Needs and Community Characteristics

Needs and Community Characteristics Anticipate Population and Job Growth in the City Strongest density of population and jobs in Ann Arbor are within the Study Area Population expected to grow 8.4% by 2040 High concentrations of students, low income residents and zero-car households Contribute to Community and Environmental Sustainability Through Transportation Help the region s transportation system become more sustainable Can reduce parking demand, travel delays and need for road maintenance Use less energy per passenger than cars and buses Potentially could be powered by emissions-free hydroelectric power Provide a High Capacity, Alternative Form of Transportation To and From the City Center 50,000 daily trips between Central and North Campus 16,000 daily trips between Central and Medical Campus 11,000 daily trips between Central Campus and Downtown Barton Dam is one of two hydroelectric dams in Ann Arbor Support New Land Use and Economic Development Conditions Significant employment and residential developments over the past five years have resulted in higher density Attract new infill development outside of downtown 1

Why The Connector? Ann Arbor is Growing The Current Bus System is High Projected Ridership Ann Arbor is estimated to gain 9,850 people and add 24,300 jobs by 2040. 9% 20% POPULATION GROWTH EMPLOYMENT GROWTH Operating at Capacity A high capacity transit system is needed to keep up with current demand, and accommodate future growth. The estimated ridership for The Connector is near or above LRT and BRT systems in much larger cities. 145,000 110,000 75,000 2010 2040 2010 2040 40+ BUSES Per hour needed to keep up with current rush hour demand Daily Ridership 15,800 31,600 (est.) 34,538 Cleveland HealthLine (BRT) Minneapolis Green Line (LRT) Ann Arbor Connector (LRT) 45,000 One two car LRT train has the capacity of 6 standard buses 14,710 Portland TriMet MAX Yellow Line (LRT) Source: AECOM Sources: MetroTransit, AECOM, GCRTA Source: SEMCOG The Corridor is Highly Congested Ann Arbor has a growing need for more sustainable transportation Ann Arbor is Similar to Other Cities with High Capacity Transit The Connector, operating in its own dedicated lane, will take 21 minutes to travel from Downtown to US-23, regardless of traffic conditions or time of day. During Congestion 43% FASTER And more reliable than current auto and transit trips at rush hour AAATA Route 2 The Connector Automobile 29-37 MINUTES 21 MINUTES 17-27 MINUTES Source: AECOM Pounds of CO 2 per Passenger Mile 1.0.8.6.4.2 Electric-powered rail can achieve greater environmental benefits than autos and standard buses. 0 1 LBS CAR.65 LBS BUS.35 LBS LRT Although smaller overall, the density and demand in Ann Arbor compares to other cities that are implementing rail Total Population Ann Arbor, MI 114,925 Minneapolis, MN 394,424 Cleveland, OH 393,806 Portland, OR 593,820 Population Density 4,098 people per mile 2 6,736 people per mile 2 5,068 people per mile 2 4,084 people per mile 2 Employment Density 3,808 jobs per mile 2 4,824 jobs per mile 2 3,271 jobs per mile 2 2,477 jobs per mile 2 University University of Michigan University of Minnesota; Augsburg College; North Central University Cleveland State University; Case Western Reserve Portland State University; Oregon Health and Science University; University of Portland Total University Enrollment 43,625 students Source: Federal Transit Administration Source: Census ACS 2009-2013 56,341 students 28,055 students 35,211 students 2

Transit Modes Considered Modes Eliminated Earlier in the Study Modes Evaluated in Detail Standard Bus Bus Rapid Transit Pros Impact Minimal Familiar to the Community Lowest Cost Cons Does not support ridership increases Does not address travel speed issues Does not address capacity Does not address future increase in congestion Requires additional parking Fuel sources not as green as other alternatives Pros Increased vehicle capacity Relatively low cost Separates transit vehicles from traffic congestion Incremental benefit over standard buses Cons Requires new infrastructure Does not meet long-term demand needs High operational cost with less capacity provided Fuel sources not as green as other alternatives Eliminated from the study because current system is at ridership capacity, travel time is too long, and does not support ridership increases. Elevated Guideway Transit Pros Completely independent of existing infrastructure The fastest alternative Increases passenger capacity Cons Highest initial capital cost High impact on city, including changing the visual and historic aspects of the community Eliminated from the study because system is too expensive to build, the visual impacts to the city were too great, and other modes can be configured to have similar benefits. Streetcar/Light Rail Transit Pros Increases speed of transit Sustainable; clean emissions Increases passenger capacity Reliable service Relieves demand on future parking Reasonable operating costs Cons Requires new infrastructure High initial capital investment needed *Recommended Alternative 3

Connector Route Alternatives Alternative A 12 Station-Stops 7.6 miles long (Phase 1 and 2) Alternative D Alternative B 11 Station-Stops 7.3 miles long (Phase 1 and 2) Alternative E* Alternative C 10 Station-Stops 7.2 miles long (Phase 1 and 2) Alternative F All alternatives were developed with the expectation that Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail would be the mode likely used for The Connector. 10 Station-Stops 7.2 miles long (Phase 1 and 2) 11 Station-Stops 7.45 miles long (Phase 1 and 2) 13 Station-Stops 7.68 miles long (Phase 1 and 2) *Recommended Alternative 4

