FATAL FLAW ANALYSIS. March 2014 FINAL. DRAFT Febru

Transcription

1 FATAL FLAW ANALYSIS March 2014 DRAFT Febru

2 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Project Description Project Purpose and Need Project Goals and Objectives Alternative Development and Evaluation Process Fatal Flaw Screening Transit Modes Ridership Capacity Consistency with Local Plans and Policies Economic Development Environmental Impacts Capital Costs Community Support Summary of Initial Screening: Modes Alignments Land Use Mobility and Connectivity Environmental Impacts Right Of Way Accommodation Community Support Summary of Initial Screening: Alignments Findings and Recommendations Modes Recommended for Detailed Definition and Evaluation Alignments Recommended for Detailed Definition and Evaluation March 2014 ii

3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Laker Corridor Segment Map Overview Figure 2: Laker Line Corridor: Segment A Detail Figure 3: Laker Line Corridor: Segment B Detail Figure 4: Laker Line Corridor: Segment C Detail Figure 5: Laker Line Corridor: Segment D Detail Figure 6: Major and Minor Activity Generators in the Laker Line Corridor LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Project Goals and Objectives... 3 Table 2: Project Goals and Project Needs... 4 Table 3: Project Goals and Fatal Flaw Evaluation Criteria... 6 Table 4: Transit Modes... 7 Table 5: Screening Criteria - Transit Modes... 8 Table 6: Screening Results: Ridership Capacity... 9 Table 7: Screening Results: Consistency with Local and Regional Plans Table 8: Screening Results: Economic Development Table 9: Screening Results: Potential Environmental Impacts for Mode Alternatives Table 10: Screening Results: Capital Costs Table 11: BRT Wish List Results Table 12: Screening Results: Community Support Table 13: Summary Results of the Initial Screening of Modes Table 14: Modes for Detailed Definition and Evaluation of Alternatives Table 15: Laker Line Corridor Segment Boundaries Table 16: Screening Criteria: Alignments Table 17: Screening Results: Alignments Consistent with Land Use Plans Table 18: Major and Minor Activity Generators Table 19: Screening Results: Mobility and Connectivity Table 20: Screening Results: Environmental Impacts of Alignments Table 21: Typical Right-of-Way Requirements by Mode Alternative Table 22: Right-of-Way Characteristics at Select Locations along the Laker Line Corridor March 2014 iii

4 Table 23: Screening Results: Right-of-Way Accommodation Table 24: Screening Results Community Support Table 25: Summary Results of the Initial Screening of Alignments Table 26: Alignments for Detailed Definition and Evaluation of Alternatives March 2014 iv

5 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Description The Laker Line Study represents a crucial early step toward developing higher quality transit service along one of the most important corridors for the Grand Rapids region. The Laker Line study corridor extends west from Downtown Grand Rapids to the Allendale campus of Grand Valley State University (GVSU), a distance of approximately 15 miles. In between, it encompasses Grand Rapids west side neighborhoods, the Standale district of Walker, and Tallmadge Township. This corridor is already served by high-quality local public bus service that is utilized by a growing number of GVSU students, as well as residents and employees. The primary goal of the Study will be to determine whether, and which, transit enhancements could better meet the corridor s travel needs and support the long-term transportation and land use vision of both the local communities and the major institutional stakeholders. The project duration is 15 months, starting in summer 2013 and ending in fall The lead agency is the Interurban Transit Partnership or The Rapid, and its funding partner is the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Other partners and stakeholders involved in the study are: Grand Valley State University (GVSU) Grand Valley Metropolitan Council (GVMC) City of Walker City of Grand Rapids Allendale Township Tallmadge Township Ottawa County Kent County Michigan Department of Transportation The Study will identify the best transit solutions to develop as a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for inclusion in the Grand Valley Metro Council s (GVMC s) long range transportation plan. 1.2 Project Purpose and Need The Laker Line Study Team worked closely with the project Advisory and Policy Committees to develop a series of purpose and need statements to support the development and evaluation of transit investment alternatives within the Laker Line corridor. The Purpose and Need Statement report (available under separate cover and summarized below) was approved by the project Advisory Committee on January 18, The purpose of the Laker Line Study is to identify and implement the transit enhancement strategy that will improve connectivity between downtown Grand Rapids and Grand Valley State University, the largest university in the region; provide support for development and redevelopment planning by the corridor communities; mitigate the traffic, parking and other community impacts from the growing amount of travel in the corridor; and capitalize on the potential environmental, community and social benefits of increased transit usage. March

