Woodward Avenue Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis Locally Preferred Alternative Prepared for Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 2014 Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff In Association With HNTB Michigan LSL Planning, Inc. Hamilton Anderson Associates Elnora Austell & Associates Archive DS A cknowledgements Federal Transit Administration Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Woodward Avenue Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis Steering Committee Municipal Members City of Detroit City of Highland Park City of Pleasant Ridge City of Ferndale City of Huntington Woods City of Royal Oak City of Berkley City of Birmingham Bloomfield Township City of Bloomfield Hills City of Pontiac Local/State Government Agency Members Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) Detroit Transportation Corporation (DTC) Non-Profit Partners Woodward Avenue Action Association (WA3) Michigan Suburbs Alliance (MSA) t Able of c ontents List of Figures iv 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Purpose of LPA Report 1 1.3 Report Organization 2 1.4 Proposed Project: Woodward Avenue Rapid Transit AA 3 1.5 Purpose and Need, Goals, and Objectives 5 1.6 Background 6 1.7 Summary of Local Plans 7 1.8 Federal New Starts, Small Starts, and NEPA 12 2.0 Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach 13 2.1 Stakeholder Engagement 13 2.2 Public Involvement 25 3.0 Existing Conditions 27 3.1 Demographics 27 3.2 Transportation 38 4.0 Evaluation Framework 61 4.1 Modal Pre-Screening 62 4.2 Tier 1 Screening 65 4.3 Tier 2 Screening 69 5.0 Locally Preferred Alternative Recommendation 85 5.1 Transportation and Mobility 85 6.0 Next Steps 99 6.1 Federal Environmental Review 99 6.2 Capital Investment Grant Program Project Development 100 Appendix A 104 A-1 Alignment Alternative Evaluation Results 105 A-2 Station Location Evaluation Results 106 iv l f ist of igures & t Ables FIGURE 1-1 WOODWARD AVENUE TIMELINE........................................................................................................ 3 FIGURE 1-2 COMMUNITIES ALONG THE WOODWARD CORRIDOR.................................................................... 4 FIGURE 2-1 EVALUATION CRITERIA RATINGS BY PUBLIC INPUT, DEC. 2012 MEETINGS............................26 FIGURE 3-1 POPULATION IN THE CORRIDOR BY COMMUNITY.........................................................................27 FIGURE 3-2 RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY................................................................................................28 FIGURE 3-3 POPULATION CHANGE 2000-2010 BY COMMUNITY........................................................................29 FIGURE 3-4 ZERO-CAR HOUSEHOLDS......................................................................................................................30 FIGURE 3-5 HOUSEHOLD TYPES BY VEHICLES AVAILABLE.................................................................................31 FIGURE 3-6 ONE-CAR HOUSEHOLDS........................................................................................................................31 FIGURE 3-7 POPULATION IN POVERTY....................................................................................................................32 FIGURE 3-8 POPULATION AGE 17 YEARS AND YOUNGER...................................................................................33 FIGURE 3-9 POPULATION AGE 65 YEARS AND OLDER.........................................................................................34 FIGURE 3-10 MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN THE CORRIDOR...........................................................................................35 FIGURE 3-11 COMMUNITY FACILITIES......................................................................................................................36 FIGURE 3-12 PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES................................................................................................................37 TABLE 3-1 CRITICAL CRASH INTERSECTIONS.....................................................................................................38 FIGURE 3-13 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES: WOODWARD, CASS, AND JOHN R....................................................39 TABLE 3-2 INTERSECTIONS WITH ONE OR MORE APPROACH AT LOS E OR F.............................................41 FIGURE 3-14 TRAVEL TIME PER MILE BY SEGMENT, EXISTING CONDITIONS..................................................42 TABLE 3-3 INTERSECTIONS WITH ONE OR MORE APPROACH AT LOS E OR F, FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH NO CHANGES TO LANEAGE.......................................................................................................43 FIGURE 3-15 TRAVEL TIME PER MILE BY SEGMENT, FUTURE CONDITIONS: NO CHANGES TO LANEAGE..................................................................................................................................................44 TABLE 3-4 INTERSECTIONS WITH ONE OR MORE APPROACH AT LOS E OR F, FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH REMOVAL OF ONE LANE............................................................................................................45 FIGURE 3-16 TRAVEL TIME PER MILE BY SEGMENT, FUTURE CONDITIONS: