due likely time periods, again these locations. demand at stop than even the mid-day runs (Figure 2.6), due to the lower the lower 2.6), due to runs (Figure the mid-day than even The Ypsilanti. to from Ann Arbor traveling of traffic flows higher at operate able to on average, also, morning runs were than during the other two intersection the US-23 speeds at this time of day due to congestion. to due this time of day average at to operate was able bus The morning peak-time segments more than 25 miles per hour for speeds of greater several stretches, including the areas around Arborland and around the areas including stretches, several is not surprising, 2.8). This traffic (Figure most since Hewitt their jobs. as people leave direction be headed in this would during speed optimal to accelerate to not be able The bus may Figures 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8, show the average bus speeds along bus average the and 2.8, show 2.6, 2.7, Figures times during the three Ypsilanti Ann Arbor to from segments the bus peak period, afternoon During the respectively. of day, 15 miles per hour on less than averaging speeds at traveled To Ypsilanti To Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 48 Chapter 2BusDelay Analysis Figure 2.7:Off-peak BusSpeedsBetween Stops ontheCorridor(to Ypsilanti) Figure 2.6:AMPeak BusSpeedsBetween Stops ontheCorridor(to Ypsilanti) Data source: AATA. Manchester Rd Manchester Rd

Platt Rd Platt Rd 0 Huron Pkwy Huron Pkwy 0 . L 2 e 0 g . 4 e n rou Art U H Pit C Go Yost Blvd d S_ uro Yost Blvd arp t er lf t s e s 23 f ial_ n_ en ie 4 0 i de_ . 8 ld Pit t US 23

e US 23 R _C r_ Y d t s p Go a s

rpe Carpenter Rd Carpenter Rd i 2 lf 1 s . 2 nt M i de i l er e s 2

Golfside Dr Golfside Dr ! 0 0 . ! 2 ! 0 . 4 N Hewitt Rd Eastbound Eastbound N Hewitt Rd 0 ! . 6 0 . 8 M i l e s ! ! Mansfield St

! Mansfield St

Oakwood St ! Oakwood St 0 ! 0 . 5 (MilesPer Hour) Average Speed ! ¯ 1 ! 0 25.01+ mph 20.01-25 mph 15-20 mph 10-15 mph 1 ! . 5 M 0 ile . 5 s ! L e g ! e 1 Pit C rou H Go n arp uro d t lf s t e s f en n_ ie 4 ! i de_ ld t Pit e _C r_ Y 1

t

s .

! p Go 5

a

M

s

rpe

i

2

i

lf

l

e !

s nt s i de er ! 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 er de i ! s nt s e l lf i 2 i ! rpe s M a 5 Go p . s t 1 Y r_ _C ! e t Pit ld de_ i 4 ie en n_ f s e s t lf ! t d arp uro n Go C Pit H rou 1 Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue e g ! e L 49 ! 5 . s 0 ile M 5 . ! 1 0 10-15 mph 15-20 mph 20.01-25 mph 25.01+ mph ¯ ! 1 ! Average Speed Average (Miles Per Hour) (Miles Per ! 5 . 0 ! s e l i M 8

! .

0 1

Oakwood St Oakwood ! ! St Oakwood A A ! P Y

9 ! _ 2 .

Mansfield St Mansfield 0 0 0

M 2 2 2 1 Mansfield St Mansfield ! - - - d A ! -6 -1 3 1 0 3 7 1 2 _ n 5 l 4 l ! e . 0 e g fore ! e w L d be 0

! !

N Hewitt Rd Hewitt N

! Eastbound Rd Hewitt N ! Westbound ! $ ! Chapter 2 Bus Delay Analysis Delay 2 Bus Chapter P Y ! A ! A

2

_ 0 Golfside Dr Golfside !

7 4 1

M 4 3 8 - - Dr - Golfside d A -3 -1 5 8 5 0 4 1 3 8 _ n l l e ! r e g e w fte ! L d a 2 ! s e er l i de i M nt 2 . s 1 lf 2

! i

rpe s Carpenter Rd Carpenter a

Go p

s t d Y Rd Carpenter r_ _C R e Pit t ld 8

. de_

i 0 4

ie n_ en ial_ US 23 US f 23 US 23 US s e s t lf er t S_ uro arp

d

U H Go C Pit rou Art Yost Blvd Yost n e Blvd Yost ! 4 . g 0 e

2 L .

! 0 Huron Pkwy Huron

0 Huron Pkwy Huron

! Platt Rd Platt Platt Rd Platt !

!

Manchester Rd Manchester

! Manchester Rd Manchester ! Data source: AATA. source: Data Figure 2.9: AM Peak Bus Speeds Between Stops on the Corridor (to Ann Arbor) (to on the Corridor Stops Bus Speeds Between 2.9: AM Peak Figure Figure 2.8: PM Peak Bus Speeds Between Stops on the Corridor (to Ypsilanti) Corridor (to on the Stops Speeds Between Bus Peak 2.8: PM Figure ! ! Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 50 Chapter 2BusDelay Analysis ! ! Figure 2.11:PMPeak BusSpeedsBetween Stops ontheCorridor(to AnnArbor) Figure 2.10:Off-peak BusSpeedsBetween Stops ontheCorridor(to AnnArbor) Data source: AATA. ! ! Manchester Rd Manchester Rd ! ! ! ! ! Platt Rd ! Platt Rd ! ! Huron Pkwy Huron Pkwy 0 ! 0 ! . L 2 e 0 g ! . ! 4 Yost Blvd

Yost Blvd e n rou Art U H Pit C Go d S_ uro arp t er lf t s

e US 23 s US 23 23 f ial_ n_ en ie 4 0 i de_ . 8 ld Pit t e R _C Carpenter Rd r_ Y d Carpenter Rdt s p Go a s ! rpe i ! 2 lf 1 s . 2 nt M i de i l er e ! s ! 2 ! a d L ! fte w e g e ! r ! e l l n _ 8 3 1 4 0 5 8 5 -1 -3 A

d Golfside Dr

Golfside- Dr- - 8 3 4 M ! 1 4 7 ! 0 _ 2 A ! A ! ! Y P ! ! $ ! Westbound ! N Hewitt Rd N Hewitt Rd Westbound ! ! ! ! ! 0 be d L w e ! ! fore g e 0 . e ! l 4 l 5 n _ 2 1 7 3 0 1 3 -1 -6 ! A d -

! Mansfield St - -

! Mansfield St 1 2 2 2 M 0 0 0 . 2 _ ! 9 Y ! P ! A

A Oakwood St Oakwood St ! ! ! 1 0 . ! 8 M i l e s ! ! 0 ! . 5 ! (MilesPer Hour) ! Average Speed ! 1 ! ¯ 25.01+ mph 20.01-25 mph 15-20 mph 10-15 mph 0 1 ! . 5 M ile 0 s . 5 ! L e ! g e 1 Pit C Go H rou n arp uro d t ! lf s t e s f en n_ ie 4 i de_

ld

t Pit

e

! _C

r_ Y

1 t

s

.

p

Go

5 M a

s

rp !

i 2 i lf l e e s nt s ! i de er 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 51 Intersections(stop light/stop sign) adjustment schedule normal speed creeping Dwelling 3 min 6 min 2 min PM Peak <1 min 11 min (total time in corridor: 22 minutes) time in (total normal speed creeping Dwelling light/stopIntersections(stop sign) schedule adjustment 3 min Chapter 2 Bus Delay Analysis Delay 2 Bus Chapter 6 min 4 min Off-peak <1 min 11 min (total time in corridor: 24 minutes) time in (total normal speed creeping Dwelling Intersections(stop light/stop sign) adjustment schedule 3 min 5 min AM Peak 4 min 1 min Traffic signal delay at stop lights at delay signal Traffic ahead of schedule Bus waiting Bus moving above 20 mph above Bus moving 20 mph below Bus moving stops at bus time Dwell 6 min Legend (total time in corridor: 17 minutes) time in (total Figure 2.12: Total Route 4 Travel Time on Corridor, by Bus Activity (both directions) Activity (both Bus by Time on Corridor, 4 Travel Route 2.12: Total Figure Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 52 Chapter 2BusDelay Analysis reliability. on- andoff- roadway treatments inorder to improve service mph. Themultipledelays encountered by thebus require both more thanitdidoperating timein“moving delay” above 20 delays. Duringtheafternoon peak,thebusactuallyspent indicating that itencountered significant congestion andother portion ofitstimeon route duringthe afternoon peakperiod, only ableto move at speedsabove 20mphfor aminiscule time was higher for thepeakperiod.Inaddition,bus was of delay inallthree timeperiods was dwell time,and dwell bus spent onthecorridor. Thesecond most significant source the afternoon peak,thisamounted to halfthe total timethe peak periods,thebusspent 11minutes at traffic lights. In the three travel periods.Duringboththeoff-peak andPM time that thebusspent indelays andinmotion foreachof The piechartsinFigure 2.12summarize theshare ofthetotal A SNAPSHOT OF BUS TRAVEL

This busdelay analysis hasshown how multiple factors can areas ofthecorridor include,butare notlimited to: improvements at alltimesofday. Particularly problematic points andsegments that could benefit from transit-related that itisactuallyinmotion.Thisanalysis hasidentified key operates at less than 20 miles per hour for the majority of time the busalsoencounters significant “moving delay”, and dwell times at stops. Due to congestion atpeak travel times, payment androute orientation issues alsolead to increased share ofthetimethat thebusspendsen route, but fare times alongthe corridor. Red lights contribute to thegreatest compromise theabilityofRoute 4to establish reliable travel CONCLUSION • Hewitt Road • Golfside Road • US-23 andCarpenter Road (bothintersections adjacent to Arborland Mall) • Pittsfield Boulevard and Yost Boulevard • Huron Parkway

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 53 Chapter 2 Bus Delay Analysis Delay 2 Bus Chapter element on Washtenaw County’s busiest traffic corridor. corridor. traffic busiest County’s on Washtenaw element particularly during periods of vehicular congestion. The chapter chapter The congestion. vehicular periods of particularly during perceptions increase could that treatments also examines transportation 4 as a key Route and emphasize of reliability, Chapter 3 outlines potential treatments that could improve improve could that treatments potential 3 outlines Chapter Avenue, bus along Washtenaw mobility of the the physical

CHAPTER 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 56 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit them inothercities. This chapter describesthesetreatments andexperiences with transit andpromote redevelopment inparticular corridors. on theirown, oraspartofbroader packages to enhance Cities intheUnited States have implemented thesemeasures broad categories: chapter discussestransit improvement treatments inthree United States have developed measures to mitigate them.This unique to Washtenaw Avenue, andcommunities across the reliability ofthebus.Theseconditions are by nomeans congestion andinconsistent dwell timesalsodegrade the PM peakstopped at traffic lights. Slow movements due to 4 busspendsnearlyhalfitstimeinthe corridor duringthe A s thebusdelay analysis inChapter 2discussed,theRoute • • • in dwell times at transit stops. Expedited boardingtreatments gestion alonglarger stretches ofthe corridor. Roadway treatments signals. Intersection treatments provide aclearpath through con reduce transit delays at traffic reduce inconsistencies - Intersection treatments serve primarily to reduce thetime active TSP. the United States, however, have sofar primarilyimplemented when atransit vehicle shouldpasstheintersection. Citiesin reprograms traffic signal cycles according to scheduledtimes intersection by changingthetraffic signaltimings. Passive TSP an intersection to reduce theamount oftimeitspends atthe Transit signalpriority(TSP) allows atransit vehicle approaching How itworks Transit SignalPriority separate lane,known asaqueuejumporbypass lane. to thefront oftheline”at anintersection through asmall even more ambitiousmeasure allows transit vehicles to “cut signals withtransit vehicles, ortransit signalpriority(TSP). An reducing thered light delay through coordination oftraffic transit vehicles spendat red lights. Onemeansofdoingsois INTERSECTION TREATMENTS 1

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 57 4 Source: Transport Canada, 2012. Transport Source: Figure 3.1: A configuration for Active TSP for Active 3.1: A configuration Figure Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter in the United States have used so far is automatic vehicle is automatic used so far have States in the United sends the the emitter where technology, (AVL) location an intersection. approaches as the bus signal automatically possibly human error about concerns reduces This approach cycles. signal traffic altering of unpredictability and creates an additional task as drivers task as drivers an additional creates and of unpredictability among favorable less making it traffic, congested navigate operators transit most that The approach operators. transit - -

3

2 to the computerized traffic management system. management traffic the computerized to passes on the priority request to the computerized traf the computerized to passes on the priority request system. fic management near the inter in the pavement loop’ sensors ‘smart to request which then pass on the priority section ahead, to the traffic light directly through an optical detector. detector. optical an through directly light the traffic to which then on the side of the road, a controller to • • • push a button on the control panel to trigger the on-board to trigger the on-board panel control on the push a button adds an element to send the signal. This method transmitter intersection, with an optical detector and wayside controller. controller. wayside and detector with an optical intersection, for sending exist methods two system, TSP Within an active to operator the vehicle One is for the detector. the signal to the time of the red phase to make sure that the bus does not that sure to make red phase the time of the are These mechanisms at the intersection. spend a long time respectively. truncation, and red extension as green known at an TSP for active one configuration 3.1 illustrates Figure This signal will either tell the traffic light to hold a green phase to hold a light the traffic This signal will either tell reduce pass, or to the bus to allow to seconds extra a few for ways: Under active TSP, a transmitter on the transit vehicle relays relays vehicle transit on the a transmitter TSP, Under active three of in one intersection at the light traffic the to a signal Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 58 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit alighting passengers. for prioritycomes after thebushasfinishedboarding and does operate in areas withnear-side stops, where therequest progress withoutbeingstopped at thelight again. Still, TSP can move through theintersection, pickuppassengers, and TSP works best at locations with far-side stops, sothat thebus corridor, oronlyat afew problematic intersections. Authorities can implement TSP throughout aparticular vehicles can extend thistechnology to transit vehicles. Jurisdictions that already grant signalpriority to emergency higher passenger loadsandthemost passengers willbenefit. TSP to peaktravel times,whentransit vehicles operate with regardless ofon-timeperformance. have implemented itfor busesapproaching intersections Most ofthe40USurbanareas withaTSP system, however, applied TSP onlywhenthetransit vehicle isbehindschedule. Some jurisdictions,includingLosAngeles andBerkeley, have Conditions for TSP 8

6 Many areas restrict 7 5

at allintersections. At intersections witha level-of-service the impactthat priorityfor buseswillhave ontraffic flow When implementing TSP, authorities have had to consider of installation. to whether thebenefits to transit vehicles outweigh the costs with higherLOS grades, butquestions arise at thesepoints as congestion. or “E”, indicating slightly lower, but still high very levels of buses, however, at intersections with LOS grades of“D” to handletraffic flow. TSP can maximize benefits for congestion, andthe complete failure oftheintersection (LOS) grade “F”, TSP could exacerbate theextreme level of 9 Transit vehicles can still benefit at intersections Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 59 NA $50 $500 $1500 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter Operating Cost (Replacement) Cost Operating NA $250 $500 $2,000 Cost per Bus Cost $2500 $15,000 $20,000 $20,000-30,000 Cost per Intersection per Intersection Cost Smart Loops have the lowest costs costs the lowest have Smart Loops 10 Item Item Optical System Optical Wayside Readers Wayside Traffic Signal Retrofit Signal Traffic Pavement Smart Loop Pavement Source: TCRP 2007, Report 118. 2007, Report TCRP Source: Table 3.1: The Capital and Operating Costs of Transit Signal Priority Transit of Costs and Operating The Capital 3.1: Table likely to be much higher. to likely of TSP. costs the possible 3.1 shows Table overall. type of detection technology chosen for TSP can determine can determine TSP for chosen technology type of detection installing example, For costs. and operating both its capital wayside less than cost can lights on traffic detectors optical are detectors of the optical costs but operating readers, existing traffic lights can already receive signals from transit from signals receive already can lights traffic existing a can add signals of traffic The replacement vehicles. In addition, the TSP installation. to any expense substantial Costs of Implementing TSP of Implementing Costs vary on whether depending TSP of implementing The costs Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 60 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit on highfrequency routes endupcatching oneanothernear also helpto reduce “busbunching”, where busesoperating which was enoughto remove onebusfrom service. at 14intersections, and found a19% reduction in variability, for busesby 35%.Portland’s Tri-Met similarlyappliedTSP intersections, Seattle managed to reduce travel time variability maximize benefits inthis way. Withjust three TSP-capable intersections, rather thansheernumbers, may help to adherence. Strategic location of TSP at particularly problematic led to reduced travel time variability, andincreased schedule Some transit systems have alsofound that implementing TSP decrease inoverall runningtimeon route asa result. intersections alongitsMetro Rapidline,and found a7% buses. Ontheotherhand,LosAngeles appliedTSP to 211 reduction in average intersection delay experienced by intersections alongRainier Avenue andachieved a34% practices. For example, Seattle applied TSP tojust three number ofintersections involved, andlocal monitoring The benefits of TSP basedonbustravelvary speeds,the Benefits and Concerns 12 11 TSP may

spacing duringpeakoperations asa result of TSP. marked improvement intheabilityto maintain adequate bus intersections. TheChicago Transit Authorityobserved a Source: TCRP 2007, Report 118. Table 3.2:Types ofBenefits Observed with TSP, United States transit systems withTSP have observed. summarizes thetypesofbenefits to busesthat certain US Area withTSP San Francisco Anne Arundel Minneapolis Los Angeles Bremerton, County, MD Portland Chicago Seattle WA Intersection Reductions Delay √ √ √ √ √ Travel Time Reductions √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Travel Time Reductions 13 Variability Table 3.2 √ √ √ Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 61

17 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter can acquire new right-of-way for a bus only lane. The majority a bus only for right-of-way new acquire can used have queue jumps implemented have of jurisdictions that buses. the space for create lane to the right-turn behind slow moving traffic, the extended green or shorter shorter green or extended the traffic, moving behind slow to time. A measure on travel no effect have signal may red congestion around maneuver to vehicle the transit allow at time spent reduce and further TSP complement would goal is the this would achieve that One measure intersections. lane. bypass queue jump or queue Queue Jump Lanes work they How near buses for reserved A queue jump lane is a small lane to pass the bus These lanes allow intersections. signalized through an traffic proceed ahead of this and traffic general intersections. congested at reducing time spent intersection, space with turn lanes, share buses can for Queue jumps the through go to allowed with buses being the only vehicles jurisdictions than turn. In other situations, rather intersection During highly congested travel periods, TSP might not do might TSP periods, travel congested During highly an through move vehicle help a transit to nearly enough stuck while TSP activates vehicle If a transit intersection. The use of stops at the at The use of stops 16