6 Project Need #1: Existing corridor bus service has experienced significant ridership growth and is at capacity during peak times of the day. Driven by the growth of GVSU and its Pew Campus in downtown Grand Rapids, ridership of corridor bus services has grown by a factor of 16 in the past decade. The primary bus route (#50) serving the corridor now has approximately 10,000 riders per day on an average weekday during the semester. Project Need #2: Continued growth in travel demand will need to be accommodated in the corridor. Additional planned expansion of GVSU student base and downtown facilities, as well as the projected residential and employment growth of corridor communities (particularly the City of Walker and Allendale Township), indicates that there will be even greater transportation demand need in the future. There is a need to accommodate this demand without negatively impacting local communities. For example, corridor institutions and stakeholders, in particular GVSU, have identified a need to reduce on-site parking facilities to support efficient land uses and prioritize pedestrian access and circulation. Project Need #3: Corridor communities and the development community are actively planning transit-supportive land uses. Reacting to increased demand for student and senior housing as well as community goals for place-based revitalization, community planners and the development community have advanced plans for the corridor that incorporate higher development densities, mixed uses, and pedestrian-oriented design elements that could be supported by investment in rapid transit. Project Need #4: Regional planning for the Grand Rapids metropolitan area highlights the need for improved multi-modal travel options and the accompanying potential for economic growth and environmental benefits. Growth strategies for the region and the concentration of jobs downtown highlight the need to increase the utilization of alternative modes such as transit to both allow for concentrated employment growth and development of additional urban living options aimed at young professionals. Additionally, increased use of modes such as transit may have significant positive impacts on environmental factors such as air quality and energy usage. Project Need #5: Transit system planning in the region highlights the need for improved connectivity between high-capacity transit corridors. With the implementation of the SilverLine BRT project and plans for a downtown streetcar, The Rapid s plan for their future transit system will rely on greater connectivity of transit routes at multiple points within downtown Grand Rapids rather than the current route structure that relies on one centralized transfer point (Central Station) located on the southwest side of the downtown. 1.3 Project Goals and Objectives The following five project goals and related objectives (Table 1) were approved by the project Advisory Committee on January 18, 2014 as part of the project Purpose and Need Statement. The goals and objectives have been used to help define the universe of alternatives under consideration during this Fatal Flaw and the criteria that have been used to evaluate them, as discussed in Section 2. March

7 Table 1: Project Goals and Objectives Goal Increase the efficiency, attractiveness and utilization of transit for all users Catalyze and support economic development Contribute to regional equity, sustainability and quality of life Enhance connectivity of the corridor to the regional transportation network Develop and select an implementable and community-supported project Objectives Provide reliable, frequent service that improves the experience of existing customers Accommodate and attract new customers to the service (not just GVSU students) to help shift current and future corridor travel away from the automobile Provide capacity for future growth Provide improved passenger amenities and infrastructure Improve pedestrian and non-motorized access to corridor stations Ensure sufficient and well-designed park-and-ride access to the system Ensure safe and comfortable transit services and facilities for all users Support the economic development and revitalization efforts of local communities Support regional economic development through enhanced access to employment concentrations, particularly in downtown Grand Rapids Support institutional and key stakeholder planning efforts, particularly strategic growth planning for the campuses of GVSU Support local and regional goals for compact, mixed-use development along the corridor Promote a more efficient and sustainable transportation system that reduces energy usage, pollution and costs of living Increase mobility and accessibility for challenged populations Provide opportunities for placemaking and enhanced character in corridor communities Minimize impacts to low-income and minority communities Minimize neighborhood and property impacts Minimize impacts to historical, cultural and natural resources Support regional planning efforts for a more balanced, multi-modal transportation network in the region Coordinate with existing and planned transit services, including the Silver Line BRT and downtown Streetcar Ensure connectivity to services connecting travelers to destinations within and beyond the study corridor Provide for acceptable traffic operations and parking options in the corridor Enhance connections to non-motorized transportation Define and select transit improvements with strong public, stakeholder and agency support Define and select transit improvements that are cost-effective and financially feasible, both in the short- and long-term Define and select transit improvements that are competitive for Federal Transit Administration funding March

8 Table 2 demonstrates the relationship between project needs and the goals shown in Table 1. Table 2: Project Goals and Project Needs Project Goal Project Need Existing corridor bus service has experienced significant ridership growth and is at capacity during peak times of the day Continued growth in travel demand will need to be accommodated in the corridor Corridor communities and the development community are actively planning transit-supportive land uses Regional planning for the Grand Rapids metropolitan area highlights the need for improved multi-modal travel options and the accompanying potential for economic growth and environmental benefits Transit system planning in the region highlights the need for improved connectivity between highcapacity transit corridors Increase the efficiency, attractiveness and utilization of transit for all users Catalyze and support economic development Contribute to regional equity, sustainability and quality of life Enhance connectivity of the corridor to the regional transportation network X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Develop and select an implementable and communitysupported project X X 1.4 Alternative Development and Evaluation Process In order to evaluate the different transit modes and alignment options and identify a preferred alternative, the Laker Line Study will follow a three-step method. The first step ( Fatal Flaw Analysis ) will entail the assessment of each mode and alignment relative to overall implementation viability. The second step ( Detailed Evaluation ) will assess the modes and alignments that passed the Fatal Flaw Analysis. March

