here - Publictransit.us

Transcription

Metropolitan Affairs Coalition
SPEEDLIN K -
A Rapid Transit Option for Greater Detroit
Final Report
in association with
Avance Communications
June 2001
Final Report
SPEEDLINK -
A Rapid Transit Option for Greater Detroit
in association with
Avance Communications
June 2001
© Metropolitan Affairs Coalition
Permission is granted by Metropolitan Affairs Coalition to cite portions of this report, with proper
attribution.
The first source attribution must be MAC, Metropolitan Affairs Coalition;
subsequently, MAC is sufficient. Reprinting in any form must include the report's full title page.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... ES-1
1.0
Introduction.......................................................................................................................1-1
2.0
Stakeholder Participation
2.1 First Round ..................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Second Round .............................................................................................................2-2
3.0
Transportation Needs and Challenges
3.1 Demographics and Employment .............................................................................3-1
3.2 Travel............................................................................................................................3-3
3.3 Transit...........................................................................................................................3-5
3.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................3-9
4.0
BRT Work Elsewhere
4.1 Curitiba, Brazil Model................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Federal Transit Administration Initiative...............................................................4-1
4.3 Implications for SpeedLink.......................................................................................4-3
5.0
BRT Versus Other Modes of Rapid Transit
5.1 General Characteristics and Performance Characteristics....................................5-1
5.2 Key Elements...............................................................................................................5-3
5.3 Summary......................................................................................................................5-5
6.0
Feasibility Conclusion
6.1 Feasibility.....................................................................................................................6-1
7.0
Conceptual Network
7.1 Conceptual Network Criteria. ..................................................................................7-1
7.1.1 SpeedLink Corridor Mobility Objectives.......................................................7-1
7.1.2 SpeedLink Corridor Design Objectives..........................................................7-1
7.1.3 SpeedLink Corridor Evaluation Criteria........................................................7-2
7.2 Preliminary Conceptual Network............................................................................7-2
7.3 Network Refinement..................................................................................................7-7
7.3.1 Preliminary Corridor Groups..........................................................................7-7
7.3.2 Identification of Missing Corridors.................................................................7-7
7.3.3 Freeway SpeedLink Corridors.........................................................................7-8
7.4 Final SpeedLink Conceptual Network....................................................................7-8
7.4.1 Corridor/Network Criteria..............................................................................7-8
Page TC-1
Table of Contents
8.0
Ridership
8.1 Peer Comparisons.......................................................................................................8-1
8.2 Incremental Logit Model...........................................................................................8-2
8.3 Summary......................................................................................................................8-2
9.0
Cost
9.1 SpeedLink Design and Performance Assumptions...............................................9-1
9.2 SpeedLink Line and Service Characteristics...........................................................9-2
9.3 SpeedLink Operating Costs and Net Operating Subsidy.....................................9-3
9.4 SpeedLink Capital Costs............................................................................................9-4
9.5 SpeedLink Pilot Project Costs...................................................................................9-4
10.0 Starter Line
10.1 Draft Starter Line Selection Criteria.....................................................................10-1
10.2 Short List Scoring....................................................................................................10-1
10.3 Implementation Potential and Demonstration Criteria....................................10-2
10.4 Recommended Starter Line...................................................................................10-3
11.0 Starter Line Phasing Plan
11.1 Implementation of the Starter Line by Segments...............................................11-1
12.0 Organizational Issues
12.1 Major Organizational Issues. ................................................................................12-1
12.2 SpeedLink Implementation and Operational Requirements...........................12-1
12.3 Regional Versus Municipal and County.............................................................12-2
12.4 Regulatory Issues....................................................................................................12-2
12.5 How Others Have Started Rapid Transit?..........................................................12-3
12.6 Organizational Options for SpeedLink. ..............................................................12-3
12.7 Organizational Options for Implementation......................................................12-4
12.8 Summary..................................................................................................................12-5
13.0 Funding
13.1 Funding Requirements. .........................................................................................13-1
13.2 Funding Options.....................................................................................................13-1
13.3 Summary..................................................................................................................13-2
14.0 Next Steps
Page TC-2