15 With compensation in its system, Los Angeles observed observed Los Angeles system, in its With compensation 14 far side of intersections can also maximize these benefits by these benefits can also maximize side of intersections far clearing the traffic after passengers board a bus to allowing access the stop. can vehicle the transit signal, ensuring that destinations faster, reducing frustrations over stopped time over reducing frustrations faster, destinations has reduced TSP Where while in the vehicle. on the roadway perceptions to increased can also lead it variability, time travel system. in the transit of reliability an average delay to cross-street drivers of less than one of less than drivers cross-street to delay an average per vehicle. second at their to arrive passengers TSP allow from The time savings Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) Devices (MMUTCD) Control Traffic Manual on Uniform request vehicle’s a transit when a signal grants that mandates next phases in the shortened compensate it must priority, for cycle. on cross-streets where signal phases are shortened or even or even shortened signal phases are where on cross-streets have TSP Most jurisdictions with delay. traffic skipped, creating signal phases shortened compensating by this delay mitigated The Michigan signal cycle. on the next phase with a longer At the same time, TSP can lead to frustrations for drivers for drivers frustrations to can lead TSP same time, the At Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 62 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit of thelineat theintersection. gain anadvantage over general traffic because itis atthe front queue jumps withoutTSP, inwhichcase thebuswould still a few seconds later. jumping aheadofgeneral traffic which receives a green phase bus to move past theintersection andproceed onits way, up to theintersection. Anearlygreen phasethenallows the lane ofvehicular traffic, allowing thebus to proceed directly necessary, aspecialright-turn signalat thispoint clears the into theright-turn lanejust aheadoftheintersection. Where a separate traffic signal.Underthis system, thebus moves Figure 3.2illustrates onepossiblequeuejumpscenario, with 18 Authoritiesmay alsochoose to employ Figure 3.2:BusQueue JumpIllustration Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program,2010. Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 63

21 With configurations for both near- and far-side stops, stops, far-side and for both near- With configurations 22 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter bypass lane. The bus progresses to the front of the queue on of the front the to progresses lane. The bus bypass moves green, to changes when the light the near side, and from without impedance passengers board side to the far to other vehicles. bypass for queue TSP do not grant jurisdictions While many further. even this impedance reduce lanes, doing so could the beyond bus-only lanes do not extend where Even TSP to a the addition of a queue jump lane intersection, more stop far-side at a to arrive a bus allow still can system quickly. variety for a arrangements very flexible queue jump lanes offer lanes in can use queue jump Authorities situations. of traffic at a conditions traffic specific to address TSP with combination intersection. given A variant of a queue jump lane, known as a queue bypass as a queue bypass jump lane, known of a queue A variant lane the bus-only extending by stops far-side favor lane, does a queue 3.3 depicts Figure the intersection. beyond slightly Otherwise, buses When it receives When it receives 19 20 the early green signal phase, the bus then proceeds through through proceeds signal phase, the bus then the early green without ahead of other traffic and merges the intersection after. immediately stopping may install queue jump lanes with TSP at points where stops stops where points at queue jump lanes with TSP install may The near- 3.2 shows. on the near side, as Figure located are the bus while it is in the board people to allows side stop red light. at the queue jump lane waiting Queue jumps may conflict with standard TSP in terms of stop stop terms of TSP in standard with conflict may Queue jumps intersections at TSP jurisdictions implement Many location. authorities Yet of the intersection. on the far-side with stops the queue jump lane has to be greater than the length of the than the length be greater lane has to the queue jump traffic. in the general queue of cars typical continue would and they the lanes, enter not be able to would congestion. in vehicular be stuck to buses at highly congested intersections with LOS grades of LOS grades with intersections highly congested buses at a at queue jumps usually only employ Authorities “D” or “E.” of the length intersections, At these points. problematic few Conditions for Queue Jumps for Conditions to benefit will bring the most queue jumps TSP, Much like Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 64 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit Figure 3.3:BusQueue Bypass LaneIllustration Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program,2010. transit willshare anexisting turnlane,or require new right-of- The cost ofqueuejumplanesvaries greatly basedonwhether Costs ofImplementing QueueJumps lower. estimated that queuejumpinstallation costs wouldbemuch Road where publicentities already ownright-of-way, theplan cost more than$1million. most ofthecorridor, queuejumplaneinstallation would up bustransit onGallatin Road estimated that throughout high cost ofright-of-way acquisition, Nashville’s plan to speed of pavement, makingnew acquisition expensive. Due to the ownership isinprivate handsalltheway to theon-street edge corridor, few right turnlanesexist. Inaddition,right-of-way the local context. For example, onNashville’s Gallatin Road costs ofinstalling thelanescould besubstantial dependingon Where queuejumps require new road right-of-way, theoverall could cost between $5,000and$20,000. addition, if TSP systems are notalready available onsite, they signswillcost anywhereor “BusOnly” from $500to $2,000.In striping andinstallation ofnew “Right Turn Except for Buses” way. Where busesuseexisting lanes,the costs oftheactual 24 Oncertain segments ofGallatin 23 Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 65 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter Source: City of Chandler, 2009. City of Chandler, Source: Source: Transport Canada, 2012. Transport Source: AZ 3.4(b): Queue jump lane in Chandler, Figure Figure 3.4(a): Queue jump lane in Portland, OR in Portland, Queue jump lane 3.4(a): Figure

25 the bus proceeds before general traffic. Pedestrians and Pedestrians traffic. general before the bus proceeds expect a bus may not streets cross from traffic right-turning in shared turn lanes in Portland. in shared an can create TSP to The addition of queue jump lanes where and other motorists for pedestrians situation unfamiliar Figure 3.4 illustrates some examples of queue jump lanes in some examples 3.4 illustrates Figure and (c) Oakland, as part Arizona, , (b) Chandler, (a) Portland airport service. RapidBART’s to improvement of a proposed with queue jumps associated signage typical 3.5 shows Figure at a single problematic intersection, Denver saw a 7-10 second saw a 7-10 second Denver intersection, a single problematic at saw a 27 for buses, and Seattle delay in intersection reduction during the morning peak. reduction delay second intersections involved and their strategic location at the most most at the location strategic and their involved intersections 5-15% in generate typically Queue jumps areas. congested time spent reduced through TSP, over savings additional time queue jumps When authorities implemented intersections. at in a variety of roadway settings to allow transit vehicles vehicles transit to allow settings of roadway in a variety TSP, As with intersections. congested around maneuver to of depend on the number jumps of queue the benefits Benefits and Concerns and Benefits widely queue jumps implemented have authorities Roadway Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 66 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit Source: LivingintheO, 2011. Figure 3.4(c):Queue jumplaneinOakland,CA Source: Kittelson andAssociates, 2007. Figure 3.5:QueuejumpsigninPortland, Oregon pedestrians andcreate longer crossing distances. require new right-of-way, they usuallytake away spacefrom to proceed aheadofthem.Inaddition,where queuejumps greater roadway priority. The next sectionoutlinesthetreatments that give buses even increased senseofreliability inthesystem for passengers. even more travel timesavings for transit vehicles, andan that give thebusmore designated spacecan helpgenerate without interference from othertraffic. Roadway treatments the endpoints oflarger road spaceswhere busescan operate intersections, reducing delay. Yet queue jumps might simplybe Queue jumps create spaceswhere buseshave priorityaround turning could beadequate to address thesesafety concerns. signage alertingcross-street drivers to watch for buseswhen situations where busesusequeuejumps lessfrequently, clear turns onred signalscould helpreduce conflicts withbuses.In approaching. able to cross thewidenedroad safely, especiallyifabusis medians to easeconcerns that pedestrians would notbe AC Transit system intheOaklandarea, authoritiesinstalled 27 For drivers oncross streets, restrictions onright 26 Onthe 28

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 67 Figure 3.6 shows an example of an example 3.6 shows Figure 29 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter authorities limit the exclusive use of the lane by buses to peak to peak by buses use of the lane exclusive authorities limit the Even per day. hours of five periods, usually a maximum travel the lane share must often during these peak periods, buses congestion exacerbating avoid to in order with other vehicles traffic is physically able to enter the lanes. Over the course of course Over the the lanes. enter to able physically is traffic other these lanes with usually share vehicles transit the day, existing lane as an may designate authorities Traffic traffic. “bus only” there. place the designation lane, and or add a new as lane operates the that hours the usually designates Signage use the lane may that of other vehicles or the types “bus only,” hours. during bus operating authorities Traffic City. York priority lanes in New for signage clear the restrictions make the lane to or stripe also paint may lane from of (a) a painted examples 3.7 shows on use. Figure lane in Seattle. bus and bike (b) a marked York, New Albany, over congestion bypass to vehicles transit Priority lanes allow times At than do queue jumps. of roadway stretches longer to reverts the lane is not in operation, system when the transit States, areas of the United urban In most usage. traffic general Priority Lanes Priority Work They How and all street, part of the existing a Priority lanes remain - - - Transitways devote extensive new right-of-way to tran to right-of-way new extensive devote Transitways in contained stops and way, running sit, with platforms, traffic. general from is clearly separated that an area lanes, usually only during peak travel periods. lanes, usually only during peak travel alone, vehicles transit space for lanes reserve Exclusive en they ensuring that barriers, physical through often hours. at any while traveling no congestion counter Priority lanes keep buses operating on streets with streets on buses operating Priority lanes keep remov by faster travel to them and allow traffic mixed for the competition ing some or all of the vehicular • • • ROADWAY TREATMENTS ROADWAY buses avoid congestion: buses avoid enough, passengers could find significant time savings, in time find significant could enough, passengers ridership. induce new enough to cases many could help for transit lanes of dedicated levels different Three Roadway treatments within a particular corridor reduce the corridor a particular within treatments Roadway especially in overall, route bus spends on a of time the amount extensive transit is for space roadway Where traffic. congested Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 68 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit Source: CityofNew York, 2012. Figure 3.6:BusLaneSigninNew York City unloading. restrict othercurbside activities,suchason-street parkingand and othertraffic intheselanes,authorities have alsohad to at alltimesofday. lanes have inmost cases allowed right-turning traffic to enter implemented themcurbside. Dueto thisalignment, priority the majorityofjurisdictionsinUnited States have While any laneontheroad could serveasaprioritylane, travel across alllanes. utility vehicles, access to thesespaces to better spread out issue by granting essential vehicles,suchasmunicipaland in theremaining road space.Authoritieshave addressed this 31 Inorder to facilitate movement ofbuses 30 Figure 3.7(a):Bus PriorityLaneinAlbany New, York Source: Beyond DC, 2011. Figure 3.7(b):BusandBike PriorityLaneinSeattle Source: Streetsblog, 2010. Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 69 35 As figure 3.8 shows, VTA buses currently operate in operate currently buses VTA 3.8 shows, As figure 34 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter Where TSP and queue jump lanes already exist, the addition the addition exist, and queue jump lanes already TSP Where help increase can stretches longer priority lanes over of transit congestion, in caught the bus will not be that perceptions The VTA hopes that by offering a rapid service, they can can rapid service, they a offering by hopes that The VTA purchase justify to required ridership the generate eventually use. transit for or barriers of way right of new lanes use priority may operators transit rapid In other cases, maximize to in order running ways than dedicated rather Angeles Rapid line in Los the Metro example, For service area. lanes, and achieves traffic in unrestricted operates currently By stops. spread-out limited, through time savings travel Rapid is Metro lanes, the traffic in unrestricted operating of on service of its money expansion spend more able to of costs the prohibitive Given its 450-mile, 26-line network. Metro corridors, in highly built-up right-of-way new purchasing priority lanes on towards moving phase involves next Rapid’s on running money By saving stretches. congested particularly network its limited-stop expand Rapid hopes to Metro ways, further. even includes transit priority lanes as part of its strategy for initial for of its strategy lanes as part priority transit includes upgrades. congestion. significant encounter lanes, and may unrestricted When other designated vehicles are able able are vehicles When other designated 32 33 peak period congestion substantially degrades on- degrades substantially peak period congestion access to and the ability of the bus time performance stops. the corridor in question has the highest, or veryhigh, or has the highest, in question the corridor AND of the system, with the rest compared ridership • • • For example, the Valley Transit Authority (VTA) in Santa Clara Clara in Santa Authority (VTA) Transit the Valley example, For Some jurisdictions have applied priority lanes as part of an applied priority lanes Some jurisdictions have developing bus service, with hopes of eventually express vehicles. transit by use exclusive for facilities grade-separated two conditions exist: conditions two bus per signal cycle. as not be may requirements frequency use priority lanes, to bus of high levels have do not that systems In transit stringent. lanes when priority implemented authorities have frequency, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) (NCHRP) Program Research Highway Cooperative the National 20-30 have to ought of application the corridor that suggest hour during peak time, or one every buses passing through Conditions for Priority Lanes for Conditions from buses, standards by use exclusive lane for a designate To Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 70 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit Source: Valley Transit Authority, 2007. Figure 3.8:VTA BusOperating inMixed Traffic Lanes traffic at intersections. corridor, allowing thebusto merge more easilywithgeneral lanes where theselanesdonotextend over thewhole authorities can install queuejumplanes at theendofpriority and generate new ridership through timesavings. Similarly, 36

will vary dependingonwhether traffic agencies create it by Like queuejumplanes,thecosts oftransit prioritylanes Costs ofImplementing PriorityLanes bikes. LosAngeles formally allows bicycles to usethelane. three citiesdebated whether to extend useoftheirlanes to Angeles, municipalvehicles can usetheselanesat alltimes.All universal useoftransit priority lanesduringpeaktimes.InLos peak hours. InSanFrancisco, restrictions allow taxis almost bus transportation groups may still usethelanesduring buses may usethelanes.Tour busoperators andotherprivate peak times,there are no restrictions as towhich agency’s priority lanesduringfour peakhours oftheday. the clock,publicbusesonlymaintain exclusive useofthe In acitylike New York, where transit operates nearlyaround Benefits andConcerns restrictions onprioritylanescreates anadditional cost. will dependonlocal ownership conditions. Enforcement ofthe agencies require new right-of-way, theoverall per-mile cost generally costs $50,000to $100,000perlanemile. likely to below. Stripingandsignage for transit prioritylanes lane. Whenretrofitting an existing lane, capital costs are purchasing new right-of-way, orrestricting useofan existing 38 Even during 37 Where 39 Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 71

43

44 42 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter congestion. priority lanes, on transit issues with encroachment Despite when poor signage issue appears Another enforcement on priority lanes. encroach inadvertently to leads drivers too with in San Francisco, an older sign 3.9 shows Figure seconds. few in a process to for drivers much information of its lane- overhaul of a major is in the midst San Francisco and make confusion reduce to in order marking signage visible. more restrictions priority turns from right far allowed so Authorities have and are small blocks where lanes in dense urban settings, in a would travel vehicle of time a right-turning the amount fewer right with In less dense settings particular lane is low. in the vehicles spend of time non-transit turns, the amount that some of the benefits negating increase, lanes could of bypassing the bus in terms provide priority lanes would photograph vehicles illegally moving within the lane. The City the lane. The within moving illegally vehicles photograph as a speeding same manner vehicles in the these then tickets violation.

40 In settings with little on-street parking with little on-street In settings 41 for example, mounts cameras on the back of its buses to on the back of its buses to cameras mounts example, for Authorities have focused relatively little on enforcing laws that laws enforcing little on relatively focused Authorities have Recently, in priority lanes. vehicles the type of moving restrict use camera- to begun have and San Francisco York New San Francisco, violations. discourage to based enforcement transit priority lanes. transit result yield little may enforcement loading,or curbside patrol for the bus. of actual time savings in terms may not extend to HOVs currently is the general difficulty of difficulty is the general currently HOVs to not extend may with Cities lanes. the of out traffic encroaching illegally keeping keep to patrols on ground relied priority lanes have transit out of unloading deliveries and vehicles cars parked illegally implementation of HOV lanes to speed up transit in its in transit to speed up lanes of HOV implementation corridor. Road Gallatin congested priority lanes use of transit that reasons One of the main occupancy vehicles. Buses have most commonly shared shared commonly most have Buses occupancy vehicles. lanes on freeways (HOV) vehicle space in high-occupancy considering is currently Nashville Still, and expressways. Cities in the United States have not attempted to extend extend to attempted not have States the United Cities in all high- to areas lanes in urban priority of transit the use Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 72 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit exclusive lanes,onlytransit vehicles from designated agencies located inthelane closest to thecurbside. Withcurbside the movement oftransit vehicles. Exclusive lanesare usually Exclusive lanesare roadway spacesreserved completely for How they Work Exclusive Lanes times and fewer instances ofunpredictable congestion. transitways asself-enforcing methods ofensuringfaster travel have turnedto themore expensive dedicated lanesand a prioritylaneincongested situations. Still,someauthorities enforcement could allow busesto realize thefullpotential of levels donotyet justify a completely exclusive lane.Proper where new right-of-way isprohibitively expensive orridership Priority lanescan provide alow-cost option to speedupbuses Madison Avenue line. observed a50%reduction intravel time variation onits converted lanesto allow transit priority. New York similarly improvements ofover 30%inpeaktimewhenauthorities Avenue andSanFrancisco’s First Street eachsaw runningtime improvements inperformance. BusesonNew York’s Madison on certain corridors,transit systems have seenmarked 45

Figure 3.9:Confusing Bus Lane SigninSanFrancisco much oftheroute outsidetheCity’s famous Strip.Since operate inanexclusive painted lanewithout barriers for Figure 3.11shows that onthe LasVegas MAXsystem, buses lane alongonestretch oftheWashington Street corridor. yellow bollards keeping allothervehicles outofthecurbside shows anexclusive laneonBoston’s Silver Lineroute, with lane, includingbollards orconcrete barriers. to completely blockothervehicles from entering thetransit can usethelanesat any time.Authorities may install obstacles Source: Mineta Transportation Institute, 2012. 46 Figure 3.10 Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 73

50 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter Figure 3.10: Exclusive Bus Lane with Bollards in Boston Bus Lane with Bollards 3.10: Exclusive Figure Source: Mineta Transportation Institute, 2012. Institute, Transportation Mineta Source: general traffic lane during peak travel hours, usually 20-30 hours, travel lane during peak traffic general lanes should be on exclusive In addition, buses per hour. otherwise encounter the bus would where segments roadway reliability. service degrade to significantly enough congestion buses, the NCHRP lane for of an exclusive With the provision to available lanes two be should still there that state standards traffic. general Conditions for Implementation Conditions the that suggest standards lanes, NCHRP exclusive justify To the adjacent people as as many least at lanes should carry Figure 3.12 Figure 48