9 The alternative(s) that fares best against the detailed criteria in this second step will be identified as Preferred Alternative(s) and further refined in the third step ( Refine LPA/Small Starts Analysis ). The Locally Preferred Alternative will be identified at the conclusion of the third step. The evaluation criteria associated with each step are a combination of quantitative and qualitative performance measures. The Fatal Flaw phase (which this report documents) has applied fewer and broader measures, including information from previous corridor studies. The Detailed Evaluation phase will apply more and finer performance measures, and the third step will evaluate the Preferred Alternative(s) against federal criteria to determine the Locally Preferred Alternative. This three-step process will result in the identification of an LPA that not only meets locally-identified project purpose and needs, but that is also competitive for federal funding. 2.0 Fatal Flaw Screening The Fatal Flaw Analysis was structured to efficiently identify the alternatives that do not meet the project purpose and need or goals and objectives, and to remove them from further consideration in future phases of the project. This initial level of screening focuses on two areas: Transit modes Alignments The analysis followed a two-step process: first, transit modes were subjected to evaluation; second, the alignments were subjected to evaluation within the context of the successful modes. This initial screening is intended to rely on readily available information and focus on high-level, qualitative assessment of modal and alignment options as a means to evaluate a comparatively large number of alternatives. In cases where there is not sufficient information to dismiss modes or alignments from further consideration, those options were recommended for continuation into the Detailed Definition and Evaluation phase of the project. A series of evaluation criteria were developed to assess each alternative s ability to meet the stated project purpose and need, and its ability to ultimately be competitive for federal funding. Each of the modal and alignment options were evaluated against the criteria and rated as best, good, fair, or poor; the modal and alignment options were rated in relation to each other. In some cases, several sub-criteria supported a mode or alignment option s overall assessment against an evaluation criterion. Sub-criteria are sometimes a mix of the poor to best ranking system in combination with other qualitative or quantitative characteristics; in these cases, the sub-criteria were aggregated and the mode or alignment option was assigned an overall assessment on the poor to best scale. Modes and alignments that received one or more poor ratings were removed from consideration in future phases of alternative definition and evaluation. The evaluation criteria for the Fatal Flaw Analysis and their relationship with the goals of the project are shown in Table 2. March

10 Table 3: Project Goals and Fatal Flaw Evaluation Criteria Project Goals Fatal Flaw Evaluation Criteria Increase the efficiency, attractiveness and utilization of transit for all users Catalyze and support economic development Contribute to regional equity, sustainability and quality of life Enhance connectivity of the corridor to the regional transportation network Develop and select an implementable and communitysupported project Ridership Capacity X Evaluation of Modes Consistency with Local Plans and Policies X X X Economic Development X Environmental Impacts X Capital Costs X X Community Support X X X X X Evaluation of Alignments Land Use X X X Mobility and Connectivity X X Environmental Impacts X X ROW Accommodation X X Community Support X X X X X March

11 3.0 Transit Modes Transit can be provided through a variety of modes; however, not all modes are appropriate for all environments, so the first step of this Fatal Flaw was to identify the modes that are appropriate for the Laker Line corridor and to screen out those that are not. The modes under consideration in this Fatal Flaw are shown in Table 4. Table 4: Transit Modes Mode Typical Characteristics Example Service No Build Mixed traffic operations Frequent (six-minute) peak hour service; 60- Grand Rapids, MI Route 50 minute service on weekends Single (40-foot) low-floor, diesel buses* Stops spacing varies between ¼-mile and more than a mile Stations vary between enclosed facilities (Rapid Central Station) and concrete pads * The Rapid is in the process of shifting its current bus fleet from diesel to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles. While Laker Line vehicle decisions will be made in subsequent phases of this project, it is assumed that any bus vehicles purchases will be consistent with system wide fleet vehicle decisions. BRT Low Substantial corridor-based investment that emulates rail fixed guideway service, including: Kansas City, MO MAX Defined stations Traffic signal priority for transit vehicles Frequent bidirectional service for a substantial part of weekday and weekend days At the discretion of the FTA, any other features that support the transit investment (the majority of which does not operate in a separated right-of-way during peak periods) Typical corridor length of five to 20 miles BRT High Exclusive bus lanes Level boarding at high quality stations Cleveland, OH HealthLine 60-foot buses that have multiple doors, sleek styling, and onboard visual/automated next stop announcements Wide stop spacing (typically one mile) and frequent, seven-day-a-week service Branded service through use of a distinct name, logo, color scheme, bus wrap, and set of visual identifiers Off-board fare payment Signal priority Real time bus arrival information available at stations and through web/mobile apps on desktop computer or smartphone Typical corridor length of five to 20 miles March