REMOVAL OF ONE LANE......46 TABLE 3-5 INTERSECTIONS WITH ONE OR MORE APPROACH AT LOS E OR F, FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH REMOVAL OF ONE LANE WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS............................................47 FIGURE 3-17 TRAVEL TIME PER MILE BY SEGMENT, FUTURE CONDITIONS: REMOVAL OF ONE LANE WITH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.....................................................................................................48 FIGURE 3-18 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE................................................................................................................49 FIGURE 3-19 MAJOR DESTINATIONS WITHIN THE CORRIDOR............................................................................50 TABLE 3-6 STUDY AREA TRANSIT PROJECTS, 2011-2013..................................................................................51 TABLE 3-7 AUTOMOBILE VERSUS PROPOSED TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME, SOUTHBOUND AM.....................54 TABLE 3-8 AUTOMOBILE VERSUS PROPOSED TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME, NORTHBOUND PM.....................54 FIGURE 3-20 NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS...........................................................................57 TABLE 4-1 STATION LOCATION EXERCISE SUMMARY.......................................................................................66 FIGURE 4-1 PONTIAC MAINLINE ALTERNATIVE....................................................................................................69 FIGURE 4-2 PONTIAC ALTERNATIVE........................................................................................................................69 v l f ist of igures & t ( .) Ables cont FIGURE 4-3 BERKLEY ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................70 FIGURE 4-4 ROYAL OAK ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE............................................................................................70 FIGURE 4-5 DETROIT ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE #1...........................................................................................71 FIGURE 4-6 DETROIT ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE #2...........................................................................................71 FIGURE 4-7 DETROIT ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE #3...........................................................................................72 FIGURE 4-8 DETROIT ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE #4...........................................................................................72 TABLE 4-2 TRAVEL TIME SUMMARY BY ALTERNATIVE....................................................................................74 TABLE 4-3 SERVICE PROVIDERS AND RIDERSHIP..............................................................................................75 FIGURE 4-9 RIDERSHIP BY CORRIDOR....................................................................................................................76 FIGURE 4-10 NUMBER OF TRIPS BY ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................77 FIGURE 4-11 RIDERSHIP AND PARK-AND-RIDE PATRONS, LPA ALIGNMENT..................................................78 FIGURE 4-12 LPA STATION LOCATIONS....................................................................................................................81 FIGURE 5-1 ALIGNMENT AND STATIONS, PONTIAC LOOP................................................................................86 FIGURE 5-2 CROSS SECTION, PONTIAC LOOP.................................................................................................... 86 FIGURE 5-3 ALIGNMENT AND STATIONS, PONTIAC LOOP TO QUARTON ROAD...........................................87 FIGURE 5-4 CROSS SECTION, PONTIAC LOOP TO SOUTH BOULEVARD......................................................... 88 FIGURE 5-5 CROSS SECTION, SOUTH BOULEVARD TO QUARTON ROAD........................................................88 FIGURE 5-6 ALIGNMENT AND STATIONS, QUARTON ROAD TO 14 MILE ROAD.............................................89 FIGURE 5-7 CROSS SECTION, QUARTON ROAD TO 14 MILE ROAD...................................................................90 FIGURE 5-8 ALIGNMENT AND STATIONS, 14 MILE ROAD TO 10 MILE ROAD.................................................91 FIGURE 5-9 CROSS SECTION, 14 MILE ROAD TO MCNICHOLS...........................................................................92 FIGURE 5-10 ALIGNMENT AND STATIONS, 10 MILE ROAD TO 8 MILE ROAD...................................................93 FIGURE 5-11 ALIGNMENT AND STATIONS, 8 MILE ROAD TO GRAND BOULEVARD....................................... 94 FIGURE 5-12 CROSS SECTION, MCNICHOLS ROAD TO GRAND BOULEVARD....................................................95 FIGURE 5-13 ALIGNMENT AND STATIONS, GRAND BOULEVARD TO ROSA PARKS TRANSIT CENTER......96 FIGURE 5-14 CROSS SECTION, CASS AVENUE.........................................................................................................98 FIGURE 5-15 CROSS SECTION, JOHN R STREET.......................................................................................................98 FIGURE 6-1 NEW AND SMALL STARTS PROJECT EVALUATION AND RATING UNDER MAP-21...............102 FIGURE A-1 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS.................................................................105 FIGURE A-2 STATION LOCATION EVALUATION RESULTS.................................................................................106 1 1.0 i ntroduction With a history dating back to 1701, Woodward is considered “Detroit’s Main Street”. 