49 47 motion. Barriers and clearly marked running ways can help ways running and clearly marked motion. Barriers route transit for a particular identity a sense of distinct create service. as a rapid based on peak flow. based on peak flow. running ways, separate completely lanes create Since exclusive while in congestion any the bus does not usually encounter lanes usually run only for short stretches of a route in order in order of a route short stretches lanes usually run only for along the curbside. stops access to preserve to Express” “Strip&Downtown on the Las Vegas a stretch shows lane. The lane reverses central uses a separated that (SDX) Occasionally, exclusive lanes can be located in more central central in more be located lanes can exclusive Occasionally, buses to only allow curb, and might the from away areas usually barriers Concrete flow. of peak in the direction move exclusive These traffic. mainstream these lanes from separate lanes. Traffic cameras can easily detect violating vehicles at vehicles violating detect can easily cameras lanes. Traffic intersections. other vehicles cannot use these lanes during any time period, time period, during any use these lanes cannot other vehicles with priority much simpler than becomes enforcement Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 74 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit ownership context. way purchases, whichare highlydependent onthelocal land barriers incurbside lanes.Thesecosts donotincluderight of lane-mile, dependingonwhether authoritiesdecide to install traffic. These reconstruction costs range from $2-4millionper a new lane because they completely close offspace for general mile. Exclusive lanes,however, usuallyrequire construction of painting ofthe roadway can cost $50,000 to $100,000perlane As withtransit prioritylanes,thecost ofre-striping and Cost ofExclusive Lanes the buslane. order to avoid conflicts withright-turning traffic adjacent to phase for thebusmay withdedicated benecessary lanesin travel timeofbuses at thesepoints. Indeed,aseparate signal traffic at intersections, TSP cancertainly improve the overall buses inexclusive lanesmust still interact withother forms of help busespassthrough intersections withoutdifficulty. Since lanes onlyrunpartoftheway, however, queue jumps can not operate incompetition with any other traffic. If exclusive route, queuejumps willnolonger benecessary, asbuseswill Where exclusive lanesruntheentire length ofaparticular 51

52 Figure Source: MarioOrtiz,2010. Figure 3.12:LasVegas SDX BusinMedianOnlyLane Source: Valley Transit Authority, 2007. 3.11 : LasVegas MAXBusExclusive Lane Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 75 Figure 3.13 shows one alignment of a one alignment 3.13 shows Figure 57 Sidewalk activity in these segments could diminish segments activity in these Sidewalk 56 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter activity from at least one curbside to minimize interference interference to minimize one curbside at least activity from with activities there. road. on a particularly wide transitway Specifically, curbside exclusive lanes may limit driveway limit driveway lanes may exclusive curbside Specifically, from the vehicles turning by barring destinations access to lane. to access a attempting users only transit that the point to and persist, these concerns use them. Where wish to stop implement authorities may high enough, are service levels and area running transit separate completely to transitways activity. all other street from infrastructure stop Transitways space create transitways lanes in some settings, exclusive Like transit between placing barriers use by transit exclusive for Transitways of the street. and the remainder running ways also placing the stop lanes by further than exclusive a step go space a distinct creating within these barriers, infrastructure all such remove Transitways activity. all transit-related for Where stops are far apart, use of curbside lanes can generate generate can lanes of curbside apart, use far are stops Where about negative residents businesses and among concerns curb. to the activity adjacent land impacts on intensive

55

54

53 jurisdictions have compensated for these issues by installing by installing for these issues compensated jurisdictions have signal. of the pedestrian the length medians and extending 27% after the installation of bus-only lanes. the installation 27% after pedestrians for distances crossing increase lanes can Exclusive Many right-of-way. curbside new from when these lanes come from 1-2 minutes per mile. In contrast, installation of bus lanes installation per mile. In contrast, 1-2 minutes from time savings travel led to in Los Angeles Boulevard on Wilshire reliability did time per mile. Travel of less than one minute 12% and between by routes Boulevard on Wilshire increase The actual travel time savings from exclusive lanes will depend exclusive from time savings The actual travel on and number of stops speed of bus travel on the previous bus lanes operate exclusive Dallas’ two example, For the route. ranged have time savings and travel stops, with few in areas changes and increased ridership. Smaller time savings can still can time savings Smaller ridership. and increased changes to use their desire reinforce and passengers current benefit transit. significant because transit vehicles do not encounter any any do not encounter vehicles transit because significant five over of Time savings while in the lanes. congestion usually induced modal have route given on any minutes Benefits and Concerns and Benefits proven have lanes exclusive with associated savings The time Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 76 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit riders still have access to their destinations, while transit can come from raised platforms. Withmedian transitways, the mediantransitway, where barriers to vehicular access More popularamongurbanareas intheUnited States is the mainstreet. Pittsburgh’s East Busway, completely separating transit from the bushasto interact with mixed traffic. Figure 3.15shows West Busways, reducing thenumberofintersections where road. Pittsburgh hasbuiltentirely new roads forits East and County, completely fenced offfrom the remainder ofthe different forms. Figure 3.14 shows atransitway inMiami-Dade Several UScitieshave experimented withtransitways in intersections. In atransitway, busesstill have to interact withmixed traffic at intersections to facilitate pedestrians crossing at crosswalks. to encroach onthelane. potentially achieve higherspeedsdue to theinabilityoftraffic will have accessto theirdesignated stops. Thevehicles can Authorities can usetransitways to ensure that transit vehicles could expand to includewidershelter andseating space. When taken away from thecurbside, stop infrastructure 59

58 Stops are typically located near have implemented transitways inthemedianto minimize in Eugene-Springfield, Oregon, andtheCityofCleveland maintain ahighlyexclusive space.TheLaneTransit District mixed traffic at intersections, a separate signal phasewith TSP Since busesonmediantransitways must still interact with service. median transitways onspecific corridors withhigh-speedbus buses withsuchhighfrequency, butthey have still invested in authorities inEugene-Springfield andCleveland donotoperate purchasing therequired right ofway isimpossible.Transit at suchhighfrequency may beindensesettings where operate duringpeakhours. median transitways incorridors where more than60buses median transitway, traffic authoritiesshouldonlyimplement NCHRP standards suggest that to justify construction ofa Conditions for Median Transitways directions to share asingleplatform and stop infrastructure. The mediantransitway allows busesoperating inboth shows amediantransitway ontheEugene-Springfield corridor. profiles theseareas in case A.) Figurestudies inAppendix 3.16 interference withcurbside activityoneitherside.(Theplan 62 61 Yet areas that operate transit 60

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 77 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter Source: Metropolitan Planning Council, 2009. Metropolitan Source: and some jurisdictions may treat the investment in median investment the treat may and some jurisdictions In other transit. rail light towards a major step as transitways Busway East 3.15: Pittsburgh’s Figure additional time savings. time additional median transitways, used previously have systems rail Light : South Miami-Dade Busway Where buses have to merge back into mixed traffic or traffic mixed back into merge to buses have Where 63 3.14 Source: Valley Transit Authority, 2007. Authority, Transit Valley Source: Table Table Source: Valley Transit Authority, 2007. Authority, Transit Valley Source: Figure 3.13: Median Transitway Alignment 3.13: Median Transitway Figure length of a corridor, they would not require additional queue additional not require would they of a corridor, length jumps. help add still could lanes, queue jumps dedicated curbside into may be necessary to avoid conflicts with left-turning traffic traffic left-turning with conflicts avoid be necessary to may run the full median transitways Where all directions. from Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 78 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit Source: WikimediaCommons,2011. Figure 3.16:MedianTransitway, Eugene, Oregon treatments that thischapter describes.Mediantransitways Median transitways are themost expensive oftheroadway Costs ofMedianTransitways reliable transit system that inducesnew ridership. light rail hashelpedtransit agencies provide arapid, highly- cases, thesimilar platform andrunning way infrastructure of 64

least 32-feet ofnew ROW, andthesecosts can beprohibitively platforms,landscaping, andbarriers. cost $5-10milliondollars perlanemile,mostly related to Due inlarge partto thehighcosts ofnew right-of-way, the Benefits andConcerns expensive inmost settings. 66 65 Transitways require at Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 79

69 70 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter process. process. for Implementation Conditions anywhere cards contactless can implement Authorities about fare payment, creating delays in getting the bus back getting in delays creating payment, about fare attempted have Cities elsewhere stops. after motion into and payment fare to related delays reduce to strategies several boarding. Cards Contactless Work they How as also known and microchip, antenna with a built-in Cards among transit acceptance increased found have smart cards, swipe to do not have Riders of payment. as a method agencies a card to them in proximity only wave and must these cards, remove to time take to do not have therefore They reader. often can or backpack, as they purse a wallet, from cards read accurately. and still compartment in a transparent remain spends searching time the customer reduce can Smart cards up the boarding speeding card, a traditional and swiping for, aboard, increasing their in-vehicle travel time without getting getting time without travel in-vehicle their increasing aboard, transit In addition, destination. their closer to them any confusion passenger to respond to have may drivers vehicle

67 Payment issues are certainly frustrating for frustrating certainly issues are Payment 68 EXPEDITED BOARDING PRACTICES BOARDING EXPEDITED exact change. exact already for passengers to queue, but also waiting passengers Transit operators throughout the United States have expressed expressed have States the United throughout operators Transit swipe-cards to times due bus dwell about increased concern struggling to find time and customers over demagnetize that benefits. The next section addresses the role of changing fare fare role of changing the section addresses The next benefits. for buses. times reducing dwell in practices payment help buses bypass congestion and also the option with the and also the option congestion help buses bypass improvements Roadway savings. time of level potential highest the bus that delays do not address alone, however, time travel achieve only means to they nor are encounters, interact with general traffic much more frequently. Yet in both Yet in frequently. more much traffic with general interact with the increased have speeds and ridership cities, travel of the median transitways. installation to option the highest-cost represent potentially Transitways Pittsburgh saw travel time reductions of over 50%. So far, it over 50%. So of reductions time travel saw Pittsburgh applies in settings savings of time this level that is not certain to buses have where or Eugene-Springfield, such as Cleveland time savings benefits of median transitways specifically are specifically transitways of median benefits time savings and County in Miami-Dade busways The off-road clear. not yet Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 80 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit variety of smartcards could potentially raise these capital in magnetic strip cards. Installing fareboxes that can read a particularly where systems have already madeinvestments new farebox to read contactless cards could incurahighcost, compares thecosts ofthree typesof fareboxes. Installing a readers could potentially beprohibitively expensive. Table3.3 In addition,the system-wide costs ofnew contactless farebox may save ontheseproduction costs. systems that accept riders’ smart cards from othersources ridership systems, thesenew costs can beprohibitive. Transit cards cost 90cents eachonaverage to produce. Inhigh- cards cost 5-10cents eachonaverage, proprietary contactless contactless cards system-wide. Whilecurrent magnetic swipe contactless cards isthehighcosts incurred to implement One ofthemainconcerns that transit agencies have with Costs ofImplementation the front ofthebus. along asystem’s high-ridership routes, where queuesform at In particular, contactless cards may help reduce dwell times potentially preventing theon-timeperformance ofthebus. that they have concerns aboutboarding andfare payment 71 72

Table 3.3:Capital Costs ofFareboxes and othertypesoffarecards pay theirfares. finish paying at thesametimeasthosecustomers using cash side ofthefarebox onboard that allow GoTo™ customers to contactless, butthere are small,separate machinesto the and bussystems intheTwin Cities.Notonlyare GoTo™ cards in 2004instituted GoTo™ cards that work onboththelight rail boarding. For example, Metro Transit inMinneapolis-St.Paul Recently, bussystems have also begunto use cards to speed at turnstiles determine whether a card hasadequate fare. and light rail systems in theUnited States, where machines Contactless smartcards have become astaple ofsubway Benefits andConcerns accept contactless cards, however, costs would diminish. costs further. Withtechnologies for upgrading oldersystems to Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program2007, Report 118. Contactless Card Farebox Magnetic Card farebox Mechanical Farebox Farebox Type Cost ofInstallation $12,000-$14,000 $10,000-$12,000 $2,000-$3,000 (per Unit) 74 Thisdualsystem 73

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 81

78 Transit agencies can can agencies Transit 79 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter Source: Met Council, 2009. Met Source: adequate outreach to customers, it can create fears among fears create it can customers, to outreach adequate their fare. pay be able to will no longer they that customers those riders disadvantage may cards contactless In addition, cash. by pay no choice but to who have yet system-wide, machines card contactless install carefully fears. these to alleviate cash boarding allow still even realize and payment, of all methods for allow properly To out payment fare can move systems transit time savings, larger entirely. of the vehicle Card Cities Go-To 3.17: Twin Figure in implementation, eventually eliminating paper transfers transfers paper eliminating eventually in implementation, the on encoded transfers them with and replacing on buses without comes If this phased implementation smartcard.

75 Contactless Contactless 77 76 Agencies such as WMATA in Washington, DC have attempted attempted DC have in Washington, such as WMATA Agencies phasing by system of a contactless the costs out spread to parking, or retail purchases at certain businesses. certain at purchases parking, or retail is system use of the transit that demonstrate can cards convenient. speeding up the boarding process. process. speeding up the boarding further with its Clipper a step MUNI goes San Francisco’s for pay to in other settings wave can which users Card™, The Minneapolis-St. Paul example demonstrates the benefits the benefits demonstrates example The Minneapolis-St. Paul transfer of ease-of- in terms create cards contactless that similarly San Francisco routes. modes or different between on some of its MUNI buses, readers smart card has separate to overall dwell time. The study found that converting all cash all converting found that study time. The dwell overall to per six seconds almost save would users card GoTo™ to users on-board. passenger Figure 3.17 shows the separate contactless card machine machine card contactless separate the 3.17 shows Figure Avenue in the University of a route A 2010 study GoTo™. for contribution payment’s fare isolated in Minneapolis corridor can lead to reduced dwell times for all passengers aboard aboard passengers for all times dwell reduced lead to can method. of payment the bus, regardless boarding and those Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 82 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit choice, andmust present a receipt orstamped passto transit vehicle entirely. Customers pay withthemediumoftheir Most systems withprepayment remove fareboxes from the board through thefront ofthebus. they may thenboard through either door. Othercustomers wave their card infront ofthesereaders to pay theirfare, and card readers. Customers withthelocal contactless card may WA’s RapidRideroute, onlyalimited numberofstops have payment orat particular stops. For example, onKingCounty, Some systems onlyintegrate prepayment for certain typesof of-payment would besubjectto finesandotherpenalties. board thevehicle orat stops. Customers without proper proof- enforcement mainlythrough random inspections,eitheron to take aboard. Withprepayment, transit agencies conduct payment, often inthe form ofa receipt or stamp onapass, Las Vegas’ SDX route. Thepassengers thenreceive proof of vending machine.Figure 3.18shows avending machineon fare at thestop before boarding, usuallyat adesignated In anoff-board fare payment system, passengers pay their How itWorks Off-board Fare Payment 81 80

Source: Erik Weber, 2010. Figure 3.18:LasVegas SDX Vending Machine system. on express routes to convey animage ofarapid, convenient particular, transit systems may wish to implement prepayment concerns arisethat dwell timesare slowing down bustravel. In Transit agencies can introduce fare prepayment anywhere Conditions for Implementation receipt. those paying by thesystem’s smartcard donotrequire a information from thelocal transit payment database, sothat light railsystem, inspectors havedevices handheld that receive officers upon randominspections.OnMinneapolis-St.Paul’s 83 82

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 83

86 : Both Doors Open on Metro Orange Open on Metro : Both Doors 3.19 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter Source: Light Rail Now, 2009. Rail Now, Light Source: Fare evasion concerns increase where parallel routes do not do routes parallel where increase concerns evasion Fare have still some vehicles or when only prepayment, fare have in boarding back-door illegal 3.20 shows Figure fareboxes. with “BOARD with signs clearly marked even San Francisco, this has resolved York New DOOR.” THE FRONT THROUGH proof-of- service accepting by issue on its Selectbus express Figure system in 2007 had an average dwell time of 14.8 seconds per seconds time of 14.8 dwell an average in 2007 had system on the per person 11 seconds of an average to compared stop, in the same corridor. route local Costs will vary depending on the depending will vary Costs 84 85 a parallel route that still had on-board fareboxes. The MAX fareboxes. had on-board still that route a parallel up boarding times. Figure 3.19 shows both doors open for open both doors 3.19 shows times. Figure up boarding the In Las Vegas, Line vehicle. Orange on a Metro boarding on its limited- and the use of all doors fareboxes of elimination over savings time substantial generated MAX System stop Benefits and Concerns Benefits both doors, at boarding for allows prepayment fare Complete of the bus and speeding the front at crowding reducing Enforcement costs will also depend on the number of costs Enforcement how many and conducts, agency a particular inspections that the inspections. conduct necessary to are personnel new $1.9 million to install 22 vending machines in its initial effort effort in its initial machines 22 vending install $1.9 million to the MAX system. develop to machine vending the types of media that number of different employs. vending machines. Generally, transit agencies have to install all install to have agencies transit machines. Generally, vending to at the same time route a particular machines along vending of a total spent Las Vegas structure. payment confusing avoid Cost of the purchase in comes prepayment fare of cost The main Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 84 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit purchases. potentially justify roadway improvements or new vehicle times, it can inducenew ridership. Thisnew ridership could Where fare prepayment doessignificantly reduce total travel show that abussystem can alsooffer higherqualityservice. and subway systems, fare prepayment represents oneway to Since off-board fare payment isasignature feature oflight rail prepayment. have lower rates offare evasion thanothersystems withfare inspections. Thisinitialenforcement hasledthese two cities to Selectbus enforced fare payment by conducting more random payment system. ThePhoenix LRT System andNew York’s “fare sweeps” whenthey first introduce theproof-of- Authorities can alsomitigate fare evasion concernsthrough benefits ofan express bus system. arrives. Inthisway, local routes can realize sometimesavings for theexpress bus,butare willingto take thefirst busthat boarding. payment onlocal routes, althoughstill keeping front door 87 89 Thisarrangement helps customers whoare waiting

88

When transit agencies remove fare prepayment from the and doesnotdisadvantage users ofcash andday passes. Fare prepayment allows riders to useavariety offare media, distinct identity known asBusRapid Transit, or BRT. described above to create atransit route orsystem witha prepayment measures withtheroadway improvements MAX andKingCounty RapidRide,have combined thesefare Many transit systems intheUnited States, suchasLas Vegas system. variability, andcan complement otherimprovements inthe to fare concerns. Fare prepayment minimizes travel time back into motion after stops, rather than devoting attention With fare prepayment, drivers can focus ongetting thebus of monitoring thefarebox anddealingwithpayment issues. Fare prepayment alsoreduces oreliminates thedriver’s duty riders to pay usingamethod that isconvenient for them. longer have to rushpayment at thefarebox, they can allow can usetransit to meet theirneeds.Sincetransit vehicles no vehicle, they may actuallyincrease thenumberofpeoplewho 91