Table of Contents
List of Figures
1.0
Introduction
Figure 1-1: SEMCOG Region. .........................................................................................1-1
3.0
Figure 3-1: Residential Transit Orientation Index – 2000 Greater Detroit................3-1
Figure 3-2: Total Employment – 2000 - Greater Detroit..............................................3-2
Figure 3-3: Service & Retail Employment – 2000 - Greater Detroit. ..........................3-2
Figure 3-4: Potential Demand – 2000 - Greater Detroit...............................................3-3
Figure 3-5: Total Trips – 2025 - Greater Detroit............................................................3-3
Figure 3-6: Average Weekday Ridership – DDOT - Greater Detroit. .......................3-5
Figure 3-7: Average Weekday Ridership – SMART - Greater Detroit......................3-6
Figure 3-8: Peak Service Frequency – DDOT - Greater Detroit. ................................3-6
Figure 3-9: Peak Service Frequency – SMART - Greater Detroit. ..............................3-7
4.0
BRT Work Elsewhere
Figure 4-1: BRT Demonstration and Participating Projects........................................4-1
5.0
Figure 5-1: General Characteristics of Rapid Transit Modes. ....................................5-1
Figure 5-2: Performance Characteristics of Rapid Transit Modes.............................5-2
Figure 5-3: Key Elements of Rapid Transit Modes......................................................5-4
Figure 5-4: Four Basic BRT Configurations. .................................................................5-5
6.0
Feasibility Conclusion
Figure 6.1: SpeedLink Attributes....................................................................................6-1
7.0
Conceptual Network
Figure 7-1: Preliminary SpeedLink Network. ..............................................................7-4
Figure 7-2: Preliminary SpeedLink Network with ½ Mile Buffer.............................7-4
Figure 7-3: Residential and Employment Concentrations..........................................7-5
Figure 7-4: Travel Demand..............................................................................................7-5
Figure 7-5: Traffic Volume...............................................................................................7-6
Figure 7-6: Transit Ridership. .........................................................................................7-6
Figure 7-7: Major Activity Centers.................................................................................7-7
Figure 7-8: Final SpeedLink Conceptual Network. .....................................................7-8
Page TC-3
Table of Contents
List of Tables
4.0
BRT Work Elsewhere
Table 4-1: BRT Demonstration Project Attributes........................................................4-1
7.0
Conceptual Network
Table 7-1: Mobility Criteria Evaluation Matrix. ...........................................................7-3
Table 7-2: SpeedLink Network. ......................................................................................7-9
8.0
Ridership
Table 8-1: Peer Comparisons...........................................................................................8-1
Table 8-2: SpeedLink Ridership Estimates....................................................................8-3
9.0
Cost
Table 9-1: SpeedLink Line Characteristics....................................................................9-2
Table 9-2: SpeedLink Service Characteristics. ..............................................................9-3
Table 9-3: SpeedLink Operating Costs and Net Operating Subsidy.........................9-3
Table 9-4: SpeedLink Capital Costs. ..............................................................................9-4
Table 9-5: SpeedLink Pilot Project Costs.......................................................................9-4
10.0 Starter Line
Table 10-1: Short List Scoring........................................................................................10-1
Table 10-2: Short List Ranking......................................................................................10-2
Table 10-3: Criteria Evaluation for the Three Short-Listed SpeedLink Lines........10-3
Table 12-1: Implementation Options. ..........................................................................12-1
Page TC-4
Executive Summary
The Metropolitan Affairs Coalition (MAC) has served as a unique regional coalition of public and
private leaders bringing together business, labor, and government to solve area-wide problems
affecting the economic vitality and quality of life of Southeast Michigan. MAC serves as a catalyst
in addressing regional concerns and facilitating the design of cooperative solutions that improve
government efficiency and enhance the economic development potential of Greater Detroit.
Public transportation has become a priority for MAC because of its importance to a mobile labor
force and a strong economy, as well as its vital service to seniors, persons with disabilities, and
transit-dependent populations. MAC is aware that an enhanced public transportation system is
essential in order to place Greater Detroit in a better position to compete with transit-rich
metropolitan areas throughout the United States for business, jobs, tourism, conventions, and
desirability as a place to live, work, and raise a family.
Due to the growing traffic congestion and lengthening trips in the region, other transportation
alternatives must be offered outside the private automobile to provide effective public mobility.
MAC, in cooperation with Detroit Renaissance and the Detroit Regional Chamber collectively
decided to address these issues themselves by forming the “SpeedLink Collaborative”. With
growing interest in Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) from the Federal Transit
Administration, the “SpeedLink Collaborative” has opened the
debate on BRT for Detroit. BRT offers many of the features of light
rail, such as vehicle movement unimpeded by traffic signals and
congestion, fare collection prior to boarding, quick passenger loading
and unloading, and efficient, reliable service.
This growing interest in Bus Rapid Transit at both a federal and local
level was initially spurred by the system currently operated in
Curitiba, Brazil. The Curitiba model, which was well explained in the
MAC concept paper, “SpeedLink - A Train on Tires,” describes also
how this type of system might be adapted to Metropolitan Detroit.
There are also other BRT examples throughout the United States,
Canada, Europe, and Australia that can also provide insights for
Metro Detroit.