12 Mode Typical Characteristics Example Service Streetcar Rail tracks embedded within mixed traffic lanes Overhead electrical system Level boarding at high-quality stations Single car trains Stops spaced ¼ - ⅓ mile apart Frequent service Off-board fare payment Signal priority Real time bus arrival information available at stations and through web/mobile apps on desktop computer or smartphone Typical corridor length of two to five miles Light Rail Exclusive rail corridor or tracks embedded within lane of roadway Overhead electrical system Level boarding at high-quality stations One to four car trains Stops spaced one mile apart Frequent service Off-board fare payment Real time bus arrival information available at stations and through web/mobile apps on desktop computer or smartphone Typical corridor length of 10 to 20 miles Portland, OR Streetcar Minneapolis, MN Hiawatha In this step of the analysis, transit modes were screened based on the following criteria, which are a subset of the criteria identified in Table 3. Table 5: Screening Criteria - Transit Modes Criteria Screening Output Data Sources and References Ridership capacity Consistency with local plans and policies Economic development Environmental impacts Capital costs Community support Quantitative evaluation of each modes ability to efficiently accommodate existing transit ridership within the corridor Qualitative evaluation of each mode s compatibility with local and regional plans and policies (land use and transportation) Qualitative evaluation of each modes ability to catalyze and support economic development within the corridor Qualitative evaluation of each mode s ability to contribute to regional equity, sustainability and quality of life Quantitative analysis of per-mile capital costs that are typical of each mode Qualitative evaluation of mode compatibility from stakeholder interviews, public open houses, online surveys, meetings, and outreach activities Quantitative evaluation of existing transit ridership in the corridor compared with typical transit capacity of each mode Qualitative assessment of how each mode complements local and regional planning efforts (land use and transportation) Qualitative assessment based on demonstrated ability of modes to catalyze economic development in communities across the country Qualitative assessment based on demonstrated ability of modes to contribute to regional equity, sustainability and quality of life Based on average per-mile capital costs of similar projects constructed around the country Qualitative assessment of community support for the alignment based on public involvement activities to date March

13 3.1 Ridership Capacity Screening Methodology The introduction of new transit service would likely increase transit mode share (and ridership) within the Laker Line corridor. In advance of a more detailed ridership forecasting that will happen in future phases of this project, this analysis compares ridership on existing fixed route transit service within the corridor (Route 50) to the typical average weekday ridership modes under evaluation. The ridership capacity screening is done for two reasons. First, it is important that a mode is capable of accommodating existing transit ridership and the anticipated growth in ridership that will be generated by new service. Second, it is also important that ridership is matched to the typical capacity of the mode. Therefore, it is desirable to identify the modes that meet estimated ridership demand without a significant excess of capacity (which results in higher operating and maintenance costs) Data Sources and References Ridership for existing transit service with the Laker Line corridor was sourced from September 2012 ridership data provided by The Rapid. Typical average weekday ridership was calculated from this data. Average weekday ridership for the modes under consideration was drawn from the experiences of transit agencies across the country Screening Results The results of the ridership capacity screening are in Table 6. Table 6: Screening Results: Ridership Capacity Existing Study Corridor Transit Service Mode Alternative Number of Riders per Average Weekday Overall Assessment Route 50* No Build 9,814 *September 2012 average weekday ridership 3.2 Consistency with Local Plans and Policies Screening Methodology BRT Low 500 to 20,000 BRT High 7,000 to 50,000 Fair Streetcar 500 to 20,000 LRT 7,000 to 50,000 Fair A qualitative evaluation of each mode s compatibility with local and regional plans was conducted. These plans (listed below in section3.2.2) were selected because they guide the region s long-term transportation goals and/or their land use goals. Each of these plans was reviewed to determine if the proposed modes for the Laker Line corridor are consistent with their objectives Data Sources and References The following plans were included in the review of local and regional plans. March

14 Ottawa County, West Michigan Transit Linkages Study, September _West_Michigan_Transit_Linkage_Structures_Study_402997_7.pdf Michigan Department of Transportation, 2035 State Long-Range Transportation Plan, Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan, pdf The Rapid, Transit Master Plan, July Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, b.pdf City of Grand Rapids, Green Grand Rapids, City of Grand Rapids, Michigan Street Corridor Plan, City of Grand Rapids, Master Plan, services/planning-department/documents/1606_master%20plan%20summary.pdf Allendale Township, Allendale Charter Township Master Plan, City of Walker, Standale Downtown District Property Analysis Report, ads/2008standaledowntownstudy.pdf City of Walker, 2007 Master Plan Update, pdate.php Tallmadge Township, Tallmadge Township Master Plan, Grand Valley State University, Allendale Campus Master Plan, City of Grand Rapids, Green Grand Rapids, City of Grand Rapids, Michigan Street Corridor Plan, City of Grand Rapids, Master Plan, Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, City of Grand Rapids, Master Plan, Screening Results Table 7 outlines the results of the screening and which modes best support the visions for growth that are described in local plans and policies. March