90

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 85 93 : Illegal Back Door Boarding Boarding Back Door : Illegal full BRT have included Metro Orange (Los Angeles), (Los Angeles), Orange included Metro have full BRT Area Metropolitan Line, Las Vegas’ Silver Boston’s and HealthLine, Cleveland’s (MAX) system, Express (EmX). Express Emerald Eugene-Springfield’s 3.20 Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter Figure Figure In both BRT-Lite and full BRT systems, there are three key key three are there systems, full BRT and In both BRT-Lite usually set that improvements roadway aside from elements stop bus service: high-amenity stations, regular apart from BRT branding. vehicles with distinct and changes, location Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2012. Cooperative Transit Source: - - - 92 Full BRT, where transit vehicles operate mostly or en mostly operate vehicles transit where Full BRT, of examples space. In this chapter, dedicated in tirely traffic for all or most of their route. In this chapter, ex In this chapter, route. of their for all or most traffic Rapid (Los included Metro systems amples of BRT-Lite Select York’s New Authority, Transit Valley Angeles), RapidRide. and King County Transit, bus, AC BRT-Lite, where transit vehicles still operate in mixed in mixed operate still vehicles transit where BRT-Lite, • • IMPROVEMENT PUZZLE: BRT PUZZLE: IMPROVEMENT PUTTING TOGETHER THE TRANSIT TRANSIT THE TOGETHER PUTTING BRT, while some BRT systems offer a higher level of amenities. a higher level offer systems while some BRT BRT, forms: two takes BRT Generally, through limited stops spaced further apart in order to serve serve to spaced further apart in order stops limited through destinations. key as themselves brand bus services and routes express Many with light rail, such as level platforms and pre-paid ticketing. ticketing. and pre-paid platforms such as level rail, with light with discussed here improvements roadway integrates BRT to other service and enhancements stations comfortable its high speeds achieves BRT system. and reliable a fast create Bus Rapid Transit, or BRT, is a rubber-tired, high speed is a rubber-tired, or BRT, Bus Rapid Transit, associated traditionally features offers that system transit Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 86 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit Figure platforms. similar to rail transit: real-time information andboarding features ofthesestations aim to make theBRT experience Community Transit’s in Swift service Washington. Two other fare prepayment. space, distinctive shelters, and often vending facilities for regular busstops. Thesefeatures includemore seating BRT systems typically provide ahost ofamenitiesbeyond As discussedinthesectiondetailing mediantransitways, High-amenity stations Source: Metro Magazine,2009. 3.21 : BRT Station, Community Transit 94 Figure 3.21shows aBRT station from Figure These screens can increase perceptions of reliability among of light rail andcommuter rail systems across thecountry. Real-time information screens are generally key components Los Angeles. information screen from a station onthe Metro Orange Linein know whenabuswillarrive. Figure 3.22shows areal- time comfortable without-of-vehicle travel timebecause they real-time information screens canmake passengers more the samelevel ofcontrol andprecision asrail systems. customers by showing that bustransit operators provide Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program,2010. 3.22 : Real TimeInformation Screen 95 The Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 87 : Bike Path Near Metro Orange Station Orange Near Metro Path : Bike 3.23 Source: LA DOT Bike Blog 2011. Bike LA DOT Source: Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter Source: Source: behind a station on the Metro Orange Line. Transit systems systems Transit Line. Orange on the Metro behind a station with distinctive convenience this increased complement can transit of the new nature the rapid convey that vehicles system. Figure In order to compensate for the increased walking distances distances walking increased the for compensate to In order access improved have providers transit some stops, BRT to directly path a bike 3.23 illustrates Figure their stops. to

98 By locating these stops stops these locating By 96 BRT providers must also decide must providers BRT 97 features of the upgrade to BRT. BRT. to of the upgrade features bus service. Specifically, they placed BRT stops on the far side on the stops placed BRT they bus service. Specifically, priority. signal transit of advantage take to of intersections to stops local move providers In other jurisdictions, transit of some advantage take to buses local to allow locations BRT whether to place new infrastructure at the same locations as the same locations at infrastructure place new to whether in Oakland,California Transit AC appropriate. where stops local locations separate on its Line 1R at stops place BRT decided to regular with conflict avoid to in order stops, local existing from One of the key decisions for BRT providers is where to locate locate to is where providers BRT decisions for One of the key bus has a spacing of 800-1200 local While the typical stops. one mile apart 0.5 to usually place stops providers BRT feet, speed up service. to in order at key locations, however, transit operators can maximize the can maximize operators transit however, locations, key at riders. to transit grant they benefits Decisions Location Stop to allow for easy boarding of vehicles, particularly for disabled for disabled particularly of vehicles, boarding easy for allow to cost can of amenities with this high level Stations passengers. $5 million each. $250,000 to from In addition, boarding platforms may be more extensive than extensive be more may platforms boarding In addition, level grade- at constructed are Platforms stops. bus traditional Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 88 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit higher-speed to service riders. systems to rebrand themselves asthey attempt to offer a flexibility ofBRT offers significant opportunities for transit experience that customers have whenthey ridelight rail. The Healthline busdockingat aplatform, simulating theboarding pull directly next to aplatform. Figure 3.26shows aCleveland include automatic precision dockingthat allows vehicles to The Cleveland Healthlinesystem went astep furtherto tired transit. negative qualitiesthat peoplemight associate withrubber- and alsocovered thebackwheelsto de-emphasize the Rapid, asseeninFigure 3.25,introduced articulated vehicles, more elaborate changes to theirvehicles. LosAngeles’ Metro faster boarding andalighting. Other systems have instituted (Figure 3.24),andincludingmore vehicle doors to allow for County, WA, thisinvolved namingthesystem “RapidRide” through branding anduniquedesignoftheirvehicles. InKing the high-qualitynature alongspecific oftheirservice routes BRT systems throughout thecountry have chosento convey Distinctive Vehicles 99 100 Source: Metro Magazine,2009. Figure Source: LAPublicTransportation Association, 2009. Figure 3.25 3.24 : Metro RapidBusWithCovered Wheels : RapidRideBusWithThree Doors Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 89 101

Substantial transit stations (with adequate shelter, pre- shelter, (with adequate stations transit Substantial platforms, of seating, level machines, plenty payment information). time and possibly real Signal Priority Transit of buses boarding Low-floor/level Branding Distinct peak) off peak/15 minute service (10 minute Frequent of Service per day 14 Hours • • • • • • Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter

designation (See Discussion of Funding Options in Chapter 5). of Funding Options (See Discussion Chapter in designation demand: standards project, BRT a corridor-based For (LRT) rail transit light further mimic traditional can vehicles BRT own running in their operate they where service in locations funding, dedicated seek federal who those agencies For way. of other requirements. the stringency reduce can running way Defining BRT Defining (FTA) Administration Transit the Federal funding purposes, For BRT gain to a project for minimum standards certain established : Docking BRT Vehicle in Cleveland Vehicle : Docking BRT 3.26 Source: Regional Transit Authority, 2010. Authority, Transit Regional Source: Figure Figure Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 90 Chapter 3Transit Improvement Toolkit Washtenaw Avenue. delays, andpromote arapid, highamenitytransit along service the improvement measures discussed here can reduce transit reliability.enhance service Chapter 4outlinestheways that This chapter hasdescribedtreatments to speedupbusesand the corridor to gain acceptance. has required strong coordination between stakeholders along Lansing’s BRT plansare ineven earlierstages. Each example represents aBRT system isnotyet underconstruction, while existing fullBRT systems. TheGrand RapidsSilver Line Healthline andEugene-Springfield’s EmX routes illustrate projects intheUnited States Cleveland’s inAppendixA. The planpresents four case studies ofcorridor-level BRT routes, whilealsopotentially spurringnew development. wider variety ofpublictransportation needsonestablished rail system. BRT features allow transit providers to cater to a expand beyond anexisting corridor more easilythanafixed- the flexibility associated withbuses.BRT can add stops and BRT features represent permanent investments that still offer CONCLUSION

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 91 - 4-19. Agrawal et al. (2012). 86. et Agrawal al. (2012). 25. et Agrawal Chapter 3 Transit Improvement Toolkit Improvement 3 Transit Chapter 50. Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2007). 4-17. Program. Research Cooperative 50. Transit (2007). 26. Authority. Transit 51. Valley (2007). 4-19. Program. Research Cooperative 52. Transit (2007). 4-21. Program. Research Cooperative 53. Transit (2007). 4-21. Program. Research Cooperative 54. Transit (2007). 26. Authority. Transit 55. Valley al. (2012). 87. et 56. Agrawal Streets: Case Studies in Design and Management (MTI Report 11-10). San Jose, CA: Mineta 11-10). San Jose, CA: Mineta (MTI Report Case Studies in Design and Management Streets: http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/ < from April 15, 2012 Retrieved Institute. Transportation 24. research/2606-shared-use-bus-priority-lanes-city-streets.pdf>. al. (2012). 30. et 30. Agrawal (2010). 6. Program. Research Cooperative 31. Transit (2010). 60. Program. Research Cooperative 32. Transit (2010). 60. Program. Research Cooperative 33. Transit April 20, 2012 Retrieved Plan Final Report. Strategic (2009). BRT Authority. Transit 34. Valley 33. . from in North America Projects BRT (2010). Case Studies of Incremental and L. Jerram. 35. Niles, J. 30. Institute. Transportation 09-13). San Jose, CA: Mineta (MTI Report (2007). 45. Authority. Transit 36. Valley (2007). Program. Research Cooperative 37. Transit 38. 39. (2009). 7-6. 40. City of Nashville. al. (2012). 30. et 41. Agrawal al. (2012). 34. et 42. Agrawal (2010). 4-17. Program. Research Cooperative 43. Transit al. (2012). 8. et 44. Agrawal (2007). 4-21. Program. Research Cooperative 45. Transit (2010). 6. Program. Research Cooperative 46. Transit Demon BRT Express Area Metropolitan Vegas (2005). Las Administration. Transit 47. Federal 2-1. Administration. Transit Federal DC: Washington Report. Final Project: stration (2007). 28. Authority. Transit 48. Valley (2007). 4-20. Program. Research Cooperative 49. Transit 09Ch7BRT.pdf>. 09Ch7BRT.pdf>. (2007). 4-40. Program. Research Cooperative 25. Transit (2010). 67. Program. Research Cooperative 26. Transit 6. 27. City of Berkeley.(2011). (2010). 67. Program. Research Cooperative 28. Transit On City Bus Priority Lanes (2012). Shared-Use Goldman, and N. Hannaford. A., T. 29. Agrawal, - - NOTES 22. Valley Transit Authority. (2007). 45. Authority. Transit 22. Valley (2007). 4-39. Program. Research Cooperative 23. Transit Re Plan. Master Strategic Nashville Road.” Gallatin for (2009). “BRT 24. City of Nashville. . 2. Traffic Manual on Uniform (2011). Michigan of Transportation. Department 14. Michigan . (2007). 4-32. Program. Research Cooperative 15. Transit 9. Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2007). 4-27. (2007). Program. Research Cooperative 9. Transit (2007). 4-30. Program. Research Cooperative 10. Transit (2007). 4-31. Program. Research Cooperative 11. Transit (2007). 4-32. Program. Research Cooperative 12. Transit Bus Bunching- Building a Martin. (2011). “Eliminating and J. E. Partridge, T., 13. McKone, Authority. Transit Chicago service.” for improving toolbox and source, information process, brt_service_design_guidelines.pdf>. 53. (2007). 51. Authority. Transit 5. Valley (2010). 11. Program. Research Cooperative 6. Transit (2010). 14. Program. Research Cooperative 7. Transit (TCRP Guide Practitioner’s Transit (2007). Bus Rapid Program. Research Cooperative 8. Transit April 14, 2012 from Retrieved Board. Research , DC: Transportation 118). Washington Report 4-28. Mixed Traffic (TCRP Synthesis 83). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Retrieved Retrieved Board. Research Transportation DC: Washington, 83). Synthesis (TCRP Traffic Mixed 12. . April 13, 2012 from (2010). 12. Program. Research Cooperative 2. Transit (2010). 12. Program. Research Cooperative 3. Transit Sus In VTA Service Design Guidelines.” (2007). “Bus Rapid Transit Authority. Transit 4. Valley . neers. Retrieved 29,2012from January . 2. serve BankofBoston. Retrieved February 3,2012from 4. < http://sustainablecommunitiesleadershipacademy.org/resource_files/documents/the- Historic Corridor.” BRT CaseStudies.Retrieved April16,2012from 64. Institute “TheCleveland Healthline:for Sustainable Communities(2011). Transforming an 63. Valley Transit Authority. (2007).32. 62. Niles,J. andL.Jerram. (2010).24. 61. Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2010).60. 60. Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2010).5. 59. Niles,J. andL.Jerram. (2010).24. 58. Valley Transit Authority. (2007).29. 57. Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2010).5. - - - 91. Valley Transit Authority. (2007).89. 90. Federal Transit Administration. (2005).5-4. 89. Valley Transit Authority. (2007).89. 88. Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2012).73. 87. Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2012).55. 86. Federal Transit Administration. (2005).5-4. anceAndInstructions.pdf>. . 23,2012fromJanuary .5. March 20,2012from

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 4Recommendations 94 team’s recommendations for the Washtenaw Corridor. experience thancurrently exists. Thischapter addresses the time andcreating amore inviting, convenient out-of-vehicle will furtherimprove bothby reducing service, in-vehicle travel time performance. Application of transit priority treatments doubling offrequency hasalready inJanuary improved on- the most heavily intheAATA usedservice system, andthe be appliedto specificsegments ofthe corridor. Route 4is AATA’s Route alongWashtenaw 4service Avenue, whichcan a variety ofoptions to reduce travel inconsistencies on T he treatments discussedintheprevious chapter provide of corridor-wide transit improvements, someofwhich are transit improvements. Itthenprogresses to adiscussion The chapter oftheplan’s beginswithasummary visionfor involved ineachmeasure. that applyto specificsegments ofthe corridor, andtheactors already underway. Finally, itillustrates recommendations Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 95 - A limited-stop bus rapid transit service transit bus rapid A limited-stop prepayment Fare branding and marketing Distinct priority during peak periods signal Transit conges bypass buses to allow Queue jump lanes to at intersections tion other unimpeded by bus travel lanes for Dedicated traffic Complete pedestrian and bicycle connections connections bicycle and pedestrian Complete destinations key at High-amenity stations • • • • • • • • Chapter 4 Recommendations Chapter stop positioning changes apply only to certain points along the along points to certain apply only positioning changes stop fare and stations rapid transit of bus the installation corridor, jurisdictions. apply across prepayment Table 4.1, on the following pages, summarizes the locations the locations summarizes pages, on the following 4.1, Table While by jurisdictional segment. of the recommendations lanes, and queue jump completion, such as sidewalk elements VISION include: The transit improvement measures this plan proposes this plan proposes measures improvement The transit enhance reliability, service times, increase speed up travel transit for sense of identity a distinct access, and create the plan proposes that improvements Key on Washtenaw. transit improvement measures address all of these elements, all of these elements, address measures improvement transit and travel dependable more will experience passengers their destinations. in reaching comfort greater Potential improvements to AATA’s Route 4 service extend extend 4 service Route to AATA’s improvements Potential to include changes to themselves the vehicles beyond far Where destinations. key to and connections roadways, stops, Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 4Recommendations 96 Table 4.1(a):Types ofTransit Recommendations by Segment on Washtenaw Avenue Ped-Bike Integration Stop Enhancements Jurisdiction Segment Platt (EandW stops) real-time; shelters at Bus schedules/ Manchester at Huron and Pkwy bike lanes;bike rack shared-pathways to transition from crossing at Platt; tions; marked Pathway connec #1: Manchester to City ofAnnArbor Huron Parkway - Pkwy at stop EofHuron Arborland); bench field (across from pullout EofPitts real-time; eliminate Bus schedules/ racks at Arborland side ofYost; bike walk to theeast side; move cross walks onthesouth Bike lanes;side #2:Huron Parkway City ofAnnArbor to US-23 - - - (south side) Foster andMaple side) andbetween Carpenter (south and shelter Eof real-time; bench Bus schedules/ penter Golfsideand bike racks at Car at light WofFoster; side; addcrosswalk penter andGolf side between Car trail onthesouth border-to-border pathways; connect Bike lanes/shared Pittsfield Township #3: US-23 to Golfside - - - - Hewitt Welman and Wof Fountain Plaza, Eof time; shelter at Bus schedules/real- bike racks at Hewitt walk connections; Bike lanes;side Ypsilanti Township #4: Golfside to Hewitt - at Roosevelt) wood; remove stop sides, andEofOak at Berkeley (both W ofMansfield, real-time; bench Bus schedules/ Oakwood at Berkeley and tions; bike racks sidewalk connec plete crossings and Bike lanes;com City ofYpsilanti #5: Hewitt to Summit - - - Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 97 Summit #5: Hewitt to #5: Hewitt City of Ypsilanti intersection.;BRT intersection.;BRT Hewitt node at Queue jump at Hewitt TSP Peak-period and Oakwood at Mansfield Consolidate north Consolidate east side stops shelter and move of Hewitt west to the northwest at of the corner - - - Hewitt #4: Golfside to #4: Golfside Ypsilanti Township Ypsilanti Plaza; move south move Plaza; of west side stop the far to Welman side on the east Queue jump at and Hewitt Golfside at TSP Peak-period Hewitt Move north side Move of Brook west stop of Bos east side to Plaza); (Squire's ton north side move Wel opposite stop Fountain man to - Golfside #3: US-23 to #3: US-23 Chapter 4 Recommendations Chapter Pittsfield Township Pittsfield Peak-period TSP at at TSP Peak-period and Car Golfside penter Consolidate Deake Deake Consolidate stops; and Foster north side move and shelter stop to of Golfside east side (west the far node side); BRT and Carpenter at Golfside Queue jump at Carpenter to US-23 to City of Ann Arbor City of Ann #2: Huron Parkway Parkway #2: Huron Peak-period TSP at at TSP Peak-period Boulevard Yost Remove stop west west stop Remove BRT of Chalmers; of East node at Pittsfield (Arborland) Queue jump at Pkwy Huron and Yost Huron Parkway Huron City of Ann Arbor City of Ann #1: Manchester to #1: Manchester Bus through lane Bus through and Manchester at queue jump at Pkwy Huron at TSP Peak-period Huron Consolidate stops stops Consolidate of Glenwood east BRT and Arlington; Manchester node at Pkwy and Huron Segment Roadway Roadway Jurisdiction Improvements Stop Placement Stop Transit Signal Priority Transit Table 4.1 (b): Types of Transit Recommendations by Segment on Washtenaw Avenue (2 of 3) (2 of Avenue Washtenaw on Segment by Recommendations of Transit 4.1 (b): Types Table Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 4Recommendations 98 Table 4.1(c):Types ofTransit Recommendations by Segment on Washtenaw Avenue High-capacity vehicles Payment Method Exclusive Lanes Jurisdiction Marketing Segment dedicated lane hicle (HOV) orother High-occupancy ve lated buses Streamlined articu ridor (signage) Gateway to thecor first) of Platt (northside side first) andeast Manchester (south Vending machineat #1: Manchester to City ofAnnArbor Huron Parkway - - - dedicated lane HOV orother lated buses Streamlined articu map stop onschedule Signature service (north sidefirst) East ofPittsfield (south side)and east ofHuron Pkwy Vending machine #2: Huron Parkway City ofAnnArbor to US-23 - dedicated lane HOV orother lated buses Streamlined articu map stop onschedule Signature service side (bothsides) first) and at Golf Center (northside at County Service Vending machine Pittsfield Township #3: US-23 to Golfside - - dedicated lane HOV orother lated buses Streamlined articu map stop onschedule Signature service side first) at Hewitt (north Vending machine Ypsilanti Township #4: Golfside to Hewitt - dedicated lane HOV orother lated buses Streamlined articu ridor (signage) Gateway to thecor side) at Oakwood (north Vending machine City ofYpsilanti #5: Hewitt to Summit - - Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 99 Chapter 4 Recommendations Chapter increasing dwell time at stops. AATA already has a policy of already AATA stops. at time dwell increasing reading “Please alighting, decals but signs or ceiling rear-door Door” the Rear Exit through announcements and occasional encouragement Greater crowding. front-door reduce would back into get to the bus would allow alighting of rear-door quickly. motion more clearly. more alighting rear-door Encourage exit buses through often 2, passengers in Chapter As observed and wait to passengers boarding forcing door, the front