MAC commissioned a study to determine the feasibility of implementing SpeedLink in the Detroit
Region.
Stakeholder Involvement
An important part of the SpeedLink project is the building of awareness of this new form of Rapid
Transit as well as understanding the history and perceptions of transit that face the Detroit region.
Thus, a series of interviews were undertaken with a selection of stakeholders in the region to get
an accurate picture of the key issues facing the Detroit Region and the perception of current and
future transit opportunities and concerns.
ES-1
Executive Summary
One of the key concerns of the stakeholders was the characteristics of any type of SpeedLink
service. In order for SpeedLink to succeed in Metro Detroit it has to be cost effective and set itself
apart from the current transit services being offered in Detroit. Any proposed SpeedLink service
needs to offer many new amenities not provided by the current transit service. These include
“high-tech” vehicles, off-vehicle fare payment, well-designed shelters that offer relief from the
elements, signal priority, exclusive lanes, and improved station and vehicle security. Furthermore,
SpeedLink will need to be sensitive to its customer base and “provide reliable service day-in and
day-out.” The network design should take in to account the suburb-to-suburb travel patterns in
the region as well as the urban-to-suburb commute aspect.
There were also several concerns raised regarding the organizational and funding needs of
SpeedLink, as well as, the existing operators. Most stakeholders indicated that SpeedLink should
not replace the existing transit service on a corridor, but supplement the local service. Also, there
was a general consensus that the existing providers will also need to increase the feeder services to
the SpeedLink corridors. As pointed out by the majority of the stakeholders, it will be imperative
that SpeedLink, along with the existing transit services, be a seamless system in every regard no
matter who is operating the service.
The Transit Needs and Challenges assessment methodology was developed for the study of
SpeedLink feasibility and the possible development of a conceptual network, as well as
identification of a starter line. The methodology for this study encompassed three principal
elements:
•
•
•
Demographics and Employment
Travel Demand
Current Transit Use
Metropolitan Detroit has an increasingly dispersed pattern of residential and employment
densities, not unlike many other metropolitan areas. Downtown Detroit is no longer the dominant
employment and activity center of the region, although a number of initiatives are under way to
reverse this trend. The traditional urban core and major corridors still retain many of the
necessary land use elements conducive to higher levels of transit use.
Metro Detroit shares many similarities with other regions that have recently implemented Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) in terms of travel demand patterns and
residential and employment densities. In many ways Metro Detroit is ahead of many new
BRT/LRT initiatives in having stronger transit supportive land use patterns. Even in many older
suburban areas of Metropolitan Detroit, the patterns still reflect better street access and stronger
pedestrian activity than other areas implementing rapid transit initiatives around the United
States.
In conclusion, the transit needs in Metro Detroit represent a combination of strong transit
orientation in the traditional urban core and corridors together with increasingly automobile
dependent suburbs. These transit needs, while not supporting a traditional center city-dominated
transit network structure (i.e., central hub-and-spoke), do support a multiple hub network of both
ES-2
Executive Summary
regional radial-crosstown services together with short-distance community shuttles where transit
supportive land uses are not present. Such a network represents a rational integration of the two
prevailing current transit networks (i.e., DDOT and SMART) with the hub-to-hub connections
along major corridors served by higher speed and more frequent rapid transit services (e.g.,
SpeedLink). These demand patterns and network structure are not inconsistent with those of
recent or upcoming BRT and LRT projects that have or are being successfully undertaken
elsewhere.
BRT Work Elsewhere
With all the success that Curitiba has seen with its BRT program, the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) has encouraged American cities to consider, analyze, and evaluate the
benefits of implementing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as a way of meeting their rapid transit needs.
The following map shows the FTA Demonstration and Participating BRT projects.
The development of BRT proposals
from various transit systems and
metropolitan areas has continued to
increase with each month. The pattern
and volume of travel demand,
demographic
and
employment
characteristics, nature of street and
freeway corridors, and existing transit
services in these various regions
planning and operating BRT services
run the entire range from Chicago and
Los Angeles to Hartford and Eugene.
Clearly, Metropolitan Detroit falls
within this range even considering its
unique characteristics.
BRT Demonstration and Participating Projects
A second aspect of these BRT initiatives
is the desire to move ahead with transit and BRT. These regions have made collective decisions to
invest public funds and energy in BRT, each for their own reasons. The SpeedLink Feasibility Study
is a first step in making such a collective decision in Metropolitan Detroit.
The Rapid Transit corridor mode choices available for consideration include the traditional
commuter rail (CR), heavy rail transit (HRT), and light rail transit (LRT) and two newer options,
automated guideway transit (AGT) and bus rapid transit (BRT).