Evaluation Results General Info Length: Approximately 7.5 miles End-to-end travel time: 30-35 minutes Station-Stops: 10-13, depending on alignment Estimated Ridership: 34,000 and 37,000 riders per day Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): lower capital costs, but substantially higher operating costs than LRT Light Rail Transit (LRT): sufficient ridership capacity as well as expansion capabilities to support future growth Two Project Phases: North from Downtown to US-23/Plymouth Rd, and South from Downtown to Briarwood Mall Ridership Estimates Daily ridership estimates for all alternatives range between 33,800 to 37,600 BRT alternatives show higher ridership due to the higher frequency needed to meet demand Estimated Ridership Connector Daily Estimated Ridership Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT 33,800 34,700 35,700 36,600 35,200 35,900 35,100 35,900 36,700 37,500 36,900 37,600 Land Use and Environmental Impacts Physical Impact Assessment Overall Land Use and Environmental Impact Ranking (Out of 36) Number of ROW Impacts from Vehicle Turning Movement* Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F 28 21 24 19 26 25 LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT 14 9 12 8 11 8 18 9 18 12 24 17 Criteria used for Land Use and Environmental Impact Score: Removed/relocated on-street parking Miles of alignment in historic district Miles of alignment in parkland Miles of alignment in non-city open space Miles of alignment in floodplain Miles of alignment in educational property *These right-of-way impacts are conflicts from the turning movements of transit vehicles. More detailed design is needed to determine the exact ROW constraints of each alternative. Cost Estimates Cost Estimates This graph shows the relationship between annual ridership growth and total capacity of the three transit modes studied. Within a few years of 1% annual growth, a BRT system would be over capacity, while a streetcar/lrt system will provide enough capacity to accommodate ridership growth. Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT Capital Costs (2020$) $807 M $501M $766 M $494 M $755 M $469 M $783 M $502 M $776 M $490 M $862 M $561 M Operating and Maintenance Cost (2020$) Performance (Cost per Passenger) (2020$) $7 M $21 M $5 M $18 M $5 M $18 M $5 M $18 M $5 M $19 M $7 M $21 M $6.05 $5.18 $5.34 $4.68 $4.56 $4.56 $5.53 $4.08 $5.29 $4.61 $5.92 $5.19 Land uses, listed in the table above, that would be impacted by The Connector s route through Ann Arbor. Cost estimates were based on 2009 unit costs and projected out to 2020 (assumed build year). These costs were used to compare the six alternatives against each other. The Recommended Alternative cost estimate uses 2016 unit costs and is escalated out to a 2025 build year. *Recommended Alternative 5

Recommended Route Alternative Recommended Alternative Characteristics Route Length: 4.8 miles Number of Station-Stops: 9 Capital Cost (2025): $560 - $680 Million Incremental Annual Operating Costs (2025): $3.4 Million Annualized Cost Per Passenger (2025)*: $4.32 - $5.18 Average Weekday Ridership (2040): 31,600 *Sum of the annual operating cost and annualized capital Potential right-of-way acquisition costs are included in this cost estimate. Cost estimates were updated to 2025$ at the end of the project process as 2025 was determined to be a more feasible construction start year. The Connector: Phase 1 Detail Two routing options were put forward for both the section of the Alignment that crosses the river and the section running through Downtown. These will be determined in further study. The Connector is recommended to be constructed in two phases, first to the northeast through the U-M Campus and then to the south to Briarwood Mall. Phase 1 was chosen to be implemented first due to the high ridership and travel demand in this portion. Potential Connector Station-Stops: Plymouth Road at Green Road Huron Parkway Murfin Avenue at Plymouth Road Pierpont Commons Fuller Road at Bonisteel Boulevard Fuller Road U-M Medical Center Central Campus Transit Center Washington Street at State Street Blake Transit Center 6

Recommended Route Alternative Huron River Crossing Options Downtown Routing Options The insets above show the four different routing options for Phase 1 of The Connector s Recommended Alternative. The next phase of the study will look in-depth at these different options and determine recommendations for each. What About Phase 2? Extension to U-M Athletic Campus and Briarwood Mall Alignment recommended to follow State Street south of Stadium Boulevard Variety of alignment options using a combination of the following: State Street Railroad Right-of-Way Couplet on 4th and 5th Avenues Existing Commuter South service will be maintained after Phase 1 implemented 7