AATA can reduce dwell time and improve time and improve dwell reduce can AATA CORRIDOR-WIDE APPLICATIONS CORRIDOR-WIDE increases perceptions of reliability. If some cash-paying riders riders cash-paying If some reliability. of perceptions increases modes, payment switch and attractive cards contactless find realized. can be further time savings savings of a contactless card system would average about two about two average would system card of a contactless savings swipe-card with the current compared per passenger seconds implementing factors), calculation (see Appendix C for system and convenience emphasizes system card a contactless Implement contactless cards for on-board fare payment. fare on-board for cards contactless Implement minimal involve would 4 Route times along in dwell Reduction with the use of behavior payment passenger to changes While the time strategy. as a near-term cards contactless In the near term, In the near term, and cards contactless implementing by service reliability clearly. more alighting rear-door encouraging These improvements reduce dwell time, increase passenger passenger time, increase dwell reduce These improvements time. travel and decrease comfort AATA for Changes On-Board Corridor-wide, boarding improvements paired with station and with station paired improvements boarding Corridor-wide, transit. bus rapid 4 for Route prepare upgrades technology Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 4Recommendations 100 BRT would service runparallel to continued local busservice. in thecorridor rather thanthecurrent seventeen. Limited-stop would bestations onaBRT route that would serveeight stops (b) show theproposed location oftheseBRT stations. These of boarding, identified inChapter 2.Figures 4.1(a)and stops alignwithmajorintersections andareas withhighlevels bus pullouts,andreal-time businformation screens. which would feature increased shelter andseating space, Strategy, AATA identified locations for potential “super-stops”, In the2010Washtenaw Avenue CorridorRedevelopment (AATA). Transform plannedsuper-stops into BRT-ready stations times. prepayment to thesemeasures would helpreduce dwell seating space,andgreater multi-modalaccess.Adding fare major stops withreal-time information, more shelter and Creating BRT-ready stations would involve equipping Bus RapidTransit Stations 1 These might to notbenecessary markexclusive spacefor transit. into traffic. With BRT stations, adding furtherbuspullouts preventing thebusfrom accessingthe stop andpullingback Chapter 2identified the problems that buspullouts present in Source: CompassBlueprint,2010 Figure 4.2:LosAngeles BusRapidTransit Station from LosAngeles. Figure 4.2shows apotential designofahigh-amenity station could helpto promote Route 4asarapid, reliable service. Instead, real-time information screens anddistinctive shelters n£ èéí èéí èéí 8 èéí 1 n£ 2 2 èéí er 2 de i s nt s e l lf i 2 i rpe s M a 5 Go 3 p èéí . s t 1 Y r_ _C e t Pit 7 ld èéí 3 de_ i 4 ie en n_ f s e s t lf t

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue d arp uro n£ n Go C Pit H rou 1 e g e 101 L n£ 3 s 7 e 5 èéí l . i 0 M 5 . 1 9 èéí i2 s p 1 _Y o 9 0 t 5 ¯ èéí p_ n£ 5 o d . t Existing bus stop bus Existing station BRT Future 0 s n e g e n£ 0 Legend L 8 èéí 1 n£ èéí n£

n£ n£ Oakwood St Oakwood Oakwood St Oakwood èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí èéí

èéí

Mansfield St Mansfield Mansfield St Mansfield èéí n£ Eastbound

Westbound

n£

N Hewwit Rd Hewwit N N Hewwit Rd Hewwit N n£ Chapter 4 Recommendations Chapter

n£

n£

Golfside Dr Golfside Golfside Dr Golfside

Foster Rd Foster Foster Rd Foster n£ n£ i2 s i2 s p p _Y 2 _Y o s t e o er l i t n£

de

i

p_

n£ M

nt 2

Carpenter Rd . Carpenter s US 23 US Carpenter Rd Carpenter p_ o d US 23 US 1 t lf o d 2 s n t i rpe s n s e a Go p e s g t d Y r_ g e n£ _C R e e n£ Pit t L ld 8 . L

de_

i 0 4

ie n_ en ial_

f 23 Yost Blvd Yost s e Blvd Yost s t lf

er

t n£

n£

uro S_ arp Huron Pkwy Huron d H Pkwy U Huron Go C Pit Art rou n e 4 . g 0 e n£ 2 L . 0 n£

0 Platt Rd Platt Platt Rd Platt Map of Proposed BRT-Ready Stations (Eastbound) Stations BRT-Ready Map of Proposed Map of Proposed BRT-Ready Stations (Westbound) Stations BRT-Ready Map of Proposed

n£

n£ Manchester Rd Manchester Manchester Rd Manchester Figure 4.1 (a): 4.1 (a): Figure Figure 4.1 (b): Figure Data source: AATA source: Data Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 4Recommendations 102 stops, despite thelackofformal infrastructure. accessibility amongriders whocurrently locktheirbikes at potential bike lanes.Thepresence ofbike racks might increase underway, suchasthecompletion ofshared usepaths and of asignature Route withotherimprovements 4service The installation ofbike racks can helpintegrate theprovision Install bike racks at BRT-ready stations (AATA). needs to deploy to improve reliability perceptions on Route 4. This feedback may affect thenumberofscreens that AATA potential useofamobilephone real-time arrival application. The October 2011Ridership Survey can helpAATA determine their busifthey are notat thestop at theexact timeofarrival. important at minorlocal stops, where passengers might miss time information provided viamobilephone may bemore informing themwhenthenext buswillarrive. Still,actual real- component ofcreating a rail-like experience for BRT riders, Real-time information screens at stations canbeasignature (AATA). Develop mobilephone application for real-time information

to operate onaproof-of-payment system for its BRT route, The additionof fare vending machines would allow AATA Switch to aproof-of-payment system for Route 4(AATA). disembark at theirdestinations. random inspectionsaboard vehicles, orwhenpassengers Uniformed officers would enforce payment by conducting to get thebusbackinto motionmore quickly after a stop. demand onthedrivers to befare box monitors, allowing them at thestation platform. Off-board fare payment will reduce themselves would require that peoplehave already paid cash-paying passengers inany way. Entering theBRT vehicles This way, faster boarding andalighting would not exclude also board through eitherthefront orrear door. receipt from themachineastheirproof ofpayment, andcould through eitherdoor. Thosepaying withcash would receive a their cards to themachine,receive areceipt, andthenboard 4.3. Thosepaying withacontactless card could simplytouch board. Themachinecould resemble theoneshown inFigure thereby decreasing dwell timeassociated withthe fare box on

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 103

Chapter 4 Recommendations Chapter reduces dwell times on Washtenaw, AATA could implement could implement AATA Washtenaw, times on dwell reduces and routes, other high ridership on its prepayment fare routes. on all ultimately in routes full-service of local, operation With the continued that service, exists the possibility 4 BRT with a Route parallel station a BRT at of payment proof obtained people who have if it even stop, at the arrives bus that the first will simply take of payment honor proof can AATA route. be a local happens to The stops. BRT at board when passengers routes on the local door boarding. only allow front still would routes local For the BRT route, the proof-of-payment system would apply would system the proof-of-payment route, the BRT For If prepayment corridor. outside the 4 stops Route key to Figure 4.3: Fare Vending Machine at BRT Station BRT at Machine Vending 4.3: Fare Figure Source: Next St. Louis, 2009 Next Source: Æý Æý Æý Æó Æý Æý Æý Æó Æó 0 Æý Æý Æý 0 . L 2 e 0 g . 4 e Æó n rou Art U H Pit C Go d S_ uro arp t er lf t s e s 23 f ial_ n_ en ie 4 0 i Æó Æó Æý Æý Æý de_ . 8 ld Pit t e R _C r_ Y d t s p Go a s rpe i 2 lf 1 Æý s . Æó 2 nt M i de i l er e s 2 Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æó Let’s Roll: ReimaginingÆó Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Æý Æý Chapter 4Recommendations 104 amount oftimethey would have to spend at lights, resulting vehicles priorityat theseintersections would reduce the share oftotal timethebusspendson Route 4.Givingtransit As discussedinChapter 2,red lights madeupthegreatest Transit SignalPriority(TSP) 0 Map source: AATA. Figure 4.4:Intersections withHighNeed for Transit SignalPriority Manchester Rd Æó Æó Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý 0 . 5 Æó Æó Æó Æý 1

1 Platt Rd . 5 M i l e s R F Huron Pkwy 9 :LMNO Æó Æý ¯ 0 R F Legend 9 R F :LMNO R F Yost Blvd 0 . 9 :LMNO 5 Transit SignalPriority 9 :LMNO R F L e g US 23 e 1 C Go Pit H rou Carpenter Rd n 9 :LMNO arp uro d t lf s t e s f en n_ ie 4 i de_ ld t Pit e _C r_ Y 1 t s . p Go 5 a M s rpe i 2 i lf l e s nt s i de er 2 R F reduce busdelay themost, astheseare thelocations where illustrates intersections where transit signalprioritymight in decreased in-vehicle transit time for passengers. Figure 4.4 Foster Rd the team observed thegreatest traffic light delay.

Golfside Dr 9 :LMNO R F

N Hewwit Rd 9 :LMNO

Mansfield St 9 :LMNO

Oakwood St 9 :LMNO Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 105 3 Chapter 4 Recommendations Chapter disrupt per hour would be small. On the other hand, the be small. On the per hour would disrupt Route for delay intersection that 2 revealed in Chapter analysis do buses that during the PM peak period. Those highest 4 was benefits. substantial gain would route en delay experience Therefore, implementing TSP for transit vehicles, regardless regardless vehicles, for transit TSP implementing Therefore, at two basis experimental on an of on-time performance, times during peak LOS grades or “B” “A” with intersections already that intersections are These be beneficial. would so the during peak times, congestion from do not suffer to of service level to degrade TSP is unlikely of implementation grade. a failing intersections three at signal timings on traffic In addition, data a that suggest Washtenaw within the Ann Arbor portion of the AM peak would of 5 buses per hour during maximum buses In the PM peak period, the number of TSP. require on traffic smaller because is even TSP require might that bus would signals. Not every green longer receives Washtenaw would TSP that so the number of signal cycles TSP, require savings. Where concerns about traffic impacts exist, however, however, exist, impacts traffic about concerns Where savings. help can basis experimental TSP on a simply implementing congestion. induce greater will TSP that ease fears A bus arriving at an an A bus arriving at 2

service frequency increases in January 2012, implementing in January2012, implementing increases service frequency time potential not maximize may only when the bus is late TSP Implement TSP on an experimental basis at one or two one or two basis at on an experimental TSP Implement of A or B grades (LOS) with Level-of-Service intersections (WCRC). after particularly schedule adherence, strong 4’s Route Given traffic signals in their jurisdictions. These jurisdictions would signals in their jurisdictions. These jurisdictions traffic the same that ensure to with WCRC coordinate need to at all intersections. technology is in place vehicle automatic vehicle location (AVL) technology, so that drivers do not have do not have drivers so that technology, (AVL) location vehicle manually trigger a signal change. to over the control have Ypsilanti The Cities of Ann Arbor and and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds by 2013 or 2014. TSP would would and Air Quality (CMAQ)TSP 2013 or 2014. funds by the bus is late. apply only when were signal if it an early green receive would intersection automatic employ would The system running behind schedule. The Washtenaw County Road Commission (WCRC) is already is already (WCRC) Commission Road County The Washtenaw all signalized priority at signal transit implement planning to Mitigation using Congestion Washtenaw along intersections Give buses TSP when they are operating behind schedule behind schedule operating are when they buses TSP Give Commission) Road County (Washtenaw Æý Æý Æý Æó Æý Æý Æý Æó Æó 0 Æý Æý Æý 0 . L 2 e 0 g . 4 e n rou Art U H Pit C Go Æó d S_ uro arp t er lf t s e s 23 f ial_ n_ en ie 4 0 i de_ . 8 Æó Æó Æý Æý Æý ld Pit t e R _C r_ Y d t s p Go a s rpe i 2 lf 1 s . 2 nt M Æý i Æó de i l er e s 2 Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æó Let’s Roll: ReimaginingÆó Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Æý Æý Chapter 4Recommendations 106 intersections duringpeakperiods,andbuses could achieve the experiment, TSP could beextended to allsignalized If unconditional TSP doesnotdegrade LOS grades in 0 Map source: AATA. Figure 4.5:Proposed Locations for QueueJumpLanes Æó Æó Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý Æý 0

. Manchester Rd 5 Æó Æó Æó Æý 1

1 Platt Rd . 5 M i l e s

R F Huron Pkwy R F ¯ Æó Æý 0 R F 0 Legend

Yost Blvd R F 9 R F :LMNO R F . 5 9 R F :LMNO R F Queue Jump Lane(westbound) Queue Jump Lane(bothsides) L e R F g e 1 R F C Go Pit H rou US 23

n Carpenter Rd arp uro d t lf s t e s f en n_ ie 4 i de_ ld t Pit e _C r_ Y 1 t s . p Go 5 a M s rpe i 2 i lf l e s nt s i de er 2 R F Foster Rd forqualify federal BRT funding. Extensive TSP would alsohelpRoute 4transit improvements the maximum possiblebenefits from thenew technology.

Golfside Dr R F R F

N Hewwit Rd R F

Mansfield St

Oakwood St Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 107

Chapter 4 Recommendations Chapter traffic allows the bus to operate with more consistent speed as consistent with more to operate the bus allows traffic the corridor. it enters at these points to use BRT as a means of reaching destinations destinations of reaching as a means use BRT to these points at downtowns. two or the on the corridor that Road Manchester lane at a sign in the right-turn Install Buses” for Only Except Turn the lane as “Right designates (MDOT). the rightmost into move to buses have eastbound Currently, and location, the Manchester at stop to lane on Washtenaw encroaching avoid the middle lane to into then quickly move times, congested during lane. Particularly on the right-turn as it stop at the stalled keep the bus potentially this could at the turn lane 4.6 illustrates Figure traffic. re-enter to waits allow would that change as the proposed as well Manchester, lane. While within the right-turn straight continue the buses to the bus as one where stretch this 2 did not identify Chapter re-entering in conflicts speeds, avoiding slow experienced time as the bus enters and exits the corridor. Also, the Also, corridor. exits the and the bus enters time as could induce space seating and shelter of adequate presence of Washtenaw north and south of the homes residents more

RECOMMENDATIONS BY SEGMENT BY RECOMMENDATIONS introduce branding of the new signature service to customers. customers. service to signature of the new branding introduce reduce dwell could help vending machines The addition of Convert existing stops to BRT-ready stations Eastbound at Eastbound stations to BRT-ready stops existing Convert Sheridan (AATA). at and Westbound Manchester the to point exit and as both an entry serves This point to AATA for opportunities significant and offers corridor, boundaries. 1: Ann Arbor--- Segment Parkway Huron to Split with Stadium This section discusses the unique conditions that warrant warrant conditions that This section discusses the unique measures improvement queue jump lanes and other transit The segments corridor. of the along specific segments also serve as municipal that intersections key to correspond buses bypass congestion where specific conditions allow for allow conditions specific where congestion buses bypass the 4.5 shows lanes. Figure of small bus-only the creation corridor. in the of queue jumps location proposed As Chapter 3 discussed, TSP alone might not help speed alone might TSP 3 discussed, As Chapter behind significant caught the bus is times where up travel to help solution one are Queue jump lanes congestion. a Æ a Æ Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 4Recommendations 108 a Æ time performance. ridership where congestion alsosubstantially degrades on- implemented prioritylanesonroutes withthe highest As Chapter 3outlined,authoritiesnationwide have which peoplecould turndirectly from Washtenaw. throughout thisstretch, butthere are few driveways onto lane between Manchester andPlatt. Theturn-laneispresent Figure 4.7illustrates apotentially underusedcenter left-turn (MDOT, AATA, andtheCityofAnnArbor). Establish prioritylanesbetween Manchester andPlatt Roads Figure 4.6:BusThrough Lanebetween Manchester andPlatt Data Source: Esri,2012 M a n c h e s t e r a n d

W a a Æ s

h t e n a w :

Ea

B C u a s s r e s t b s M C o u o u st n

n t S i n d t i u l easier purchasing ofright-of-way whenfundsare available. owner: Washtenaw County. Thesingleowner could facilitate south ofWashtenaw iscurrently inthehandsofasingle exclusive transit lane.AsFigure 4.7shows, theright-of-way be ableto acquire theright-of-way to necessary create an occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane.Inthelong-term, MDOT may In theshort-term, MDOT could markthisstretch asahigh- l

e

Bu T

T u h r n r s o

R u -T i g g

h

h

h

d

R

,

r

e t t s

e

h c n a ro M u g h

r

D

L

n

a

d i

r e h S a n e a Æ Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 109 e n a L d e t a c i d e D l a i t n e t o P

Chapter 4 Recommendations Chapter : throughout the region, including the Whole Foods complex complex including the Whole Foods the region, throughout is a Parkway Mall. In addition, Huron Square and the Arlington direction, 7 and 22 in the eastbound Routes to point transfer those making that would ensure here station and a BRT Arbor Hills Crossing development, or points near Platt using using near Platt or points development, Arbor Hills Crossing transit. in both Parkway at Huron stops the existing Convert (AATA). stations BRT-ready into directions major have already Parkway Huron to adjacent The areas from clientele attract that establishments commercial t t a l P o t

r d e e e s t n u a r s L e e d n r n h u U

T c

y r l l e n t a i t n a n e e C t M o

P m ro f w p i a h

s l r n e e c e n r t a w P h O

s y s t u n o a u u n o i t C W

n r o e C d n U

Figure 4.7: Potential Transit Priority Lane between Manchester and Platt Manchester between Priority Lane Transit 4.7: Potential Figure Data source: Esri, 2012 source: Data around Route 4 by assuring riders that they can reach their reach can they that assuring riders 4 by Route around the planned Center, Recreation at the County destination of traffic along Washtenaw Avenue, transit users may feel may users transit Avenue, Washtenaw along of traffic on the Improvements this particular point. at crossing unsafe street the to cross people can encourage Platt at crosswalk reliability enhance could a crosswalk of The presence safely. pedestrian crosswalk at Platt Road (MDOT and City of Ann Road (MDOT Platt at crosswalk pedestrian Arbor). the County at exists crosswalk an unsignalized Currently, volume the high speeds and Given stop. Center Recreation After installation of a traffic signal, clearly mark the traffic of a installation After Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 4Recommendations 110 Chapter 2identified Huron Parkway asa major point of red priority inbothdirections at Huron Parkway (MDOT). Install queuejumplaneswithunconditional transit signal of thedestinations andthe Route 4 BRT service. their location alongthe corridor, onlyincreasing thepopularity amenity stops could motivate thesebusinesses to emphasize can highlight theirsignificance. Seeingpermanent, high- The establishment ofsignature transit at service thesepoints transfers still enjoy thebenefits ofthe rapid transit service. Data source: Esri,2012 Figure 4.8:Proposed QueueJumpLaneswithTransit SignalPriorityat Huron Parkway H C u o ro n v

e t n o r t

Q

G a u a e s n u

S e d t

a J

t u i W o m n p

R a O s W h

t e n

a w :