The evidence from initial BRT startups in the United States and more mature systems overseas
supports the finding that BRT meets the basic performance requirements of Rapid Transit and is
considered by existing and potential riders as a completely separate “brand” of service. Daniel
McFadden, Nobel-winning economist, in testing consumer choice theory found that users
perceived the time and cost of rail rapid transit (BART) and high quality bus service (TransBay
ES-3
Executive Summary
expresses) to be equivalent with all things being equal. In Los Angeles almost half of the initial
ridership increase of 30 percent on its BRT has come from new customers, even without exclusive
lanes or right-of-way (achieving the “all things equal” is part of their next phase).
In conclusion, Bus Rapid Transit is “Rapid Transit” if provided with equal priority and attributes
to rail rapid transit (the “all things being equal” ).
SpeedLink Feasibility Conclusion
Metro Detroit is a region without a major center city employment focus. Downtown Detroit
continues its effort to attract business and is experiencing recent success. However, travel will
likely remain highly dispersed throughout the region, with continuing development in several key
nodes. This dispersal of employment will have the positive impact on transit of creating demand
for services in both directions. The focus of development at particular nodes will also help create
the densities needed to support both rapid transit and necessary hubs supporting an integrated
network of services. The residential and employment densities along major corridors are not
unlike those of many new and planned BRT and LRT lines in other metropolitan areas. As well,
current transit ridership on several Metro Detroit corridors is comparable to that of BRT and LRT
lines elsewhere in the United States.
Thus, it is concluded that a SpeedLink network is feasible for Metro Detroit provided that it has
the right combination of attributes to attract riders from both new and existing market segments.
SpeedLink Attributes
Simple Route
Layout
Integrated
Transit
Network
Frequent
Headways
Station
Stops
Less Frequent
Stops
Exclusive
Lanes
Level
Boarding and
Alighting
”All things need to be equal”
with rail rapid transit for success!
Multiple-Door
Boarding/
Alighting
Signal Priority
Off- Vehicle
Fare
Payment
Coordinated
Land Use
Planning
Improved
Customer
Experience
Color - coded
Vehicles and
Stations
Higher
Capacity
Vehicles
ES-4
Executive Summary
Conceptual Network
Objectives and criteria were developed to assist with the identification and assessment of
candidate corridors that would comprise the conceptual SpeedLink network and to assist in
identifying Starter Line(s). The objectives and criteria were broken into two categories: mobility
needs and corridor design.
Corridor Mobility Objectives
Corridor Design Objectives
Coordinate with transit supportive land uses
• Integrate with existing transit supportive land uses
and foster development of short and longer term
transit supportive land use
Compatible roadway or right-of-way physical
characteristics
• Opportunity for full or partial exclusive lanes
• Opportunity for optimal station location
Serve high travel demand routes with market opportunities
• High population and employment densities
• High travel demand and traffic volumes
• Presence of major activity centers
• High current transit ridership
Compatible with use of transit priority measures
• Exclusive lanes
• Traffic signal priority
High level of network integration
• Consistent with development of regional intermodal
network and provides high level of trip connectivity
with DDOT & SMART network
High accessibility to stations
• Positive walking environment
• Strong transit network transfer opportunities
• Potential for development of Park-and-Ride
access
The final SpeedLink conceptual network includes some 11 corridors in alphabetical order and can
be in seen in the following map:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8 Mile
Big Beaver/Metro Parkway
Fort Street
Grand River Avenue
Gratiot Avenue
Greenfield Road
M-59
Michigan Avenue
Telegraph Road
Van Dyke Avenue
Woodward Avenue
Final SpeedLink Conceptual Network
ES-5
Executive Summary
Ridership
The SpeedLink ridership estimation process was intended to provide order-of-magnitude
ridership estimates with the intention of actually testing market feasibility as part of one or more
starter line projects. Two relatively straightforward techniques were each used to estimate the
corridor ridership and provide a range of potential ridership: peer comparison and an incremental
logit formulation.
A range of results were calculated with the lower end produced by the logit model and the middle
and higher estimates from actual peer performance. These estimates can be updated and refined
by SEMCOG once they complete their new model with the transit mode split component for the
Detroit Region.
The following ridership estimates are based on individual corridors and do not
reflect the positive synergistic impacts of a network of SpeedLink services, nor
do they show the concurrent increases in ridership that corridor local services
will also likely experience. Thus, these figures should be considered baseline
conservative estimates and will need refinement when SEMCOG’s new regional
mode split model is completed late in 2001.