15 Table 7: Screening Results: Consistency with Local and Regional Plans Mode Alternative Evaluation Fulfills Criterion No Build The existing Route 50 service on Lake Michigan Drive is anticipated to continue, with no planned improvements. Fair BRT Low The Rapid s Transit Master Plan (TMP) recommends BRT on Lake Michigan Drive (Laker Line corridor). The Green Grand Rapids report references the TMP and BRT on Lake Michigan Drive (Laker Line corridor). The GVMC 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan mentions BRT as an alternative to single-occupancy vehicles. The Michigan Street Corridor Plan discusses BRT and mentions BRT light, but not specifically on Lake Michigan Drive. Best BRT High The Rapid s Transit Master Plan (TMP) recommends BRT on Lake Michigan Drive (Laker Line corridor). The Green Grand Rapids report references the TMP and BRT on Lake Michigan Drive (Laker Line corridor). The GVMC 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan mentions BRT as an alternative to single-occupancy vehicles. Streetcar LRT None of the local plans recommend streetcar for the Laker Line corridor. None of the local plans recommend LRT for the Laker Line corridor. Poor Poor 3.3 Economic Development Screening Methodology Each of the modes under consideration for the Laker Line corridor have been previously constructed and operated in communities around the country. Based on case study research, the demonstrated ability of each of the modes to generate economic development is shown below in the screening results. The development context for each of these modes is important to consider. Some of the modes under consideration are more successful in dense, urban areas; others can work well in rural areas. The case studies reviewed for this analysis include the HealthLine BRT in Cleveland, the MAX mixed-traffic BRT in Kansas City, the Portland Streetcar, and Dallas DART light rail system. These example systems have been successful in generating economic development activity because the transit mode and its service characteristics match the land use and development market it serves (e.g., implementing a streetcar in a rural area will not result in development outcomes that rival Portland s Pearl District). The overall economic development assessment compares each mode s typical development context with the existing and projected development context of the Laker Line corridor. March

16 3.3.2 Data Sources and References This analysis relied on case study research of each mode s demonstrated ability to catalyze economic development in communities around the country Screening Results The results of the economic development screening are in Table 8. Table 8: Screening Results: Economic Development Mode Alternative Demonstrated Model Impacts on Development Typical Development Context Overall Assessment for Viability in the Laker Line Corridor No Build / Conventional Bus Poor Suburban, urban Fair BRT Low Fair Suburban, urban BRT High Suburban, urban Best Streetcar Densest urban Poor LRT Best Suburban, urban Fair 3.4 Environmental Impacts Screening Methodology The modal environmental impacts screening is based on how the surrounding neighborhoods and existing transit customers would be impacted by the construction and operation of the various modes under consideration for implementation within the Laker Line corridor. Potential impacts could include air quality, noise, vibration, visual blight (ex. catenary wires or new and unfamiliar vehicles), and traffic congestion during construction. Additionally, consideration is also given to each mode s ability contribute to regional equity, sustainability and quality of life Data Sources and References The potential environmental impacts analysis is based on the typical environmental characteristics of the modes under consideration in the Laker Line corridor, as experienced by other communities around the country Screening Results The results of the screening for environmental impact by mode are presented in Table 9. March

17 Table 9: Screening Results: Potential Environmental Impacts for Mode Alternatives Mode Alternative No Build BRT Low BRT High Streetcar LRT Potential Environmental Impacts The existing Route 50 service on Lake Michigan Drive is anticipated to continue, with no programmed improvements; environmental impacts will not change from the existing conditions. The operation of a BRT Low route is very similar to a conventional bus and the current Route 50. Because of this, environmental impacts such as air quality, noise and vibration, and visual blight are not anticipated. BRT High operates in a dedicated right-of-way for a majority of its alignment. Construction may be necessary to create the dedicated travel lanes and facilities; this may negatively impact those who live near Lake Michigan Drive and those who use it. As this is still a bus-based system, negative impacts to air quality, noise and vibration and visual blight are not anticipated. A BRT High route does efficiently move passengers and may have a positive contribution to the regional equity, sustainability and quality of life. While streetcar systems operate within mixed traffic, construction will be necessary to embed the tracks within the right-of-way. Construction activities may have temporary negative impacts on corridor residents, businesses and visitors. Streetcars can produce additional noise and vibration beyond what a bus or BRT system produces. Additionally, there will be overhead catenary wires to electrify the vehicles, which could be visually displeasing for corridor residents and users. A streetcar system does efficiently move passengers and may have a positive contribution to the regional equity, sustainability and quality of life. An LRT system operates in a dedicated right-of-way. Construction will be necessary for the separated travel lanes, track and facilities; this may negatively impact those who live near Lake Michigan Drive and those who use it. LRT can produce additional noise and vibration above what a bus or BRT system produces. Additionally, there will be overhead catenary wires to electrify the vehicles, which could be visually displeasing for corridor residents and users. An LRT system does efficiently move passengers and may have a positive contribution to the regional equity, sustainability and quality of life. Overall Assessment Best Best Poor Poor March