Q u

S Huron P e kwy u southwest corner ofHuron Parkway, MDOT could purchase significant congestion duringpeakperiods.Inparticular, atthe light delay, andanintersection where thebusencountered at Washtenaw andHuron. times spent at red lights. Figure 4.8shows queuejumplanes to get aheadofothervehicular traffic atthispoint, and reduce lanes shown withseparate prioritysignalswould allow thebus ability ofauto drivers to accessthisgas station. Queue-jump this point, asshown inFigure 4.8,would notcompromise the currently hasfour entrances. Creating aqueue-jump lane at right-of-waythe necessary from theShellgas station, which e

J u m p

L a n e s

w i

t C S h

o e t o n

r

v

i v T Q

e

e c u r SP t e

S

u

D i e d

r e J

u R m O p W

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 111

Chapter 4 Recommendations Chapter Pittsfield due to congestion at peak periods. The addition of a at peak periods. The addition congestion to due Pittsfield ahead get to 4 vehicle the Route allow queue jump lane could stop reach the and the prior intersection at of other vehicles the driveway re-rerouting avoid To impediments. with fewer Washtenaw Avenue and Yost Boulevard (MDOT). Boulevard and Yost Avenue Washtenaw is intersection Boulevard Yost the direction, In the eastbound in Chapter As discussed US-23. to the on-ramp prior to directly Avenue Washtenaw on either of congestion 2, during periods waiting traffic behind stuck get 4 bus would or US 23, the Route bus. A queue the down slowing the on-ramp, pull onto to Boulevard Yost priority signal at jump lane with a separate and ahead of this traffic get to 4 vehicle the Route allow could the 4.9 illustrates without impedance. Figure route en continue Boulevard. Yost at of queue jump lanes arrangement potential could provide serviceowned drive the privately In particular, a queue jump lane both install necessary to the right-of-way sidewalks. adequate and maintain in several that team observed the direction, In the westbound of east the stop reach unable to the bus was instances, Install queue jump lanes with TSP in both directions at in both directions TSP queue jump lanes with Install

egment 2: Ann Arbor-- Ann Arbor-- 2: egment street. The added amenities of a BRT station will augment will augment station The added amenities of a BRT street. for a friendlier destination Arborland into to make attempts modes. transportation of non-automobile users in all directions at the Pittsfield and Washtenaw Avenue Washtenaw and at the Pittsfield in all directions a to cross have will no longer passengers Transit intersection. side of the on the opposite stops reach to times three street motion more quickly. quickly. motion more complement would of Pittsfield east stops at the stations BRT crossings pedestrian to allow by MDOT underway the efforts however, delays here were due to significant boarding and boarding significant due to were here delays however, traffic. Since the into getting back congestion times or alighting would prepayment fare is highly popular with shoppers, stop into back get to the bus times and allow these dwell reduce shopping destination. Chapter 2 delay analysis showed that, that, showed analysis 2 delay Chapter shopping destination. bus periods, the the AM peak and mid-day particularly during indicating schedule adherence, ensure to here stopped was During the PM peak period, performance. ahead-of-schedule Huron Parkway to US-23 to Parkway Huron BRT- into at Arborland of Pittsfield east both stops Convert (AATA). stations ready and a key the corridor a major landmark for Arborland Mall is S Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 4Recommendations 112 Data source: Esri,2012 Figure 4.9:Proposed QueueJumpLaneswithTransit SignalPriorityat Yost Boulevard Only Except for Buses”. indicates that therightmost laneonWashtenaw is“Right-Turn entry to ArborlandMall, MDOT could post clearsignage that a Æ A d S d i e t i r o vi n ce a l

R D O r i v W e

f ca o r n

q

Y

v r e p S u r e o o u vi s

e c i d

t

e j

e

u

a D

m r n p d

W a s h t e n a w :

Q US-23 to Golfside Road Segment 3:Pittsfield Township--- Carpenter Road (MDOT andWCRC). u Install queuejumplaneswit

e

d

v l B

t s u o Y e

J u m R p e r R

o L O u t a W e

n

D f o e r i r ve

s Q

h TSP w u w e a A u y i r t b e t h o o

in bothdirections at Ju

r

C l T a m r n e SP d p a

t P e a

r W

ki

a n

s

g h

t L

e U

o

n S

t

a

w H

w

A

y

v

e

2

3

n O

R -

a

m p Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 113 p m u j

e u e u q

e t a e r c

o t

SP W T O

R

h n t o i i t a t w s

s s a g e

g n n i t a s i x L

e

e p s Chapter 4 Recommendations Chapter U illustrates the location of queue jump lanes at Carpenter. of queue jump lanes the location illustrates signal in all walk of the pedestrian the length Extend (WCRC). at Carpenter directions short is too Carpenter at signal length the walk Currently, the signal switches. before cross to pedestrians allow to direction, a queue jump lane from purchased right-of-way right-of-way purchased jump lane from a queue direction, potential avoid bus to the allow lot could the parking at 4.10 two. Figure into turns lanes of traffic as three bottlenecks m Hogback Rd Carpenter Rd u J

e u e u Q

: w a n e t h s a W

d n a r e t n e rp a C

p am -R Map source: Esri,2012 Map source: Figure 4.10: Proposed Queue Jump Lanes with Transit Signal Priority at Carpenter/Hogback Road Carpenter/Hogback Signal Priority at Transit Queue Jump Lanes with 4.10: Proposed Figure behind traffic waiting to enter US-23. Similar to the southwest to the southwest US-23. Similar enter to waiting behind traffic right-of- purchase could MDOT Parkway, of Huron corner of Carpenter, corner in the northwest station the gas at way In the eastbound station. the gas to and close one entrance segment where the bus was traveling at low speeds. Similar to to speeds. Similar low at traveling was the bus where segment Washtenaw on both congestion near Yost, on-ramp the US-23 the bus stuck keep periods can travel during peak and US-23 The bus delay analysis identified the Carpenter intersection intersection the Carpenter identified analysis delay The bus a larger and part of delay, light red to contributor as a major n O 23 S U Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 4Recommendations 114 and uncleardirections ofwhere to walk after crossing. pedestrians onthissegment face uneven walking surfaces, Avenue andareas immediately adjacent. Currently, vital to transit improvements, particularlyalong Washtenaw Township prioritizes sidewalk completion. This completion is In thevisioningdocument for Reimagine Washtenaw, Pittsfield adjacent areas (Pittsfield Township). Complete sidewalks along Washtenaw Avenue andin destinations onCarpenter. help demonstrate theconvenience of transit inreaching added comforts ofasignature rapid transit can service 4 onthisstretch to customers andbusinesses alike. The visible transit stations can emphasize thepresence of Route one withlarge setbacks andparkinglots.Higher-amenity, Carpenter Road isalready amajorcommercial arterial, albeit County Center Service into BRT-ready stations (AATA). Convert theexisting stops east ofCarpenter and at the signal can create increase pedestrian friendliness. Washtenaw dangerous. Ensuringadequate timing for the walk pedestrian conditions at thisintersection make crossing Combined withthelackofcompleted sidewalks, the

its sidewalks inorder to assure Route 4users that they will stops, Pittsfield Township must simultaneously complete Regardless ofinfrastructure upgrades at theactualtransit term. at Foster isaprime candidate for consolidation inthenear important commercial destination atDeake Road,sothe stop Crossing inFigure shoppingmall,shown 4.11,isalready an and Foster ontheEastbound Route isabout ⅛mile.Glencoe than ¼mileapart,thedistance between thestops at Deake While busstops onthisstretch are currently spacedless direction to Deake Road (AATA). Road, andrelocate thestop at Foster Road inthewestbound Consolidate thestop intheeastbound direction at Foster danger orimpediment. consistently beableto reach ordepartfrom thestops without

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 115

Chapter 4 Recommendations Chapter as a particularly problematic point because buses are often are buses because point problematic as a particularly preventing ahead, at the light stopped behind traffic stuck the stop 4.12 illustrates Figure the stop. reaching them from stop and boarding reaching the After at Golfside. location red at the stop to have may the bus passengers, or alighting a frustrating run, creating time in the same a second for light A queue jump lane in the westbound of inconsistency. source that would ensure signal priority only with separate direction passengers and alighting had finished boarding a bus that at cycles signal traffic complete spend two to not have would the queue jump lane 4.13 illustrates Figure this intersection. at Golfside. configuration Install a queue jump lane with TSP in the westbound westbound in the lane with TSP a queue jump Install WCRC). and (MDOT intersection at the Golfside direction at Golfside stop near-side westbound, the 2 identified Chapter

The stop at Deake is an important transfer point to Routes Routes to point transfer is an important Deake at The stop infrastructure with BRT-ready this stop 7 and 22. Upgrading service. BRT utilize to passengers transferring allow would helping customers reach it comfortably. The development of The development it comfortably. reach helping customers commericial investment, new motivate would transit bus rapid Crossing. at Glencoe vacancies filling the current (AATA). Crossing as Glencoe would emphasize stations BRT Creating transit in the viability of and showcase a major destination, Convert the AATA stops at Deake to BRT-ready stations stations BRT-ready to Deake at stops the AATA Convert Figure 4.11: Glencoe Crossing shopping mall at Deake Road Deake mall at shopping Crossing 4.11: Glencoe Figure Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 4Recommendations 116 Figure 4.13:Proposed QueueJumpwithTransit Signal Priorityat Golfside Road Data source: Esri,2012

n£

G o l f i s d e

D r G o l f si d e :

W Figure 4.12:Stop Location at Golfside Road e st b o n£ u n d

Q u e u

R e O

1 Ju 1

W W '

o

m a R

f

h s

p e N q

t e

L e u w

a n i

r a

n

e w d

e

A

w

e v i t

h n

u

T e SP

(Pr e f e re d

O p t K i o m n a n£ ) r t

P a r ki n g

L o t n£ Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 117

egment 4: Ypsilanti Township---- Ypsilanti 4: egment Chapter 4 Recommendations Chapter (AATA). (AATA). retail key already are Plaza and Fountain Plaza Squire’s westbound on the stops transit but currently, destinations, 4.14 Figure of these major landmarks. east located are route Plaza. Fountain at stop positioning of the the current shows adjacent areas (Ypsilanti Township). (Ypsilanti areas adjacent a lack of clear create in this area sidewalks Incomplete stops, to access transit walk can pedestrians that direction have pedestrians On this segment, and also their destinations. islands with and grass driveways over to cross have often on the particularly space whatsoever, pedestrian no marked help highlight can Township Ypsilanti north side of Washtenaw. completion. sidewalk through upgrades transit-related the that perception could also increase completion Sidewalk people to will actually deliver system transit rapid improved on this segment. their destinations east to of Brookside west stop the westbound Relocate the Move Plaza. of Squire’s in front directly of Boston Plaza Fountain the east, to Welman opposite stop westbound S Hewitt to Road Golfside and in Avenue along Washtenaw sidewalks Complete

The vision calls for denser development with with denser development for The vision calls 4

branding of BRT service can help highlight the accessibility the accessibility service help highlight of BRT can branding and business investors potential to development of the new owners. around improved transit and the creation of a multimodal hub. and the creation transit improved around would at this location stations high-amenity AATA Providing location vibrant this new, reach can they that customers assure The distinct of comfort. 4, with a high level Route through BRT-ready into of Golfside east stops the existing Convert (AATA). stations center Golfside at development denser new, The plans for multimodal transportation hub. In addition, AATA has plans for has plans AATA addition, hub. In multimodal transportation Keeping in the near-term. this site at facility a park-and-ride jump lane and adding a queue location in its current the stop plans. with existing integrate 4 to Route allow would of the northeast corner of the intersection between Golfside Golfside between the intersection of corner of the northeast and Washtenaw. spaces, and a green a mix of uses, system, street an internal The Reimagine Washtenaw Joint Technical Committee has has Committee Technical Joint Washtenaw The Reimagine the redevelopment for vision a preliminary formulated already Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 4Recommendations 118 Figure 4.14Current Stop Location at Fountain Plaza Route to 4local service thesecommercial centers. and information can furtheremphasize theaccessibilityof points withtransit. Theinstallation ofshelter infrastructure Fountain Plaza would ensure riders they can reach these Re-aligning thestops directly infront ofSquire’s Plaza and westbound route (MDOT andWCRC). Plaza to complement thenew stop infrastructure onthe Install asignalized andclearlymarked crosswalk at Fountain prime candidate for elimination. proximity ofthecurrent stop west ofHewitt would make ita side oftheintersection would help resolve thisissue. Theclose delay. Moving thewestbound AATA stop directly to thewest through two signalcycles to cleartheintersection, adding to which blocks thestop. Asaresult, thebusmight have to wait stop was apoint where thebuscould get stuck behindtraffic The analysis inChapter 2found that thewestbound Hewitt AATA stops at Hewitt to BRT-ready stations. (AATA) east ofHewitt to the far sideoftheintersection. Convert Consolidate thewestbound stop at Hewitt. Move the stop them to theirdestinations. area, andpedestrians may feel that Route 4willnotdeliver direction. Currently, there isno walk signalormarked crossing transit riders to more safely accessFountain Plaza ineither A signalized andmarked crosswalk at thispoint willallow

Æ a

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue 119 t t i w e H

SP f o

T t

s Æ a a h E t

i p o t w

S

e s v p o m e m R u

J

e u e u Æ a Q

t n e m e l p m I

d Chapter 4 Recommendations Chapter will help to mitigate some of the red light delay discussed in discussed in delay red light some of the mitigate will help to the intersection clear would vehicle 2, as the transit Chapter far-side at the passengers and alighting boarding before Hewitt. at configuration the stop 4.15 shows Figure stops. the necessary to acquire MDOT require would Implementation right to acquire would have MDOT In particular, right-of-way. of the corner the parking lot on the northwest at of way road. to the up goes right which intersection, Install queue-jump lanes with TSP in both directions at directions in both lanes with TSP queue-jump Install WCRC). and Road (MDOT Hewitt Hewitt at signal priority with separate Queue-jump lanes n n s o p i

t a

m

c

H N e w R t t i d u e s J s

r e e p t u n o e I

u t a Q

St

p e o t t S a

t t d i i l w Æ e o a H s

n w e o N C

:

w a n e t h t t i s w a e H

f W o

t s d Æ a e n W

a p

o t t t S i

e v w o e m e H R Figure 4.15: Proposed Queue Jump with Transit Signal Priority at Hewitt Road Hewitt Signal Priority at Queue Jump with Transit 4.15: Proposed Figure Data source: Esri,2012 source: Data owners looking to move into the area, as they will be able to to will be able as they the area, into move looking to owners the access of their facilities. promote asphalt and vacant land, the Hewitt intersection appears appears intersection the Hewitt land, asphalt and vacant on stations High-amenity development. major new poised for for business incentive service as an serve can transit a rapid Converting the newly aligned AATA stops at Hewitt to BRT- to at Hewitt stops AATA aligned the newly Converting of areas With large step. be the next would stations ready Æ a Æ a Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 4Recommendations 120 way remains asignificant challenge. Yet stakeholders inthe vehicles priorityontheroadway. Thelimited existing right-of- increases accessto destinations from transit, and gives transit BRT willrequire service atwo-pronged approach that both can enhancetransit onWashtenaw. Providing ahigh-quality This chapter hasdiscussedtherange ofimprovements that CONCLUSION: ACOMPLETE APPROACH ridership group for Route 4. of qualitytransit withintheEMUcommunity, service akey institution. High-amenity stops wouldincrease perceptions to Eastern Michigan University, akey Washtenaw Avenue for branding opportunities for AATA. This isalsotheentry the corridor andRoute BRT-ready 4service. stations allow so high-amenitystops can convey adistinct identity for In thewestbound direction, thisisanentryway to the corridor, BRT-ready stations (AATA). Convert theexisting stops at Oakwood inbothdirections into Hewitt Road to Summit Segment 5:CityofYpsilanti---

priority and“super stop” construction, can buildmomentum transit improvements. Current initiatives, suchas transit signal corridor are already makingcoordinated efforts to institute washtenawavenue.org>. 17. enue: AVisionfor CorridorRedevelopment. Retrieved April20,2012from . 1. Reimagine Washtenaw Joint Technical Committee. (2010). Washtenaw Avenue Corridor corridor. a coordinated approach for long-term transformation ofthe next chapter provides animplementation strategy to guide for rapid, reliable transit onWashtenaw inthefuture. The NOTES NOTES

- CHAPTER 5 Implementation

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Chapter 5 Implementation

PHASED IMPROVEMENTS FOR WASHTENAW PHASE ONE: ENHANCED BUS TRANSIT Time Frame: Years 1-3 Washtenaw Avenue transit enhancements require Improvements: Enhanced Bus includes implementation significant time and planning for implementation. The planning of many currently planned or already underway corridor efforts of Re-imagine Washtenaw demonstrated the public improvements, such as improved bus stop facilities and a desire and municipal support for high-quality transit serving complete pedestrian network. These improvements increase a safe and accessible environment. However, implementation the security of pedestrians and transit riders while also slightly depends upon close coordination between stakeholders, enhancing bus speed and reliability through inexpensive particularly when implementing transit signal priority, means, including minor stop relocation and right-turn lane acquiring right-of-way (ROW), and constructing queue-jump designation for buses. Transit signal priority will require and dedicated lanes. This chapter describes three phases for the largest financial and technological investments. The implementing the recommendations described previously, Washtenaw County Road Commission is currently leading moving from less intensive to more intensive treatments. The the signal prioritization project. They recently submitted phases advance cumulatively: early improvements, particularly an application for CMAQ funding and aim to have transit those involving right-of-way, make the transition to later signal priority operational within the next two years. Simple

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s phases more efficient. For example, the acquisition of right-of- marketing and education measures can also capture additional way needed for queue jump lanes will substantially reduce the riders and decrease dwell times. Table 5.1 details components right-of-way acquisition needed for transitways. World-class of this phase, together with the institutions responsible for transit on Washtenaw would begin with Phase One: Enhanced their implementation. Bus, progress toward Phase Two: BRT Lite, and end with Phase Three: Bus Rapid Transit, as AATA and the municipalities identify and allocate additional resources.