SpeedLink Ridership Estimates
Current Transit
Ridership
SpeedLink Line
8 Mile
Corridor Ridership Estimate Basis
Logit Model
Peer Rev Hour
Productivity
Peer Rev Mile
Productivity
Peer Route Mile
Productivity
4,177
5,800
17,900
36,200
14,100
409
1,200
19,600
23,800
9,300
3,181
3,800
17,300
25,300
9,900
Grand River
13,401
15,700
19,400
30,100
11,700
Gratiot
12,735
14,900
17,900
29,000
11,300
9,750
12,500
21,400
28,600
11,100
1
Fort
Greenfield
M-59
Michigan
Telegraph
Van Dyke
Woodward
94
300
20,100
35,800
14,000
3,744
4,700
16,100
29,000
11,300
640
1,300
31,500
43,400
16,900
6,560
8,000
18,900
29,200
11,400
18,041
21,200
22,900
35,300
13,800
Cost
The development of operating and capital costs for the conceptual SpeedLink network and
candidate starter lines requires that the attributes for SpeedLink be formalized. Based on
discussions with the Task Force and stakeholders the following has been proposed for SpeedLink.
ES-6
Executive Summary
Right-of-Way Assumptions
• Exclusive lane arterial operation
• Signal priority at all intersections
• No new grade separations or existing
roadbed reconstruction
Station Assumptions
• Lighted and heated stations
• “Real-time” passenger information
• Ticket vending machines
• New joint-use park-and-ride lots
Service Operation Assumptions
• Service performance estimated based on
exclusive lane arterial operation
• Operation of low-floor articulated
vehicles
Vehicle Assumptions
• Low-floor single-articulated vehicles
• Hybrid vehicle power
• New maintenance facility assumed
• No automatic vehicle guidance
proposed
“Hold Harmless” Assumptions
• Assumed that DDOT and SMART
continue to operate current service or
reallocate saved resources to provide
additional connecting service
• Assumed that only net gains in
operating revenue attributed to
SpeedLink Starter Line
• DDOT/SMART finances unchanged
Operating Cost Assumptions
• Operating cost per service hour of $100
assumed
• Includes additional facility and
articulated fleet maintenance
• Includes additional
DDOT/SMART/ADA enhancements
(25% of total)
The SpeedLink Line and Service Characteristics include:
•
•
•
•
SpeedLink would operate 7-days per week from approximately 4 am to 1 am.
SpeedLink would operate at 5-minute intervals during peak weekday periods and
every 10-minutes on weekends and during weekday midday periods. Evening service
would operate every 20-minutes.
Stations would be spaced at all major transfer points with DDOT and SMART services,
at major activity centers, and at connecting points with other SpeedLink lines.
Service operating speeds would be based on improvements over current bus service
running times with assumed 15 percent terminal recovery time.
ES-7
Executive Summary
The SpeedLink Starter Line Project Costs by line are estimated to be:
SpeedLink Line
2-Year Operating
Subsidy
Capital Costs
Total Pilot Project
Costs
8 Mile
$15,292,000
$170,900,000
$186,192,000
$17,944,000
$118,300,000
$136,244,000
Fort
$16,214,000
$144,100,000
$160,314,000
Grand River
$20,960,000
$159,300,000
$180,260,000
Gratiot
$19,274,000
$146,800,000
$166,074,000
Greenfield
$22,134,000
$154,000,000
$176,134,000
M-59
$16,406,000
$149,900,000
$166,306,000
Michigan
$14,374,000
$149,800,000
$164,174,000
Telegraph
$28,142,000
$217,800,000
$245,942,000
Van Dyke
$18,476,000
$155,700,000
$174,176,000
Woodward
$25,492,000
$188,000,000
$213,492,000
$30,000,000
$30,000,000
$1,754,600,000
$1,969,308,000
Maintenance Facility
TOTAL
$214,708,000
SpeedLink Starter Line
The starter line or lines are the initial elements of the SpeedLink network to be implemented. They
are usually selected on the basis of their likelihood of success, ease of implementation, and
affordability, as well as their importance as a foundation upon which to build the remainder of the
network. The starter line(s) selection followed a three-step process that was built from the
conceptual network criteria previously developed followed by assessing short-term
implementation and demonstration testing criteria.
1. Develop short list candidates based on corridor mobility and design criteria
2. Fast implementation potential (3-5 years)
• Projects can be implemented with resources that can acquired in the near term
• Willingness of jurisdiction(s) to partner on SpeedLink Starter Line
3. Opportunity to test in variety of settings
• Minimum SpeedLink design standards achievable
• Serves variety of travel market groups
• Tests variety of transit priority measures
• Tests in geographically diverse areas
• Potential to achieve broad public and political support
• Allows testing of individual lines and network connectivity
ES-8
Executive Summary
The results of the short list scoring follow:
SpeedLink Corridor
Composite Score
Woodward
91%
Gratiot
77%
Grand River
76%
Greenfield
67%
Michigan
62%
Van Dyke
59%
Fort
56%
8 Mile
50%
Telegraph
47%
M-59
42%
Big Beaver/Metro Pkwy
42%
SHORT LIST
Woodward, Gratiot and Grand River were then each individually assessed for their fast
implementation potential and the opportunity to test SpeedLink in a variety of settings.