1.1 Overview 1.2 Purpose of LPA Report In July 2012, the Southeast Michigan Council of The purpose of the LPA report is to summarize the Governments (SEMCOG), in collaboration with the selection process for the Woodward AA LPA. The Woodward Avenue Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis document outlines the methods of technical analyses (AA) Steering Committee, began a study to identify used to evaluate the costs, benefits, and impacts of and evaluate rapid transit alternatives that would each alternative, and it describes the qualitative factors improve mobility options and job access, provide considered in the LPA selection such as public input better connectivity to major destinations, and increase and private and public agency stakeholder feedback. economic development opportunities along Woodward Avenue, a 27-mile corridor in SE Michigan. The AA study The LPA is a transit mode and alignment option that included a multi-tiered screening process that evaluated results from the AA process. The multi-step evaluation modal and alignment alternative options resulted in the process reviewed multiple options and their abilities selection of a locally preferred alternative (LPA). The to address the transportation needs of the Woodward LPA was recommended to move forward in the next corridor. The LPA was deemed to be the most appropriate phase of analyses and would lay the foundation for and feasible alternative to meet the purpose and need higher level rapid transit service in SE Michigan. for the project and represents the best chances for implementation and the most stakeholder support. Introduction | 2 1.3 Report Organization The LPA report is organized as follows: Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 1 provides an overview of the project. It includes background information on the history of transit in SE Michigan, ongoing transit projects in the region, and a summary of local transportation plans. Additionally, this chapter details the study area and the project’s Purpose and Need, Goals, and Objectives. A description of the New Starts, Small Starts, and NEPA processes are provided as context for the study regarding necessary future phases of analysis once an LPA is recommended. Chapter 2: Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach Chapter 2 provides a summary of stakeholder engagement and public outreach throughout the Woodward AA process. Starting with a description of the Woodward AA Steering Committee’s involvement, this section also includes one-on-one interaction(s) with project stakeholders as well as public comments with details of how input from these groups was integrated into the process of evaluating alternatives and selecting the LPA. Chapter 3: Existing Conditions Chapter 3 offers a snapshot of existing transportation conditions along the Woodward corridor and the I-75 freeway that accommodates the corridor’s traffic. The existing conditions described in this section form the basis of the Purpose and Need for the Woodward AA study. Chapter 4: Evaluation Framework Chapter 4 details the evaluation framework for the project. The section describes the process undertaken to determine the preferred modal option, and the two-tiered alignment screenings that resulted in the selection of a LPA. A summary of the process for developing the study’s evaluation criteria and how public input factored into that decision-making are also included. Chapter 5: Locally Preferred Alternative Recommendation Chapter 5 describes the LPA in further detail. The chapter summarizes the alternative’s relationship to improving transportation and mobility options and economic opportunities and investment. A snapshot of the LPA’s impact on communities and the environment as well as public sentiment concerning the LPA are also offered in this chapter. Chapter 6: Next Steps Chapter 6 provides an outline of the next steps following the Woodward AA LPA recommendation through to implementation. Introduction | 3 1.4 Proposed Project: 1701 NATIVE AMERICANS ESTABLISHED THE THE SAGINAW TRAIL, ONE Woodward Avenue Rapid OF THE FIRST TRANSPORTATION ROUTES THROUGH WHAT BECOME THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. THE TRAIL FOLLOWED WHAT IS NOW WOODWARD AVENUE FROM THE DETROIT AREA NORTH TO SAGINAW Transit Alternatives WHERE IT CONNECTED TO THE MACKINAW TRAIL NORTH TO THE STRAIGHTS OF MACKINAC. Analysis (AA) The Woodward AA explores rapid transit options for the 27-mile long Woodward Avenue corridor from downtown Detroit northwest to the Woodward Loop in Pontiac. The Woodward corridor traverses both Oakland and Wayne Counties, including 11 communities: Detroit, Highland Park, Ferndale, Pleasant Ridge, Huntington 1805 THE TOWN OF DETROIT CREATED THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR THE Woods, Royal Oak, Berkley, Birmingham, Bloomfield PRINCIPAL STREETS OF THE CITY WHICH WERE PLANNED BY JUDGE AUGUSTUS WOODWARD. THE PLAN OFFICIALLY CONNECTS Township, Bloomfield Hills, and Pontiac. WOODWARD TO THE CITY OF