122 Chapter 5 Implementation Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Table 5.1: Enhanced Bus Improvements Organization Measure Install bus schedules at all stops Highlight Route 4 as a “frequent service” route in maps and marketing AATA Implement contactless card fare collection Strengthen rear alighting policy Relocate stops to “far side” locations City of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Complete sidewalk network Pittsfield Township, City of Ann Arbor Install Pedestrian Crossings at key stops City of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Install Transit Signal Priority at all signalized intersections Pittsfield Township, City of Ann Arbor AATA Washtenaw County Road Commission

Funding: Phase One improvements can be funded entirely Program (TCRP) provides formulas enabling a more precise through existing resources. Completing the sidewalk network calculation of time savings. Table 5.2 displays the estimated and installing pedestrian crossings will require additional time savings derived from Transit Signal Priority. grants, but municipalities have experience implementing these Table 5.2: Average Time Savings in Seconds Per Run improvements at other locations. for Transit Signal Priority Eastbound Westbound Impacts: None of the measures would significantly affect (s/run) (s/run) traffic levels on Washtenaw. Phase One marginally mitigates AM Peak 32 51 Route 4 bus delay, with the most time savings coming from PM Peak 45 72 transit signal priority. The Transit Cooperative Research

123 Chapter 5 Implementation

PHASE TWO: BUS RAPID TRANSIT LITE the first phase, AATA would complete an alternatives analysis, Time Frame: Years 4-7 which “evaluates the costs, benefits and impacts of a range Improvements: BRT Lite, a common description for enhanced of transportation alternatives designed to address mobility bus service operating in mixed traffic while relying on queue problems and other locally-identified objectives in a defined jumps and transit signal priority, represents a dynamic transportation corridor and [determines] which particular increase beyond Phase One. Installation of queue jump investment strategy should be advanced for more focused lanes requires modest right-of-way acquisition. In addition study and development.”1 After completion of an Alternatives to queue jumps, construction of super stops will form the Analysis, the project would move into project development principal components of BRT Lite, as these will later become phase, in which AATA would complete preliminary engineering BRT stations. The establishment of a Corridor Improvement and final design work. Upon completion of both phases, FTA Authority (CIA) by this point would allow municipalities to pool releases a funding recommendation.2 In addition to the $75 M together their resources to make the significant improvements funding ceiling, other criteria include improvements already to transit service in Phase Two. Table 5.3 details components present on the corridor and other planned enhancements. of this phase and the institutions responsible. These requirements are listed below.

Funding: Due to its scope and expense, AATA and other Small Starts Requirements: Planned Enhancements

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s entities can best approach BRT Lite as a single project • Total project costs under $250 Million drawing from Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts • Substantial Transit Stations Funding. Established by Congress in 2005, the FTA periodically • Special Branding of Service introduces improvements which streamline the application • Transit Signal Priority requirements. Small Starts, a subcategory of the New Starts Program, provides a maximum of $75 million in funding. As an applicant, AATA would need to complete two phases. In

124 Chapter 5 Implementation Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Small Starts Requirements: Current Corridor Characteristics Impact: Once implemented, queue-jump lanes and transit • Low Floor/Level Boarding Vehicles signal priority will ameliorate the sizable current delay directly • Frequent Service (10 minute peak/15 minute off attributable to dwell time and congestion at red lights. This peak) will significantly increase reliability. Permanent stations and • Service offered 14 hours per day distinctive branding not only increase rider satisfaction but also catalyze real estate development. Table 5.4 lists the average time savings queue jump lanes would provide.

Table 5.3: Bus Rapid Transit Lite Improvements Organization Measure Construct “super stops” with ticketing machines for pre-board fare payment AATA Apply distinct “signature” branding to stations and transit vehicles City of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Provide unconditional transit signal priority at peak hours Township, City of Ann Arbor Washtenaw County Road Commission AATA Acquire right-of-way at signalized intersections Corridor Improvement Authority Construct queue jump lanes

Table 5.4: Average Time Savings in Seconds Per Run of Queue Jump Lanes Eastbound Westbound AM Peak 37 69 PM Peak 58 93

125 Chapter 5 Implementation

PHASE THREE: BUS RAPID TRANSIT Time Frame: Years 8-15 Improvements: Bus Rapid Transit introduces full BRT along Washtenaw Avenue by constructing dedicated lanes. BRT will be a main feature of Washtenaw Avenue, and riders will enjoy frequent, reliable service uninhibited by congestion. Table 5.5 details the improvements and the organization responsible. Table 5.5: Bus Rapid Transit Improvements

Organization Improvement Impact: The construction of a transitway using dedicated lanes Corridor Improvement Acquire Right-of-Way will result in the largest increase in reliability as well as time Authority Construct Dedicated Lanes savings. The creation of a transitway will have a positive effect on traffic levels on the corridor. Elimination of bus operation in mixed traffic improves automobile traffic flows by removing delays caused by bus dwell time at stops. Dedicated lanes will result in an average time savings of 6.5 minutes on the corridor. This represents a 30% reduction in travel time. 3

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s Table 5.6 shows the relative costs and benefits of the improvements outlined in this chapter, and the actors involved at each phase.

126 Chapter 5 Implementation Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

Table 5.6: Cost-Benefit Matrix of Transit Improvements Reduction in Comfort/ Time Category Project Description Lead Agency Cost Reliability Ridership Travel Time Convenience Frame AI Complete sidewalk network Municipalities $$$$ N N N ++ Short Install Pedestrian Crossings at AI Key Stops Municipalities $$$ N N N ++ Short AI Construct “super stops” AATA $$$$ N N + ++ Medium Mark existing right-turn lanes AATA, IE as bus through lanes Municipalities $ + + N N Short Install Transit Signal Priority at AATA, WCRC, IE Signalized Intersections Municipalities $$$$ ++ ++ N Short Provide unconditional Transit AATA,WCRC, IE Signal Priority Municipalities $ ++ ++ + N Medium Acquire right-of-way at IE signalized intersections CIA $$$$ N N + N Medium IE Construct queue-jump lanes AATA $$$$ + ++ + N Medium P Introduce Contactless Cards AATA $ + + N ++ Short P Strengthen rear-alighting policy AATA $ + + N N Short P Install bus schedules at all stops AATA $ + N N ++ Short Highlight Route 4 as a P frequent service route in maps AATA $ N N N N Short and marketing Implement pre-board fare pay- P ment AATA $$ + ++ + ++ Medium Apply signature branding to sta- P tions and vehicles AATA $ N N + N Medium P Increase Service on Route 4 AATA ++ + + N Completed Acquire right-of-way RI throughout corridor CIA $$$$ N N ++ N Long RI Construct bus-only lanes AATA $$$$ ++ ++ ++ N Long P: Program; IE: Intersection Enhancements; RI: Roadway Improvements; AI: Access Improvements; Cost: $ <50K; $$ 50-100K; $$$ 100-300K; $$$$ >300K N: Neutral; Benefits: +: Benefit low; + +: benefit high; Time Frame: Short: 0-3 years; Medium: 4-7years; Long: 8+ years

127 Chapter 5 Implementation

BUS RAPID TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION IN Figure 5.2: Flyer for Rapid Millage Campaign MICHIGAN

Three major Michigan regions - metropolitan Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Lansing - are already planning for Bus Rapid Tran- sit implementation. Each is at a different stage of the process, and has confronted different implementation challenges. The Detroit project is in its infancy, and envisions a multi-county system on a much greater scale than a potential Washtenaw BRT line. However, the latter two projects are comparable to a potential Washtenaw proposal, and their progress through the transit planning process provides useful lessons for future Source: GRPundit.com application. Grand Rapids Figure 5.1: Transit Master Plan Meeting The Grand Rapids Silver Line project is the more advanced of the two, and shows the potential duration of a BRT implemen-

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s tation process. The region’s Interurban Transit Partnership, known as The Rapid, completed the required Alternatives Analysis and selected BRT as the locally preferred alternative for the Division Avenue corridor in January 2007. It was ap- proved into federal project development in December 2007, but federal confidence alone would not suffice to move the project forward. Source: LSL Planning 128 Chapter 5 Implementation Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue

In May 2009, after winning several millage increases over the As the Grand Rapids case indicates, time and effort are re- previous decade, The Rapid was narrowly defeated when it quired for navigating the federal process and building local asked voters in participating cities to fund an additional 0.12 public support for enhanced transit. Strong support in central millage increase to provide local funds for the Silver Line BRT city public and private sector leadership was insufficient with- project. The Rapid then conducted a Transit Master Plan pro- out public outreach to counter opposition in outlying areas cess, with extensive public outreach, so citizens could inform skeptical of the project’s benefits. Citizens may also be more its strategic direction and, in consequence, take greater own- receptive to funding rapid transit lines as components of an ership of the agency. In May 2011, in the face of organized overall service expansion package, rather than as stand-alone opposition, voters narrowly approved a millage increase for elements. The recently completed AATA Transit Master Plan The Rapid, including the Silver Line, which is scheduled for visioning process strongly resembled The Rapid’s, so AATA may groundbreaking in 2013 and operation in 2014, seven years already be on track to repeat its success. after Alternatives Analysis completion. Figure 5.3: CATA Route 1 Bus on Wide Michigan Avenue Right-of-way in Downtown East Lansing

Source: Capitol Area Transportation Authority 129 Chapter 5 Implementation

The Lansing area is at an earlier stage of BRT planning for The cities of Lansing and East Lansing approved a Michigan the Michigan/Grand River corridor, and is still yet to receive Avenue Corridor Improvement Authority (CIA), like the one federal clearance for the Small Starts project development envisioned between the four municipalities on Washtenaw. In process. After initiating its Alternatives Analysis in 2009, with general, the Washtenaw Avenue Joint Technical Committee is an initial appetite for light rail, the Capitol Area Transportation the more active body today, despite its more limited formal Authority (CATA) selected BRT as the locally preferred, higher- authority.4 On Michigan/Grand River, the major advocate for ridership, more cost-effective alternative in February 2011. In bus rapid transit is CATA, not any municipal government actor. many respects, the corridor for which BRT is proposed closely Michigan State University has also participated. resembles Washtenaw. More than the Grand Rapids case, Lansing demonstrates potential institutional arrangements for Another important institutional actor, MDOT, owns the major- BRT implementation on Washtenaw, since both a Corridor Im- ity of the proposed BRT corridor. As a result, the agency’s role provement Authority and the Michigan Department of Trans- in the process provides an important example for Washtenaw, portation (MDOT) are involved. particularly since both corridors lie within MDOT’s University Region. CATA’s attempt to secure MDOT funding for its Alterna- Like Washtenaw, Michigan/Grand River Avenue is a partially tives Analysis was unsuccessful, but MDOT could still provide MDOT-controlled corridor including two urban cores (Lansing assistance to the project from its dedicated transit fund.

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s and East Lansing) and educational institutions (Lansing Com- munity College and Michigan State University). The Capital To date, MDOT has cooperated closely with CATA as an inter- Area Transportation Authority (CATA) Route 1 bus carries over ested partner, and assumes that transit signal priority will be 6000 riders per weekday. High-capacity articulated buses al- part of the project. Decisions on what priority measures can ready serve the route. be implemented, without unduly impeding general traffic flow, await more formal modeling. Most conveniently, the section of the corridor through East Lansing includes a wide median

130 Chapter 5 Implementation Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue and a total 120’ right-of-way, nearly twice that of Washtenaw, CONCLUSION so bus-only lanes could be added without constraining current roadway capacity. The phased implementation plan provided in this chapter would require extensive coordination among Washtenaw While each corridor and project has unique attributes, the Avenue stakeholders. Fortunately, the Re-imagine Washtenaw Michigan/Grand River case underlines the prospective roles Joint Technical Committee has established a sound foundation that different actors might play in a Washtenaw Avenue BRT for municipal cooperation in the study area. MDOT and AATA implementation process. Municipalities and local governments are already engaged in that effort as well, and would take on a could have an important supporting role, through a Corridor much larger role in the process outlined above. Improvement Authority or otherwise, and MDOT would retain decision-making power over the roadway itself. As in Lansing, In the near term, enhanced transit on Washtenaw faces two however, the responsibility for driving the process will ulti- major contingencies. First is the formation of a Washtenaw mately rest with the transit agency itself. Avenue Corridor Improvement Authority (CIA), which has been delayed while the Michigan Legislature considers authorizing CIAs consisting of more than three municipalities. If a CIA is formed on Washtenaw, and given revenue collection ability, it would accelerate the work of the existing Joint Technical Committee, and possibly fund corridor improvements up to and including right-of-way acquisition. Second is the potential expansion of AATA as a new Washtenaw Area Transportation Authority. Besides increasing the eastern communities’ financial stake in the transit system, creation of WATA would boost the transit agency’s capacity to undertake projects,

131 Chapter 5 Implementation

and incentivize the transit agency to invest new resources in NOTES routes extending beyond US-23. As central axis of the County’s 1 Federal Transit Administration. (2012). FTA Major Capital Transit Investment Fact Sheet: Alternatives Analysis. Retrieved from www.fta.dot. urbanized area, Washtenaw is a natural starting point for gov%2Fdocuments%2FAA_Fact_Sheet.doc. 2 BRT Policy Center. (2009). Funding BRT in the US. Retrieved from http://www. enhanced high-capacity transit, as described in the AATA gobrt.org/funding3.html. Transit Master Plan. 3 Calculations based on: Transit Cooperative Research Program.(2007). Report 118. 4 Murphy, R. (2012). Personal Interview. March 25, 2012. 5 Interurban Transit Partnership. (2010). Transit Master Plan Final Report. Retrieved April 16, 2012 from http://www.ridetherapid.org/assets/files/8b/ As Grand Rapids, Lansing and other Michigan regions transitmasterplanfinalreport_071210.pdf. implement bus rapid transit, their progress can provide 6 Michigan Avenue Corridor. (2012). “Background”. Retrieved April 17, 2012. http:// www.michiganavecorridor.com/Background/tabid/99/Default.aspx. important insights for BRT implementation on Washtenaw, and also familiarize citizens with this rapid transit model. While any transportation project of this scale requires time and resources to bring to fruition, world-class transit on Washtenaw is no distant dream. BRT planning responds to immediate needs for greater speed, reliability and safety on AATA Route 4, as well as the long-term imperative for making Washtenaw a sustainable, accessible backbone for the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti region.

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue on Washtenaw Transit Reimagining Roll: Let’s The great advantage of BRT is that strategic, incremental enhancements of existing service can roll the process forward today.

132 APPENDICES

Let’s Roll: Reimagining Transit on Washtenaw Avenue Appendix A: Case Studies

Emerald Express Phase 1: Eugene-Springfield, Or- (earmark) funded the majority of the project. egon Like the Ann Arbor area, Eugene-Springfield is a mid-sized Status: In Operation since 2007 region with major downtown service job centers including a Length: 4 miles hospital (Sacred Heart Medical Center) and a state university Stations: 10 (University of Oregon). The EmX’s weekday ridership was Cost: $25 M ($6.25 M per mile) 2,667 prior to the implementation of BRT, just a bit smaller Current Average Weekday Corridor Ridership: 6600 than Route 4’s ridership. Unlike Washtenaw, however, the Jurisdictions: City of Eugene, City of Springfield corridor is not lined with strip commercial areas. Much of

it had contained a large median, which LTD adapted for use Lane Transit District (LTD), the transit agency that serves the as a median transit way. The transit way is narrow on many Oregon cities of Springfield and Eugene, originally considered stretches, and buses in both direction share stop infrastructure enhancing its bus system with a light rail system, similar to on the route. The ten stops featured covered shelters with that pioneered in Portland, but ultimately determined that seating, trash receptacles, lighting, maps, information displays, the expense was too great to sustain. Instead, this college real-time information, and bike racks. town became the first smaller city in the United States to

implement bus rapid transit, following the example set by The transit way runs along 60% of the route, with curbside other international cities. bus lanes making up the remainder. The BRT system runs

on exclusive lanes for 60% of the corridor. For the other 40 The initial EmX bus rapid transit project consisted of a four- percent, the buses operate in mixed traffic but gain priority mile link between downtown Eugene and Springfield. The through queue jump lanes and transit signal priority.2 project did not qualify for New Starts funding; the Small Starts Transit Signal Priority was installed at 16 of the 23 signalized program category where most Bus Rapid Transit projects intersections along the route, and EmX uses ground loop seek funding did not exist. A $9.8 million discretionary grant 134 Appendix A: Case Studies signaling to grant vehicle priority. All signals equipped with TSP attributes the travel time changes to reductions in signal delay are located within and maintained by the city of Eugene. (28%), dwell time (10%) and time spent in transit (18%).2 The EmX also decreased the level of travel dispersion times Gathering political and financial support for this system indicating increased reliability. In 2010, LTD added 10 more faced the challenges of public concern over the smaller size hybrid buses to the EmX fleet, and ridership for the service of the city as compared to other cities that use BRT, and exceeded 4 million since its beginning in 2008. Ridership gains worries over how the system would affect the flow of traffic were substantial and far outpaced LTD projections. The EmX in certain sections. Business owners feared that the system grew from 4,000 riders per day in February 2007 to over 6600 would reduce access for their customers. Concerns about riders per day in 2008.3 An expansion of the system, called disruption of traffic initially stopped LTD’s plans for dedicated West Eugene EmX Extension, is awaiting FTA funding approval running way on the EmX service. LTD was unable to remove and is scheduled to undergo an environmental analysis. 4 parking or travel lanes in many cases, and it could not relocate Eugene: EmX Station with amenities property along the route for dedicated lanes. A final issue for implementing the system was making sure that both cities would receive equal expansion, that is, expansion projects would need to be alternated among cities so that one is not getting more attention than the other.1

The new service reduced travel time by 1 minute, a 4 percent reduction. However, over 80 percent of users perceived the time savings to be significantly greater. In a survey, users indicated that they believed the service was at least 15 minutes faster than the former service. Lane Transit District Source:Skyscraper, 2008

135 Appendix A: Case Studies

Lessons from EmX: Eugene: EmX Running Way

• BRT can be highly successful in medium-sized cities.

• Transit authorities can adapt to limited right-of-way conditions and roadway restrictions to implement BRT.

• Distinct branding can induce new ridership and greater perceptions of reliability.

• Reducing stops from 18 to 10, creating an average stop spacing of ½ mile, reduced dwell time delay.