Woodward Avenue was selected as the preliminary recommendation for the SpeedLink Starter
Line because it provides the best balance of high residential and employment densities and the
greatest variation in market segments, has the largest number of major activity centers, provides
many opportunities to test transit priority, serves a variety of urban and suburban settings, has
existing corridor redevelopment activity, provides the maximum connectivity with the existing
DDOT and SMART bus services, and can help mitigate the I-75 freeway reconstruction work in the
near term.
Jefferson
Cadillac Square
Temple
Adams
Mack
Canfield
Warren
New Center
Grand Blvd
Euclid
Owen
Trowbridge
Buena Vista
Manchester
Savannah
McNichols
7 Mile
State Fair
8 Mile
9 Mile
Channing
Woodward Hgts
Zoo
11 Mile
13 Mile/Coolidge
12 Mile
14 Mile
Maple
16 Mile/Big Beaver
Downtown Pontiac
South Blvd
Woodward Avenue
Organizational Issues
One of the key implementation issues of the SpeedLink starter line relates to the “who’s going to
develop and oversee SpeedLink, who’s going to operate it, and who’s going to fund it.” It was not
the intention of this study to develop and/or recommend any particular organizational model for
transit in Metro Detroit, but rather to identify the key issues and requirements that SpeedLink will
ES-9
Executive Summary
require organizationally in order for an informed decision to be made in the larger context beyond
just SpeedLink’s technical needs.
The organizational assessment focused on three areas:
•
SpeedLink implementation and operational requirements – the agency must be able to
accept funding, enter into agreements with public and private entities, and have the
power to design, build, and operate SpeedLink.
•
Metropolitan Detroit’s mobility needs transcend both municipal and county
jurisdictional boundaries and existing DDOT and SMART boundaries. The SpeedLink
element of the integrated network of services is a regional strategy.
•
The organization will need to comply with a complex federal, state, and local regulatory
environment.
The organizational options for SpeedLink vary somewhat depending upon the short term versus
the longer term due to the need to develop, implement, and operate/manage a starter line(s)
versus an entire network of SpeedLink lines. To this end, organizational options are simply
identified for consideration under both time frames.
Near Term (Starter Line(s))
•
Regional Transportation Coordinating Council (RTCC)
– Cannot operate service directly in-house
– Requires third party operation (public or private)
– RTCC has not been used previously on a project like SpeedLink
•
DDOT and/or SMART
– One or both could implement and operate SpeedLink in-house or with third
party contract
– Both would have to acquire technical expertise for a SpeedLink-type
implementation
– Both are focused on their respective service areas and SpeedLink will require a
regional perspective
•
New regional authority
– Starting a brand new transit service at the same time would be a challenge
– Depending on enabling legislation, could implement SpeedLink in-house or
with third party
Long Term (Full SpeedLink Network)
•
– Possible oversight for new SpeedLink entity
– Does not have mechanism for long term funding for SpeedLink
ES-10
Executive Summary
•
DDOT and/or SMART
– Neither has the regional funding capability needed for implementing SpeedLink
– Neither has the regional operating and implementation planning authority
•
– Assumes availability of long term dedicated funding
– Likely ability needed to accept federal and state funds
– Operating and implementation planning authority required
While there are many technical challenges to making SpeedLink a reality for Metro Detroit
customers, the more difficult may be solving the organization issues. The successful resolution of
the organizational issues and the establishment of an effective structure for transit will likely be the
most important element in the future of SpeedLink in the region.
Funding Issues
SpeedLink will need short-term funds to cover the capital and operating costs of the starter line(s)
demonstration. There are two possible options for funding the starter line(s):
•
•
Possible one-time grant covering portion of demonstration cost
Allocation from new long term dedicated funding source
These funds will need to be available quickly to implement a starter line(s) within the next 3-5
years as desired by the Task Force and the Stakeholders. Neither of the existing transit operators
have any surplus funds available for SpeedLink. In fact, one of the basic assumptions in the
costing is that neither operator will suffer a negative financial impact from SpeedLink.
Once the starter line(s) is successfully demonstrated (if not sooner), there will be a critical need to
secure a long term source of funds to build and operate the full SpeedLink network and make
necessary improvements in other transit services that comprise the integrated system.
There are three principal sources of funds outside of operating revenues: federal, state, and local.
