Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study FINAL March 2010 URS Corporation Fifth Street Towers 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Description ......................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Role of Fatal Flaw Analysis.........................................................................................1-1 1.3 Development and Use of Criteria ..............................................................................1-2 1.4 Outcomes.......................................................................................................................1-5 2.0 PART ONE: MODE EVALUATION..................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Conceptual Cost............................................................................................................2-2 2.3 Transit Ridership ....................................................................................................... 2-10 2.4 Irresolvable Environmental Issues.......................................................................... 2-33 2.5 Agency and Public Opposition................................................................................ 2-46 2.6 Consistency with Local Plans and Policies ............................................................ 2-54 3.0 PART TWO: SEGMENT/ALIGNMENT EVALUATION............................................3-1 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Potential Traffic Volumes ...........................................................................................3-7 3.3 Potential Traffic Flow Impacts................................................................................ 3-19 3.4 Agency and Public Opposition................................................................................ 3-27 4.0 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Summary Outcome ......................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Next Steps......................................................................................................................4-2 APPENDICES Appendix A: Part 1 Evaluation Matrices Appendix B: Projected Ridership Data Appendix C: Level of Service Detail Appendix D: Part 2 Evaluation Matrices Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation i Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Major Corridor Destinations............................................................................................. 1-1 Figure 2.1 2005 Population Density ................................................................................................. 2-11 Figure 2.2 Projected 2035 Population Density ............................................................................... 2-12 Figure 2.3 2005 Employment Density ............................................................................................. 2-13 Figure 2.4 Projected 2035 Employment Density............................................................................ 2-14 Figure 2.5 Conceptual Streetcar/Bus Station and 0.5 Mile Buffer............................................... 2-16 Figure 2.6 Conceptual BRT/LRT/People Mover/PRT Station and 0.5 Mile Buffer .............. 2-17 Figure 2.7 Conceptual Heavy Rail/Monorail Station and 0.5 Mile Buffer ................................. 2-18 Figure 2.8 Conceptual Commuter Rail Station and 1.0 Mile Buffer............................................ 2-19 Figure 2.9 Conceptual MagLev Station and 3.0 Mile Buffer......................................................... 2-20 Figure 3.1 Segment A Options: Downtown Lansing....................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3.2 Segment B Options: E. Lansing/Lansing Twp.............................................................. 3-3 Figure 3.3 Segment C Options: East Lansing ................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3.4 Segment D Options: E. Lansing ...................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3.5 Segment E Options: E. Lansing....................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3.6 Segment F Options: Meridian Township........................................................................ 3-7 Figure 3.7 Corridor Segment Map ...................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3.8 Existing Segment ADT and LOS................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3.9 Future Segment ADT and LOS ..................................................................................... 3-13 Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation ii Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Summary Result of Part 1 Evaluation .................................................................. 1-4 Table 1-2: Summary Result of Part 2 Evaluation .................................................................. 1-5 Table 2-1: Summary of Conceptual Capital Costs (2010 Dollars)........................................ 2-2 Table 2-2: Relative Operating and Maintenance Costs ......................................................... 2-6 Table 2-3: Summary Results of Conceptual Cost Analysis................................................... 2-9 Table 2-4: Ridership Evaluation Summary.......................................................................... 2-30 Table 2-5: Irresolvable Environmental Issues Evaluation Summary .................................. 2-43 Table 2-6: Business and Developer Meeting Results .......................................................... 2-49 Table 2-7: Public Stakeholder Meeting Results................................................................... 2-51 Table 2-8: Web Site Input.................................................................................................... 2-53 Table 2-9: Transportation & Mobility Goals....................................................................... 2-55 Table 2-10: Land Use and Development Goals................................................................... 2-58 Table 2-11: Economic Development Goals......................................................................... 2-62 Table 3-1: Existing (2005) Intersection Level of Service.................................................... 3-14 Table 3-2: Future (2035) Intersection Level of Service....................................................... 3-15 Table 3-3: Summary of Traffic Volume Analysis by Segment/Alignment: Rail ................ 3-16 Table 3-4: Summary of Traffic Volume Analysis by Segment/Alignment: Bus Rapid Transit ...................................................................................................................... 3-18 Table 3-5: Business and Development Meeting Results – Rail........................................... 3-27 Table 3-6: Business and Developer Meeting Results – BRT .............................................. 3-28 Table 3-7: Public Stakeholder Meeting Results – Rail........................................................ 3-30 Table 3-8: Public Stakeholder Meeting Results - BRT ....................................................... 3-31 Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation iii Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study Table 3-9: Web Input Results - Rail .................................................................................... 3-32 Table 3-10: Web Input Results - BRT ................................................................................. 3-33 Table 4-1: Summary of Study Outcomes............................................................................... 4-1 LIST OF ACRONYMS AA Alternatives Analysis AGT Automated Guideway Transit BRT Bus Rapid Transit CATA Capital Area Transportation Authority DMU Diesel Multiple Unit FTA Federal Transit Administration LOS Level of Service LRT Light Rail Transit LPA Locally Preferred Alternative PRT Personal Rapid Transit MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation MSU Michigan State University TCRPC Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Fatal Flaw Options and Evaluation iv Final March 5, 2010 Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 Project Description The Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA), in consultation with local project participants and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), has undertaken this study of transportation segment options to address future travel demands and to identify potential and feasible alternative transportation improvements for travel along the Michigan/Grand Avenue Corridor, one of the key transportation corridors in the tri-county Lansing area. The Corridor is approximately 7.5 miles long and stretches between the State Capitol, downtown Lansing,