• Placing all stops at the far side of the intersection maximized the effectiveness of TSP. Source: TheAntiplanner.com, 2010

Eugene: EmX Level Platforms

Source:Kezi 9 News, 2011 136 Appendix A: Case Studies

The Silver Line: Grand Rapids, Michigan Planning the Silver Line Rapid Transit along Division Avenue in Grand Rapids, Michigan took the cooperation of three Status: Scheduled to operate in 2014 municipalities (Wyoming, Kentwood, and Grand Rapids) as Length: 9.6 miles well as MDOT. The project started in 2001, and cooperation Stations: 33 among the stakeholders has fosterd the process. The proposed Cost: $39.9 M ($4.15 M per mile) 9.6 mile route with 33 stations narrowly passed the millage Current Average Weekday Corridor Ridership: 2300 vote in 2011, winning by 136 votes as a proposal bundled Jurisdictions: City of Grand Rapids, City of Wyoming, City of with the first phase of the Long-Range Transportation Plan. Kentwood The $39.87 million project was covered by federal and state

funds, with 80% federal funds through Very Small Starts. The The main flows of commuter traffic into downtown Grand project is slated to begin construction in 2013, and will begin Rapids use US-131, which runs parallel to Division Avenue, operation in 2014.5 a historic corridor spanning three municipalities. Since peak-period congestion creates varying delays for driving Division Avenue is a city-owned road with five lanes commuters on US-131, the Interurban Transportation throughout most of the corridor. Dedicated bus lanes run Partnership (ITP), which manages the bus system of Grand through most of the proposed route, with some exceptions Rapids, called The Rapid, proposed a Bus Rapid Transit line in the downtown area. They will be marked with diamond to run from 60th Street in Kentwood, Michigan, to the heart symbols and stripes, and will only be enforced during peak of downtown Grand Rapids. Added benefits, as asserted by hours, meaning that during off-peak hours, general traffic may advocates and leaders supporting the proposed Silver Line, use the lanes. Enforcement relies on the consistency of local involve spurring redevelopment along the corridor, which police in ticketing. has many vacant properties, and increased access to the downtown that does not require construction of more parking structures. 137 Appendix A: Case Studies

Twenty-three of the 26 intersections will cooperate in transit • The 9-mile route cost $39.9 million to transition from signal priority, with Vehicle Detection for Early Green and an ordinary bus line to BRT, and the process took 10 Green Extensions. The remaining three intersections (Burton, years. (The Washtenaw corridor is about 4 miles in 44th Street, and 28th Street) are without TSP because it would length.) have a significant and negative effect on the cross-traffic level • Intersections with low levels of service (high of service.6 congestion) may not be able to accommodate TSP.

Most of the 33 stations will have 60 foot wide platforms, and all will have vending machines. Fare collection will switch to prepaid service, with the honor system and random checks BRT station with emergency phone, vending kiosk, real-time infor- enforcing ride payment. The stations are spaced within a range mation, and raised platform. of 0.19 to 1.75 miles apart, with the largest spacing between the southernmost stations of the route, which are surrounded by less dense development. The project does not include park-and-ride lots, but ITP planners expect developers to take responsibility for these.

Lessons from the Silver Line:

• BRT can function with intermittent HOV lanes, only enforced during peak hours. However, Washtenaw has Source: The Rapid, 2011 much higher congestion than Division, since Division traffic often opts for the parallel US-131.

138 Appendix A: Case Studies Cleveland: HealthLine Station The HealthLine: Cleveland, Ohio

Status: In Operation since 2008 Length: 9.4 miles, (5.7-mile section is an exclusive, two-lane median transitway) Stations:36 Cost: $168.4 M ($17.9 M per mile) Current Average Weekday Corridor Ridership: 21,000 (increased from 15,000) Jurisdictions:City of Cleveland and East Cleveland

Source: Sam Bobko, 2011 Prior to World War II, Euclid Avenue in Cleveland was known Cleveland: HealthLine Level Platform as “millionaire’s row”, due to its expensive housing stock and thriving businesses. After the war, the crucial corridor fell into long term decline. The City turned to a series of subway, rail, and trolley proposals to catalyze redevelopment in this area and connect the city’s two major employment centers: University Circle and Public Square. All of these initiatives failed due to inability to garner appropriate funds. In the 1980s, Mayor George Voinovich proposed the idea of an upgraded bus system. This desire to use bus transit to promote economic viability gave birth to the idea of the HealthLine.

Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2011 139 Appendix A: Case Studies

Changing Federal Transit Administration funding standards MidTown Cleveland was able to create a HUD Empowerment halted the initial attempts of the Cleveland Regional Transit Zone to spur economic revitalization. Authority (RTA) to develop a BRT system. Yet RTA officials remained persistent, and managed to obtain Congestion The RTA was also able to integrate its plans for the HealthLine Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding for transit with the interests of the two key institutions on the corridor: improvements in the late 1990s. Cleveland State University and the Cleveland Clinic. In the early 2000s, both institutions were enacting plans to reduce In addition, Mayor Voinovich maintained strong oversight in automobile use on their campuses. Cleveland State University the BRT development process when he became Governor of saw BRT infrastructure as an opportunity to re-orient campus Ohio. Successive Cleveland mayors continued to push for FTA buildings to the street. The Cleveland Clinic was so excited by funding until they received it. The jurisdictions of Cleveland the new rapid service that they bought the naming rights to and East Cleveland also gained the backing of many officials in the system. The HealthLine has provided a unique branding the Cuyahoga County government, increasing their access to opportunity for both the transit service and the institutions funding sources. that it serves.8

Beyond government officials, however, the most critical Like AATA’s Route 4 on Washtenaw, RTA’s Route 6 previously support for the project came from the local community experienced slow speeds due to congestion on Euclid Avenue, development corporation, MidTown Cleveland. In the early frustrating many commuters. In addition, HealthLine travel 1990s, MidTown Cleveland developed a master plan to speeds improved 34% over the previous bus route running reduce blight in the neighborhood by promoting high density along Euclid. In order to offer a more rapid, reliable, high- development. MidTown Cleveland supported the BRT system amenity service, the RTA implemented specialized 62-foot because of the conscious effort by the RTA to use BRT as a hybrid buses, transit signal priority, off-board payment, ADA- tool for redevelopment. Due to the promise of BRT facilities, compliant platforms, exclusive bus lanes, and 24-hour service.

140 Appendix A: Case Studies

In addition, for a 5.7-mile portion of the corridor, Euclid Michigan-Grand River Ave. Rapid Transit - Avenue operates within a median transit way, with a shared Lansing, Michigan passenger platform for both directions of travel.9 Status: Locally Preferred Alternative selected February 2011 Since opening in 2008, ridership on the HealthLine has Length: 8.45 miles exceeded that of Cleveland’s light rail service. Ridership Stations: 28 increased by 60% in the first three years of operation. RTA Cost: $197.0 M ($23.3 M per mile) officials credit the HealthLine’s offering of rail-like features for Current Average Weekday Corridor Ridership: 6,288 (2008) this high level of ridership. Cleveland’s HealthLine played a Jurisdiction: MDOT, Lansing, East Lansing, Lansing Township central role in attracting over $4.2 billion in new development along the Euclid Corridor.10 The Michigan-Grand River Avenue corridor in greater Lansing, like Washtenaw Avenue, is a MDOT-controlled corridor Lessons from the HealthLine: connecting two urban cores, each with a significant university campus, and it is lined with aging auto-oriented commercial • Sustaining interest among successive administrations is centers and moderately dense neighborhoods of varying necessary to realizing a full BRT system. income levels. Its existing bus routes also carry the highest • BRT upgrades with an explicit land use objective ridership of any non-University bus route in the area’s transit can generate support from community institutions. system. The corridor is currently the only one in Michigan Community support can offset operating costs. featuring frequent service from articulated buses.

• Investment in rail-like features for a BRT system can Planning for bus rapid transit along the corridor began earlier generate ridership gains: a system built for everyone than it did in Ann Arbor, perhaps because of the leadership that is still a choice system is an equitable and feasible of the area’s award-winning Capitol Area Transit Authority way to implement transit. (CATA) or the cities of Lansing and East Lansing, which have 141 Appendix A: Case Studies

historically faced a somewhat weaker real estate market. NOTES 1. Community Planning Workshop at University of Oregon. Bus Rapid Transit Case Studies. An alternatives analysis process that began in 2009 ended [pdf]. Retrieved April 13, 2012 from: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/ in February 2011 with CATA selecting bus rapid transit over handle/1794/10504/LTD_Bus_Rapid_Transit_Case%20Studies.pdf?sequence=1 light rail and streetcar, as the locally preferred alternative 2. Federal Transit Administration. (2009). The EmX Franklin Corridor BRT Project Evaluation. Retrieved April 23, 2012 from: http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/EmX_%20Evaluation_09_508. for the corridor. At that time, Lansing, East Lansing and East pdf

Lansing Township had already formed a Corridor Improvement 3. United States Department of Transportation. (2009). Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Authority to rehabilitate properties along it. Decision Making. Retrieved April 14, 2012 from: http://www.nbrti.org/CBRT.html 4. Lane Transit District. (2012). Retrieved April 23, 2012 from: http://www.ltd.org/index.html? SESSIONID=90b3762e2067461a97339d0b3bdc4479 The proposed bus rapid transit line represents a hybrid of 5. C. Venema (personal communication, February 27, 2011) sorts, with stations spaced more closely than in a typical BRT project. With greater station spacing, the line did not generate 6. Interurban Transportation Partnership. (2011). Task I Visioning Report. Retrieved April 24, 2012 from sufficient ridership to meet FTA funding criteria, according to http://www.ridetherapid.org/assets/files/6t/final%20task%20i%20vision%20report.pdf

computer models. Adding stations resolved that obstacle, and 7. Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study. (2010). “Results of the Detailed Evalu- ation of Alternatives.” [pdf]. Retrieved March 24, 2012 from: http://www.migrtrans.org/docu- 7 CATA is now seeking federal Small Starts funding for the line. ments/onepagers/10_URS_104_no7_LR.pdf

8. Climate Leadership Academy. (2012). Accelerating Bus Rapid Transit. [pdf]. Montpelier, VT. The section of the corridor through East Lansing is currently a Retrieved April 24, 2012 from: http://www.iscvt.org/who_we_are/publications/Resource- Guide-Bus-Rapid-Transit-v1.pdf boulevard with a 120-foot right-of-way, allowing exclusive bus 9. Breakthrough Technologies Institute. (2008). Bus Rapid Transit and Transit Oriented Devel- lanes to be positioned in the median without eliminating lanes opment: for general traffic. The remainder of the corridor generally has Case Studies on Transit Oriented Development around Bus Rapid Transit Systems in North America and Australia. [pdf]. Retrieved April 22, 2012 from: a five-lane cross-section. However, a final design is yet to be http://www.crcog.org/publications/TransportationDocs/NBHBusway/2010/BRT-TOD-Report. pdf selected. 10. Community Planning Workshop at University of Oregon. Bus Rapid Transit Case Studies. [pdf]. Retrieved April 20, 2012 from: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/ handle/1794/10504/LTD_Bus_Rapid_Transit_Case%20Studies.pdf?sequence=1

142 Appendix B: BRT in the US

Map of Bus Rapid Transit in the USA ^_^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ Legend ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ Study ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ Planning ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_^_^_ Construction ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ Operation Data sources: National Bus Rapid Transit Insitute^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ 143 Appendix B: BRT in the US

Status of Bus Rapid Transit in the USA Location Status Location Status Location Status Location Status Cincinnati, OH Studying Santa Clara, CA Planning Twin Cities, MN Construction Albuquerque, NM Operation Sarasota, FL Studying San Francisco, CA Planning San Bernardino, CA Construction Boston, MA Operation Gainesville, FL Studying Montgomery County, MD Planning San Antonio, TX Construction Eugene, OR Operation Oakland, CA Planning Roaring Fork, CO Construction Miami, FL Operation Chicago, IL Planning Hartford, CT Construction Orlando, FL Operation Vancouver, WA Planning Grand Rapids, MI Construction Pittsburgh, PA Operation San Diego, CA Planning Fort Collins, CO Construction Kansas City, MO Operation Richmond, VA Planning Austin, TX Construction Cleveland, OH Operation Jacksonville, FL Planning Phoenix, AZ Operation Fresno, CA Planning Snohomish County, WA Operation Des Moines, IA Planning Los Angeles, CA Operation El Paso, TX Planning Seattle, WA Operation Nashville, TN Planning Charlotte, NC Operation Atlanta, GA Operation Albany, NY Operation Las Vegas, NV Operation

Studying: These communities are considering whether BRT would be a good addition to their transportation system. Discussions are -hap pening as part of a comprehensive planning process or a BRT Feasibility Study is being performed. Planning: These communities made the decision to pursue BRT. They are now currently engaged in engineering studies and alternative analyses. Construction: These communities have secured funding, many through FTA’s Small Starts program and are acquiring right-of-way to dedicate roadway to transit as well as constructing stations along purposed routes. Operation: These communities currently operate Bus Rapid Transit systems.

144 Appendix C: Benefit Calculation Methodology

TIME SAVINGS expenses of actually keeping a bus on the roadway each hour.2 Any time savings reduced these costs. To calculate time savings to transit vehicles of various intersection and roadway treatments, this study relied on case The study calculated time and cost savings for transit signal studies provided by Transit Cooperative Research Program priority, queue jump lanes, and dedicated lanes. (TCRP) reports. Each jurisdiction reported a range of time savings from the treatments. For example, New York reported Transit Signal Priority (TSP) a 34-43% reduction in travel time due to implementation of To determine delay reduction benefits scenarios from TSP for dedicated lanes.1 The plan only obtained these ranges from AATA buses, the study used percentage reductions noted in a urban areas that reported percentages of savings, rather than 2007 TCRP report for the following cities: minutes. These ranges were used to estimate minimum and • Portland maximum time savings scenarios for AATA buses, using the • Toronto mean of these figures. This study calculated time savings using • Seattle average observed delay and travel times from the Bus Delay Analysis. The observed conditions represent the baseline • Los Angeles situation, and any time savings are reductions in travel time or • San Francisco delay at those intersections.

Although these areas have much denser development and Using AATA’s operating cost per bus per hour of $112.30, higher populations than the Washtenaw Corridor, they were the study was also able to estimate operating cost savings the only cities that reported percentage reductions rather than from treatments. Eighty percent of AATA’s operating costs go minute reductions in the TCRP studies on TSP. towards items other than human resources, and this figure of $89.84 was used to estimate the cost of fuel and other

145 Appendix C: Benefit Calculation Methodology

The table below reports the minimum and maximum time Not surprisingly, the greatest time savings per hour came savings scenarios on AATA’s Route 4 from TSP for the two peak during the PM Peak. While time savings of 90 seconds or periods, in both directions: less on a single trip may seem small, Route 4 has the highest ridership in the system, meaning that potentially thousands of Estimated Time Savings from TSP for AATA Route 4 passengers gain these benefits. Additionally, passengers may Minimum Time Savings Maximum Time Savings Trip per one-way trip per one way trip find reduced frustration from less time stopped at red lights. Direction (in sedonds) (in seconds) With eight buses operating each hour in each direction, the AM Peak study calculated total time saved per hour on the route. The East- 12 21 bound study then translated the hourly savings into operating costs, AM Peak based on AATA’s operating costs per bus per hour. These cost West- 37 63 savings are presented in the table below. bound PM Peak East- 34 57 Estimated Operating Cost Savings per hour for Route 4 bound Minimum Maximum PM Peak Trip Direction Cost Savings Cost Savings West- 53 91 per hour (in $) per hour (in $) bound AM Peak 12 21 Eastbound AM Peak 37 63 Westbound PM Peak 34 57 Eastbound PM Peak 53 91 Westbound

146 Appendix C: Benefit Calculation Methodology

With AATA’s operating costs at $112.30 per bus per hour, the Queue jumps add relatively little in terms of additional time maximum savings scenario would be the equivalent of AATA savings. The visual benefit of getting ahead of traffic could taking a bus out of service during these times. AATA could confirm passengers’ decision to use transit. As discussed in potentially invest the saved money in stop enhancements or the plan in the Golfside intersection example, seemingly small other upgrades on Route 4. Operating cost savings could over time savings from queue jumps could ensure that buses do not time offset the costs of new BRT features. get caught at the same traffic light twice.

Queue Jumps To calculate the benefits of queue jump treatments, this study Estimated Time Savings from Queue Jumps for AATA Route 4 used TCRP’s estimate of intersection delay reductions for urban areas that have implemented queue jumps. The typical Minimum Maximum Time Savings Time Savings Trip Direction reduction is 5-15% in time savings beyond the benefits of per one way trip per one way trip TSP. The percentage figures served as the parameters for the (in seconds) (in seconds) 3 AM Peak minimum and maximum time savings scenarios. 2 8 Eastbound The table on the right presents the estimated time savings AM Peak from Route 4 from queue jumps at locations that this plan 8 20 Westbound recommends, in both directions during both peak travel PM Peak periods. 6 19 Eastbound PM Peak 10 31 Westbound

147 Appendix C: Benefit Calculation Methodology

Dedicated Lanes From the bus delay analysis, the study found that the AATA To calculate the time savings benefits of dedicated lanes on bus currently spends 22 minutes on the 5-mile Washtenaw Washtenaw, the study used the experiences reported in the Corridor for a one-way trip. Using the per-mile time savings TCRP reports from the following areas: estimates from the TCRP reports, a Route 4 bus would save • Cleveland-Euclid Avenue anywhere from 6-7 minutes per one-way trip. During peak hours, a 6-7 minute time savings is almost the length of the • Los Angeles-Wilshire Blvd eight-minute headway between buses. • Dallas-Harry Times Boulevard

• Dallas-Fort Worth Boulevard Time savings can also generate new ridership. According to

• New York the TCRP reports, time savings of five minutes are enough to spur new ridership.5 Dedicated lanes create a tremendous • San Francisco opportunity to bring new riders into the transit system and • Honolulu potentially spur modal shifts away from the automobile.6 • Vancouver

The study took the arithmetic mean of the time savings benefits in each of these cities, based on the range of values provided. Under a minimum scenario, time savings were about 1.2 minutes per mile, while under a maximum scenario they were about 1.4 minutes.4

148 Appendix C: Benefit Calculation Methodology

PASSENGER SERVICE TIMES FOR DIFFERENT NOTES PAYMENT METHODS 1 Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2007). Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide (TCRP Report 118). Washington DC: Transportation Research Board: 4-31. 2 Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. (2012). Personal Interview, Chris White. March 20, 2012. The TCRP report uses the multipliers in the table below to 3 Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2007). 4-19. calculate passenger service times for different payment 4 Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2007). 4-19. 5 Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2007). 4-18. methods. Swipe cards actually have a higher service time 6 Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2007). 4-18. 7 Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2007). 4-103. than cash payments. Contactless cards can reduce the time associated with swiping, but taking fare payment out of the vehicle entirely will likely reduce dwell times the most.

Passenger Service Times For Different Payment Methods Service Time Per Passenger Payment Method (in seconds)

Pre-payment 2.5-2.75

Single Ticket 3.4-3.6

Exact Change 3.6-4.3

Swipe or Dip Card 4.2

Smart Card 1.0

Source: TCRP 2007, Report 118. 4 7 149