The federal opportunities include Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as well as FHWA and
HUD funds. The FTA funds in particular require significant local/state matching funds. New
state and local fund sources will be needed to provide local match for federal capital funds and to
provide for the required operating subsidy.
A long term dedicated funding source for both SpeedLink and the necessary enhancement of the
other elements in the integrated network of transit services is imperative to moving ahead.
ES-11
Executive Summary
Next Steps
The conclusion of the SpeedLink Feasibility Study with the identification of a short list of
candidate starter line(s) begins the “next steps” process. The following list covers the general steps
that will be involved in moving forward with a SpeedLink starter line:
•
Public comment – stakeholders
(Months 1-3)
•
Coordination with SEMCOG – finalize starter line
(Months 1-6)
•
Address organization and funding issues
(Months 1-24)
•
Decide on implementation option
(Months 24-27)
•
Select design, construction, and operations entities
(Months 27-30)
•
Complete implementation
(Months 30-54)
•
Initiate SpeedLink starter line
(Months 54-60)
ES-12
1.0 Introduction
The Metropolitan Affairs Coalition has served as a unique regional coalition of public and private
leaders bringing together business, labor, and government to solve area-wide problems affecting
the economic vitality and quality of life of Southeast Michigan. The Metropolitan Affairs Coalition
as a catalyst in addressing regional concerns and facilitating the design of cooperative solutions
that improve government efficiency and enhance the economic development potential of Greater
Detroit.
Public transportation has become a priority for
MAC because of its importance to a mobile labor
force and a strong economy, as well as its vital
service to seniors, persons with disabilities, and
transit-dependent populations. MAC is aware
that an enhanced public transportation system is
essential in order to place Greater Detroit in a
better position to compete with transit-rich
metropolitan areas throughout the United States
for business, jobs, tourism, conventions, and
desirability as a place to live, work, and raise a
family.
According to the Southeastern Michigan Council
of Governments (SEMCOG) the economy of
Southeast Michigan is strong and there is a
tremendous amount of growth in the suburban
SEMCOG Region
areas and central city increasing the desirability
SpeedLink Study Area
of living and working in the Metro Detroit
region (Figure 1-1). However, Metro Detroit, Figure 1-1: SEMCOG Region
one of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas,
invests fewer local dollars and provides fewer transit miles per capita than 19 of the 20 largest
metropolitan areas in the country. In order to continue to fully benefit from this booming
economy the public mobility challenge must be met.
Due to the growing traffic congestion and lengthening trips in the region, other transportation
alternatives must be offered outside the private automobile in order to provide effective public
mobility. MAC, in cooperation with Detroit Renaissance and the Detroit Regional Chamber
collectively decided to address these issues themselves by forming the “SpeedLink Collaborative”.
With growing interest in Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) from the Federal Transit Administration, the
“SpeedLink Collaborative” has opened the debate on BRT for Detroit. BRT offers many of the
features of light rail, such as vehicle movement unimpeded by traffic signals and congestion, fare
collection prior to boarding, quick passenger loading and unloading, and efficient, reliable service.
This growing interest in Bus Rapid Transit at both a federal and local level was initially spurred by
the system currently operated in Curitiba, Brazil. The Curitiba model, which was well explained
in the MAC concept paper, “SpeedLink- A Train on Tires,” describes also how this type of system
Page 1-1
Section 1: Introduction
could be adapted to metropolitan Detroit. However, there are other BRT examples throughout the
United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia that can also provide insights for Metro Detroit.
MAC commissioned a study to determine the feasibility of implementing SpeedLink in
metropolitan Detroit (See Figure 1-1 for SpeedLink Study Area). The results of this work follow.
Page 1-2
2.0 Stakeholder Participation
2.1
First Round
An important part of the SpeedLink project is the building of awareness of this new form of Rapid
Transit as well as understanding the history and perceptions of transit that face the Detroit region.
Thus, a series of interviews were undertaken with a selection of stakeholders in the region in order
to get an accurate picture of the key issues facing the Detroit Region and the perception of current
and future transit opportunities and concerns.
As part of this first outreach phase the following stakeholders were interviewed:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
City of Detroit
Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT)
Detroit Renaissance
Detroit Regional Chamber
Macomb County
Oakland County
Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART)
Wayne County
Informal discussions were also held with representatives of interested citizen groups in Metro
Detroit including Transit Riders United (TRU).
There were several issues that were raised throughout this round of interviews. Two key topics
included governance and the characteristics of any new type of service.