18 3.5 Capital Costs Screening Methodology The typical capital costs of the modes under evaluation vary significantly. A qualitative assessment of the financial viability of implementing each of the transit modes was based on typical per-mile capital costs Data Sources and References Typical capital costs per mile were sourced from the transit capital projects that are included in the FY 2014 Annual Report of Funding Recommendations for the FTA s New/Small Starts Program. The range and average capital costs shown in Table 10 reflect the costs reported by all of the projects by mode. The capital costs shown for the No Build alternative are drawn from professional experience. For purposes of this evaluation criterion, the BRT Low and BRT High modes were combined into one BRT mode because the information necessary to identify the sample projects as High or Low is unavailable at this time, and the cost difference between the High and Low alternatives is unlikely to be a major differentiator at this level of analysis and evaluation. The broad range of costs demonstrates the variability that can result from design, engineering and construction decisions. This range does, however, still enable a high-level qualitative analysis of which modes are not considered to be financially viable within the context of the Laker Line project Screening Results Table 10: Screening Results: Capital Costs Modes Average Capital Cost per Mile Range of Capital Cost per Mile Overall Assessment No Build <$1,000,000 $500,000 - $1,500,000 Best BRT $17,000,000 $2,000,000 - $63,000,000 Streetcar $50,000,000 $48,000,000 - $53,000,000 Poor Light Rail $262,000,000 $64,000,000 - $964,000,000 Poor 3.6 Community Support Screening Methodology In addition to technical analyses, community input is a critical element in defining and evaluating transit alternatives. Even if an alternative is technically sound and financially feasible, but does not meet the transportation needs and preferences of potential riders, it will not attract users and will not ultimately be a successful investment. In order to attract users and be successful, the Locally Preferred Alternative must reflect the priorities of the study corridor transportation network users, as expressed through community outreach activities Data Sources and References 240 participants attended a series of three open houses that were held on November 21, 2013 at the Grand Valley State University Allendale campus, the Walker Fire Station, and at the Rapid Central Station in downtown Grand Rapids. In addition to informational/educational components, the open houses included a variety of activity stations that solicited participant feedback about issues related to BRT amenities, top transit priorities, key service areas, preferred routes, and corridor characteristics. Comment cards provided March

19 participants with the opportunity to submit general comments, concerns, and feedback. Mode-related comments are categorized by activity station and are listed below. BRT Wish List Participants were given a list of seven BRT elements and asked to indicate their preferred level of investment (light, moderate or comprehensive) for the Laker Line within a defined budget. A summary of the input received is shown in Table 11. Participants opted for a mix of high-cost and low-cost elements, and were most interested in ITS & Technology and core infrastructure elements of the service (vehicles, stations and right-of-way features). Table 11: BRT Wish List Results BRT Wish List: What Level of Investment Do Users Desire $ Light Investment $$ Moderate Investment $$$ Comprehensive Investment BRT Element Investment Element Description ITS & Technology $$$ Desktop and mobile info Runningway $$ Queue jumps and HOV Stations $$ Additional amenities Vehicles $$ High-capacity, multi-door Fare Collection $ Smart swipe cards Service and Route $ Much more frequent buses Branding and Identity $ Existing Branding Comments Cards Only one comment related to modes was received; the commenter suggested that the study consider light rail Screening Results Table 12: Screening Results: Community Support Modes Evaluation Overall Assessment No Build Very limited community support expressed Fair BRT Low Strong community support Best BRT High Strong community support Best Streetcar No specific community support expressed Poor Light Rail Very limited community support expressed Fair March

20 3.7 Summary of Initial Screening: Modes Table 13 summarizes the results of the initial screening of modes. Modes with one or more poor rating will be removed from further definition and evaluation in subsequent phases of the study. As shown in Table 14, the no build, BRT Low and BRT High are recommended for more detailed definition and evaluation in subsequent project phases. Table 13: Summary Results of the Initial Screening of Modes Ridership Capacity Consistency with Local Plans and Policies Economic Development Environmental Impacts Capital Costs Community Support No Build Fair Fair Best Best Fair BRT Low Best Best Best BRT High Fair Best Best Streetcar Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Light Rail Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Fair Table 14: Modes for Detailed Definition and Evaluation of Alternatives Modes No Build BRT Low BRT High Streetcar Light Rail Overall Assessment Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail March