PONTIAC. Woodward Avenue is one of the oldest transportation 1815 DETROIT IS INCORPORATED AS A CITY. corridors in the country and the main artery of the SE Michigan roadway system. As a cultural and historical asset in the region, it connects two of the state’s oldest 1861 PONTIAC IS INCORPORATED. cities, Detroit and Pontiac. Woodward is one of the five main “spokes” that radiates from Detroit. With a 1863 STREETCAR SERVICE IS ESTABLISHED ALONG WOODWARD. history dating back to 1701, it is considered “Detroit’s Main Street.” In 1805, Woodward officially connected 1864 BIRMINGHAM IS INCORPORATED. to the City of Pontiac. Its route followed the route of the Saginaw Trail, a Native American trail that linked 1889 HIGHLAND PARK IS INCORPORATED. Detroit with Pontiac, Flint, Saginaw, and eventually the Straits of Mackinac through the Mackinac Trail. The 1895 ROYAL OAK IS INCORPORATED. first automobile was driven on Woodward Avenue on March 3, 1896. In 1909, Woodward became the first 1896 THE FIRST AUTOMOBILE WAS DRIVEN ON WOODWARD. concrete paved highway in the world. And in 1913, it became a state trunk-line. Woodward Avenue not only 1909 WOODWARD BECOMES THE FIRST CONCRETE PAVED HIGHWAY IN THE WORLD. THE FIRST PAVED MILE WAS WOODWARD BETWEEN 6 connected two of the largest cities in SE Michigan, but AND 7 MILE ROADS IN DETROIT. over time, several other cities were established and 1913 WOODWARD BECOMES A STATE TRUNKLINE. grew along the corridor. These communities include Highland Park, Ferndale, Pleasant Ridge, Huntington 1918 FERNDALE IS INCORPORATED. Woods, Royal Oak, Berkley, Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, and Bloomfield Township. Among Woodward 1920 THE FIRST FOUR-WAY TRAFFIC SIGNAL IN THE WORLD WAS INSTALLED Avenue’s many distinctions, the nation’s first four- AT THE INTERSECTION OF WOODWARD AND MICHIGAN AVE. way traffic signal was installed at the intersection 1921 PLEASANT RIDGE IS INCORPORATED. of Woodward and Michigan Avenues in Detroit. 1923 BERKLEY IS INCORPORATED. Woodward Avenue had streetcar operations until 1956. 1926 HUNTINGTON WOODS IS INCORPORATED. 1927 BLOOMFIELD HILLS IS INCORPORATED. Woodward is an All-American Road in the National Scenic Byways program and has been designated a Michigan Heritage Route by MDOT. 1956 WOODWARD’S STREETCAR OPERATIONS CEASE. 2002 WOODWARD IS DESIGNATED AN “ALL-AMERICAN” ROAD IN AMERICA’S NATIONAL BYWAYS PROGRAM - THE ONLY URBAN ROUTE SO DESIGNATED AT THE TIME. 2016 A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED 3.3-MILE STREETCAR SYSTEM IN DETROIT IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN OPERATIONS. FIGURE 1-1. TIMELINE OF WOODWARD AVENUE Sources: Michigan.gov, MDOT, M-1 RAIL Introduction | 4 LEGEND Corridor Communities Woodward PONTIAC 0 1 2 Miles BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP W O BLOOMFIELD O D HILLS W A RD BIRMINGHAM ROYAL OAK BERKLEY HUNTINGTON WOODS PLEASANT RIDGE FERNDALE DETROIT HIGHLAND PARK FIGURE 1-2. COMMUNITIES ALONG THE WOODWARD CORRIDOR Introduction | 5 1.5 Purpose and Need, Goals, and Objectives 1.5.1 PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT Through regional planning efforts, Woodward Avenue has been identified as the top priority for investment in an effort to improve SE Michigan’s regional transit system. Based on review of existing conditions, references to SEMCOG’s long-range transportation goals, and consultation with steering committee members and public feedback, the need for transit improvements in the corridor is to: • Improve mobility options. • Improve job access. • Connect people with major destinations along the corridor. • Encourage economic development opportunities along the corridor. The Woodward AA examined transit options and recommended the alternative that was determined to best address the following goals and objectives endorsed by the Steering Committee: • Improve mobility and reliability for the entire corridor. • Make transit travel times and service reliability competitive with the automobile. • Provide better connectivity to key origins and destinations. • Provide better access to major regional employers, including reverse commute services. • Support increased mode share of trips for transit. • Support local and regional planning initiatives and land use strategies that aim to strengthen communities, foster economic development, and fulfill long range growth goals. 1.5.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOALS OBJECTIVES Develop a transit alternative that is Improve transit travel times and speeds competitive with the automobile. within the study area. Provide transit capacity needed to meet future Reduce the number of transit trips that travel demand and mobility choices. require a transfer. Improve transit service reliability within the Improve on-time performance. study area. Develop a transit alternative that enhances mobility for the reverse commute market and Increase transit accessibility. transit-dependent populations (specifically in Detroit and Pontiac). Develop a transit system that improves Provide convenient and accessible transit connectivity between origins and key service to activity centers. destinations and major regional employers. Provide transit service that can influence Develop a transit system that supports local more compact growth patterns. (Corridor planning initiatives and land use strategies. communities will vary in this area.)