Recommended Transit Vehicle Streetcar/Light Rail Transit Operating in a Dedicated Lane Both BRT and LRT transit modes considered Rail modes are recommended based on their consistency with the project goals Streetcar and LRT have high capital costs, but lower operating costs than a BRT system Estimated ridership would exceed the practical capacity of BRT Larger vehicles of an LRT system can accommodate additional ridership growth System Capacity - Light Rail vs Bus Rapid Transit Ridership projections show a BRT system would be near full capacity on opening day, however an LRT system would be able to expand as ridership grows. TO MEET ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP 30 BRT PER HOUR ARE NEEDED BUSES 1 BUS ARRIVING EVERY 2 MINUTES Phoenix, AZ Light Rail San Diego, CA Light Rail 12 LIGHT RAIL TRAINS PER HOUR ARE NEEDED 1 TRAIN ARRIVING EVERY 5 MINUTES Detroit, MI Streetcar (rendering) WHAT IF RIDERSHIP KEEPS GROWING? BRT Capacity is Limited to a Few Years of Growth 3-5 Years 2025 Ridership - 86% of total BRT capacity 2030 Ridership - 100% of total BRT capacity No additional buses can be added to alleviate demand. Kansas City, MO Streetcar The recommended vehicle is a hybrid streetcar/lrt running in its own right-of-way that would be custom tailored to meet demand and fit within Ann Arbor. These vehicles can operate in multi-car configurations to accommodate additional levels of ridership demand. LRT Has the Capacity to Absorb Growth for 15 Years or More 15+ Years 2025 Ridership - 46% of total LRT capacity 2040+ Ridership - 100% of total LRT capacity Additional capacity can be added by linking more cars together. 8

Costs and Funding Capital Cost Estimates Operations and Maintenance Costs The Connector Capital Cost Estimate Sources of Operating Funds* The Connector Operating Cost Estimate Cost Categories 2025$ (Millions) Guideway and Track $78 Station-Stops $70 Right-of-Way $14 Support Facilities $35 Site Work and Special Conditions $58 Systems $48 Construction Subtotal $302 Vehicles $76 - $152 Professional Services $110 - $138 Subtotal $487 - $592 Unallocated Contingency $73 - $89 Total Project Cost $560 - $680 Type of Funding Percentage of Total Operations Cost Fare Revenues 20% Local Funds 43% State Funds 20% Federal Assistance 14% Other Funds 4% *Source: Average of operating costs for 15 transit systems throughout the U.S. using 2011 National Transit Database information 2025 Operating Costs Connector Operations $10,846,000 Eliminated Bus Service Along Connector Route $9,462,000 Added Circulator Service $1,980,000 Net Change in Operations $3,364,000 The Connector is Well-Positioned to Receive Federal Funding FTA NEW STARTS Funding Sources for Other Michigan Transit Projects Grand Lansing, Location Detroit, MI Rapids, MI MI Project Silver Line Michigan/ Grand River M-1 Rail Year 2010 2013 2013/2014 Project Type BRT BRT Streetcar Length (Miles) 9.6 8.5 3.3 Capital Cost (Millions) $40 $215 $136 Proposed Funding (Millions) New Start/Small Start $19 $75 $0 Other Federal $13 $89 $47 State $8 $51 - Local - - - Private - - $89 CRITERIA Cost Effectiveness $5.18 Per Passenger Ridership 12 M Annual Trips Development Potential 6,140 People per Mile 2 POTENTIAL RATING Medium-High Medium Medium 9

Next Steps Project Process ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE We Are Here The alternatives analysis confirms the viability of a particular rapid transit investment compared to other options, and recommends preferred transit mode and routing characteristics. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND APPROVAL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION Estimated Duration: 2 Years During the environmental screening, project design will be refined in order to identify and mitigate potential impacts on the natural, social and community environment. At the conclusion of this phase, a Locally Preferred Alternative would be adopted and environmentally cleared for federal funding consideration. FINAL DESIGN RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENTS LOCAL/STATE FUNDING COMMITMENTS During final engineering, the implementing agency would need to line up funding resources, secure any needed right-of-way, and determine a process for both construction and vehicle procurement. CONSTRUCTION TESTING Construction will typically take up to two years, with additional time needed to conduct operations and safety testing. OPERATIONS Estimated Duration: 1-2 Years Estimated Duration: 1-2 Years Total Time: 6-12 Years The overall project process would typically take a minimum of 6 years to complete, dependent on any gaps in project funding or FTA approvals. Public and Community Stakeholder Input Public involvement in developing and evaluating alternatives, consideration of recommended alternative. Public involvement in refined design of project and remaining alternatives, as well as potential environmental impacts and mitigation options. Public consideration of locally preferred alternative. Public involvement in final design of project, including route, stationstops and vehicles, as well as consideration of detailed project funding plan. Public involvement and information regarding construction phase impacts. Use the Connector to get around Ann Arbor! FTA New Starts Process Application to / Approval from FTA The Connector is seeking approval and funding through the FTA New Starts program, which has three defined phases. These generally correspond to the project processes shown above. Project Development During this phase, the environmental screening process would be completed, and the project adopted into regional long-range transportation plans. Engineering During this phase, project design and engineering would be completed, and commitments finalized for local/state/ private funding sources to match New Starts dollars. Full Funding Grant Agreement During this phase, the FTA would release construction funding needed to build the project 10