21 4.0 Alignments The Laker Line corridor stretches from the Grand Valley State University campus in Allendale to downtown Grand Rapids. The corridor has been divided into four segments to facilitate the comparison of alignment alternatives along the length of the corridor. The segment boundaries are identified in Table 15 below; maps depicting the corridor segment and alignment alternatives are included as Figures 1 through 5. Table 16 describes the evaluation criteria that were applied to the alignments under consideration. Table 15: Laker Line Corridor Segment Boundaries Corridor Segment Boundaries Alternatives Segment A 68 th Avenue to Linden Drive A1, A2, A3 Segment B Linden Drive to Covell Avenue B1 Segment C Covell Avenue to Lexington Avenue C1, C2, C3 Segment D Lexington Avenue to College Avenue (with potential service east along Michigan Street past College Avenue) D1, D2 Table 16: Screening Criteria: Alignments Criteria Screening Output Data Sources and References Land Use Mobility and Connectivity Environmental Impacts ROW Accommodation Community Support Qualitative evaluation of each alignment's compatibility with existing and future land use and transit service Qualitative evaluation of each alignment's ability to serve major activity generators and transportation facilities (existing and future) within the corridor Qualitative assessment of potential environmental impacts of transit service within the alignments Qualitative analysis of ability to accommodate modes within the existing right-of-way Qualitative evaluation of alignment compatibility from stakeholder interviews, public open houses, online surveys, meetings, and outreach activities Qualitative assessment of the degree to which transit service within each alignment is compatible with existing and future land use Qualitative assessment based on proximity of each alignment to existing and future major activity generators and transportation facilities within the corridor Qualitative assessment based on anticipated construction activity and transit operations impacts along the alignments Based on typical cross section for modes and an assessment of the available right-of-way along the corridor Qualitative assessment of community support for the alignment based on public involvement activities to date March

22 Figure 1: Laker Corridor Segment Map Overview March

23 Figure 2: Laker Line Corridor: Segment A Detail March

24 Figure 3: Laker Line Corridor: Segment B Detail March

25 Figure 4: Laker Line Corridor: Segment C Detail March

26 Figure 5: Laker Line Corridor: Segment D Detail March

27 4.1 Land Use Screening Methodology Several local and regional plans were selected for review in preparation for screening the alignments against this criterion because they outline land use goals and plans throughout the corridor. Each of these plans was reviewed to determine if the proposed alignments for the Laker Line corridor are consistent with the land use objectives of these plans. Evaluation was done by segment, rather than the whole corridor, to highlight differences between the alignment alternatives Data Sources and References The following plans were specifically included in the review of land use in local and regional plans. Allendale Township, Allendale Charter Township Master Plan, City of Walker, Standale Downtown District Property Analysis Report, ads/2008standaledowntownstudy.pdf City of Walker, 2007 Master Plan Update, pdate.php Tallmadge Township, Tallmadge Township Master Plan, Grand Valley State University, Allendale Campus Master Plan, City of Grand Rapids, Green Grand Rapids, City of Grand Rapids, Michigan Street Corridor Plan, City of Grand Rapids, Master Plan, Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, City of Grand Rapids, Master Plan, Screening Results The results of the screening of alignments for consistency with land use plans are presented in Table 17. March

28 Table 17: Screening Results: Alignments Consistent with Land Use Plans Segment Evaluation Fulfills Criterion A1 Current land uses include comparatively high-density student residential uses west of 48 th Street, with additional residential developments in the planning stages. These developments are typically designed as subdivisions with limited points of access to connector roadways (for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians) and include an abundant parking supply. North/South Campus Drive runs through the middle of GVSU s Allendale campus, and provides connections between on-campus buildings, as well as connectivity to the region through access to Lake Michigan Drive. In addition to institutional uses, the surrounding land uses along this alignment include open space/recreational facilities and surface parking lots. The Allendale Campus Master Plan supports Laker Village Drive connecting to a campus village north of M-45; supports efficient use of land; and supports decrease in parking ratio per person. While the density, diversity and type of land uses on the GVSU Allendale campus are transit-supportive, the design of adjacent residential developments (curvilinear roadways with limited access points) are not particularly conducive to rapid transit service. A2 North/South Campus Drive runs through the middle of GVSU s Allendale campus, and provides connections between on-campus buildings, as well as connectivity to the region through access to Lake Michigan Drive. In addition to institutional uses, the surrounding land uses along this alignment include open space/recreational facilities and surface parking lots. The Allendale Campus Master Plan supports Laker Village Drive connecting to a campus village north of M-45; supports efficient use of land; and supports decrease in parking ratio per person. March

