TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference Houston, Texas May 2009 Ann Arbor Transportation Plan Update-- Connecting the Land Use & Transportation Dots to the Future By: Barbara Arens, PE, PTOE Parsons Brinckerhoff

1990 Transportation Plan Goals Transportation Plan Update Goals Provide appropriate access and mobility 1 Protect and enhance the natural and built environments 2 Promote a safe, secure, and attractive transportation system 3 Invest funds wisely, considering all City goals, and within financial constraints 4

1990 Transportation Plan Goals Transportation Plan Update Goals Promote Regional Cooperation 5 Ensure the public remains involved 6 Promote a system that is supportive of and integrated with land use decisions 7 Promote green transportation improvements to reduce vehicle emissions 8 Ann Arbor UM County

Green Transportation  Enhance travel choices to reduce dependency on single occupant vehicle trips causing…  Decrease in Number of Auto Trips  Decrease in Trip Length  Decrease in Emissions  Less Pavement, More Green Space  Environmentally-friendly design and construction  Energy-efficient vehicle fleets

Input Throughout the Process  Public Workshops (3)  Advisory Committee (Over 50 members from the community)  Steering Committee (5 agencies)  Newsletters (3)

1990 Transportation Plan Goals Previous Plans 1990 Transportation Plan 1990 Northeast Ann Arbor Transportation Plan 2006 Non-Motorized Plan 2007 Downtown Ann Arbor Framework 2006

Current Ann Arbor Travel Choices  Bike  Walk  Auto  Bus ( UM/AATA/Paratransit)  Taxi  Amtrak

Ann Arbor Current Employment Patterns  Approximately 58,000 Ann Arbor residents in the work force  Approximately 41,000 (71%) work in Ann Arbor  Approximately 17,000 (29%) work outside Ann Arbor

Person Trips  640,000 Person Trips within the City Daily  51% of Trips stay within Ann Arbor  32% enter the City and leave  17% leave the City and return

Analysis  Past Plan Recommendations  Land Use Changes  Critical Crash Locations  Study Intersections  Key Corridors  Transit Opportunities High Density 12,930 More Households 7,590 More Jobs Medium Density 7,150 More Households 5,400 More Jobs Potential Land Use Intensification

Growth in Daily Congestion Based on Existing Network Existing 2005 Daily Congestion Future 2030 Daily Congestion Adopted City Plans will result in 40-50% increase in number of auto trips

Looking to the Future Review current conditions + Expected growth + Where it may occur + Associated new trips and their impact on the transportation system = Potential future conditions

Corridors for All  Add Choices  Reduce Auto Trips in Peak Hour  Maximize Existing Capacity  Redesign Streets for Multiple Users  Link transportation investments to land use and site design changes

Transportation Policies  Transportation Choices as Catalyst for Land Use Change  Variable Street Design Standards  Transit-Oriented Design and Densities  Access Management  Transportation Impact Studies

Focus on Improving Transit  Evaluate Transit Types & Priorities  Assessment of High- Frequency Transit Corridors  Signature Transit Corridors  Commuter Rail  Express Bus

Different Types of Transit Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail Local Bus

Land Use Density & Transit Higher Density of Residential and Commercial allows a higher level of transit: DensityResidents + Employees per Acre Appropriate Types of Transit Low< 10Lower Level of Bus or No Service Medium10 – 25More Frequent Bus Service/ BRT High25 – 40Streetcar/LRT Very High> 40LRT/Commuter Rail

Lessons Learned from Other Cities  Assessment of All Transit Choices particularly BRT/Streetcar  Comparisons with similar size cities  Comparison with University cities  Positive Economic Impact (created $2 to $30 of development for every $1 invested)  Costs / Funding  BRT $6-$25M/mile  LRT $30-$40M/mile  Challenges

Reduction in VMT & CO 2 Level in 2005

Reduction in Daily Congestion Future 2030 Daily Congestion with Recommendations Future 2030 Daily Congestion without Recommendations With Recommendations: 54% decrease in congestion and 30% increase in Transit Ridership

Short, Medium, and Long Term Recommendations & Priorities  Short Term (within 5 years)  Safety  Policy, Process, and Study Related  Implementable (TIP/CIP)  Corridor implementation for modes  Medium Term ( years)  Continue connective implementation  Implement land use and transportation mode shifts  Long Term ( years)  Continuation of medium implementation in key corridors

Final Plan Recommendations Downtown

Thank you! Questions