29 Segment Evaluation Fulfills Criterion A3 This alternative extends as far west as downtown Allendale/68 th Avenue, which is characterized by a mixture of big box and smallerscale commercial uses along Lake Michigan Drive and low-density residential uses along perpendicular roadways. Significant areas of open space abut Lake Michigan Drive. Existing land uses are unlikely to support the density or intensity of development necessary to support rapid transit investment in the short- or mid-term. North/South Campus Drive runs through the middle of GVSU s Allendale campus, and provides connections between on-campus buildings, as well as connectivity to the region through access to Lake Michigan Drive. In addition to institutional uses, the surrounding land uses along this alignment include open space/recreational facilities and surface parking lots. The Allendale Charter Township Master Plan calls for development that can be best served by transit. The Plan advocates for development of Allendale Town Center on M-45. The Allendale Campus Master Plan supports Laker Village Drive connecting to a campus village north of M-45; supports efficient use of land; and supports decrease in parking ratio per person. Poor B1 Land uses in this segment vary between protected open spaces, big box and smaller scale retail, institutions, and suburban residential subdivisions. Tallmadge Township Master Plan promotes clustered housing and commercial development, however, overall message is that the Township would like to remain rural in character. The City of Walker 2007 Master Plan Update supports transitoriented development along Lake Michigan Drive. Standale Downtown District Property Report calls for dense, mixed use development at the Four Corners, the intersection of Lake Michigan Drive and Cummings Avenue. Best March

30 Segment Evaluation Fulfills Criterion C1 The land use along Lake Michigan Drive to Fulton Street is comparatively higher-density residential uses interspersed with smaller-scale commercial uses. Seward Avenue borders multiple surface parking lots and underutilized parcels that are planned for significant redevelopment. Winter and Summer Avenues are a onepair that offer access into the heart of planned redevelopment areas. The setbacks, scale, and type of planned and existing uses in this segment are transit-supportive. Recent positive redevelopment and business investment momentum within this segment can be leveraged by rapid transit investment. Land uses transition to commercial and institutional at the GVSU Pew Campus. The GVMC Non-Motorized Transportation Plan supports mixed-use zoning and transit-oriented development, specifically increasing development density. The City of Grand Rapids Master Plan includes goals to improve and expand transit service; coordinate land use and transportation planning. Best C2 The land use along Lake Michigan Drive between Covell and Seward Avenues is almost entirely single-family residential, a development pattern which is typically considered to be incompatible with rapid transit investment. The GVMC Non-Motorized Transportation Plan supports mixed-use zoning and transit-oriented development, specifically increasing development density. The City of Grand Rapids Master Plan includes goals to improve and expand transit service; coordinate land use and transportation planning. Poor C3 Development along Bridge Street within this segment is residential with some small-scale commercial land uses. The primarily residential nature of this segment is incompatible with rapid transit service. The GVMC Non-Motorized Transportation Plan supports mixed-use zoning and transit-oriented development, specifically increasing development density. The City of Grand Rapids Master Plan includes goals to improve and expand transit service; coordinate land use and transportation planning. Poor March

31 Segment Evaluation Fulfills Criterion D1 The character of Michigan Street is most strongly influenced by the presence of major medical and educational institutions. The density, scale and type of land uses makes this segment transit-supportive. The GVMC Non-Motorized Transportation Plan supports mixed-use zoning and transit-oriented development, specifically increasing development density. The City of Grand Rapids Master Plan includes goals to improve and expand transit service; coordinate land use and transportation planning. The Michigan Street corridor plan generally discusses BRT services and land uses that promote transit ridership. D2 The land use between the Van Andel Arena and The Rapid Central Station is mostly low-rise commercial with some industrial, residential and open space uses. This comparatively lower-density development pattern, in combination with underutilized parcels that are ripe for redevelopment, contributes to a situation in which rapid transit investment can be leveraged to support both existing land uses and development potential. The GVMC Non-Motorized Transportation Plan supports mixed-use zoning and transit-oriented development, specifically increasing development density. The City of Grand Rapids Master Plan includes goals to improve and expand transit service; coordinate land use and transportation planning. 4.2 Mobility and Connectivity Screening Methodology Successful transit service not only transports riders between two points, it efficiently connects riders to both major and minor activity generators within a corridor. An analysis of major and minor activity generators within the Laker Line corridor (cultural facilities, educational and historic institutions, recreational attractions) shows that these destinations tend to be clustered in either Allendale or downtown Grand Rapids, and within these clusters are often within walking distance of each other. These destinations are, however, concentrated on either end of the corridor. This analysis was designed to determine whether any of the alignments under consideration serve a significantly greater number of activity generators than the other alignments under consideration Data Sources and References The locations of the region s major and minor activity generators were identified and are shown in Figure 6 and Table 18. March

32 Figure 6: Major and Minor Activity Generators in the Laker Line Corridor March