The concern around governance focused on two key issues:
•
•
Need for oversight of both existing providers and new operating modes like SpeedLink to
provide a seamless regional system of transit services
Need for a new funding mechanism
Also of high importance to the stakeholders were the characteristics of any type of SpeedLink
service. In order for SpeedLink to succeed it has to be cost effective and set itself apart from the
current transit services being offered in Detroit. When it comes to transit, the people of Metro
Detroit have seen many unfulfilled promises. For example, the People Mover has not been the
success that it was supposed to be, thus any type of SpeedLink needs to prove from the start that it
can deliver high quality service and attract a substantial ridership from both dependent and
discretionary travel markets.
Any proposed SpeedLink service needs to offer many new amenities not provided by the current
transit service. These include “high-tech” vehicles, off-vehicle fare payment, well-designed
shelters that offer relief from the elements, signal priority, exclusive lanes, and improved station
and vehicle security. High service frequency was also mentioned as being more important than
operating speed by a number of stakeholders.
Page 2-1
Section 2: Stakeholder Participation
In order for it to be successful SpeedLink will need to be sensitive to its customer base and
“provide reliable service day-in and day-out.” The network design should take in to account the
suburb- to- suburb travel patterns in the region as well as the urban-to-suburb commute.
2.2
Second Round
This second round of interviews included the following stakeholders:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Citizens Research Council
City of Detroit
Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT)
Detroit Regional Chamber
Detroit Renaissance
Macomb County
Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)
Oakland County
U.S. Representative Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick’s office
A hand-out packet was presented that included the draft SpeedLink network along with other
materials previously presented to the task force.
This round of interviews centered on the starter line options and the logistics of how SpeedLink
would work in terms of organization, funding, and operationally with the local transit service. The
stakeholders that were interviewed saw no major holes in the network that was presented and
offered suggestions as to which thoroughfares to serve for the three corridor groups where there
were multiple options.
There were several concerns raised on organization, funding, and the existing operators. Making
SpeedLink a reality is dependent upon the political will and public desire in Metro Detroit. There
are many different scenarios that could develop in terms of organizational plans and funding
sources for SpeedLink; however, it is dependent upon the political will to make it happen.
Most stakeholders indicated that SpeedLink should not replace the existing transit service on a
corridor, but supplement the local service. However, the frequencies of the existing services may
not be warranted. Also, there was a general consensus that the existing providers will also need to
increase the feeder services to the SpeedLink corridors. As pointed out by the majority of the
stakeholders, it will be imperative that SpeedLink, along with the existing transit services, be a
seamless system in every regard no matter who is operating the service.
Page 2-2
3.0 Transportation Needs and Challenges
The Transit Needs and Challenges assessment methodology was developed for the study of
SpeedLink feasibility and the possible development of a conceptual network and identification of a
starter line. The methodology for this study encompassed three principal elements:
•
•
•
3.1
Travel Demand
Current Transit Use
The demographic and employment data used for the needs assessment is Year 2000 data from the
SEMCOG Regional Development Forecast.
Demographics
The Residential Transit Orientation
Index (RTOI), provides an effective tool
to identify residential areas with a high
propensity to use transit. Developed
for use in various transit systems
throughout the United States, this
composite
index
conveniently
summarizes five key demographic
variables: residential density, zero
vehicle households, persons in poverty,
youth
population,
and
senior
population.
The index (Figure 3-1) shows that the
neighborhoods with the greatest transit
orientation are located south of 8 Mile
Road and east of Telegraph. These
neighborhoods
are
concentrated
around the City of Detroit segments of
the Woodward, Grand River, Gratiot,
Michigan, and Fort corridors.
Figure 3-1: Residential Transit Orientation Index - 2000
Greater Detroit
Page 3-1
Section 3: Transportation Needs and Challenges
Total Employment
Mapping Total Employment (Figure 32) shows dispersed concentrations
throughout Metro Detroit.
The
corridors with the greatest employment
concentrations are northern Woodward
and Van Dyke, northeastern Gratiot,
western Grand River, central Michigan
(east of Telegraph), north central
Telegraph, and I-94.
Figure 3-2: Total Employment - 2000
Greater Detroit
Service & Retail Employment
The employment sectors with higher
transit potential are typically the
Service and Retail sectors. Service and
Retail
employment
was
most
predominant along the Woodward
corridor, western M-59, western Big
Beaver (16 Mile), and northeastern
Gratiot. This map can be found in the
technical appendix.
Figure 3-3: Service & Retail Employment - 2000
Greater Detroit
Page 3-2
Summary
The Potential Demand (Figure 3-4) for
the region is a composite of residential
density and total employment density
within the region.
The densest
corridors in the region appear to be
Woodward, Gratiot, Michigan and Van
Dyke.
These corridors present
comparable or higher urban densities
than many of the new LRT starts and
BRT demonstration projects.
SEMCOG did have available data for
the Year 2020 that was compared with
Year 2000. The changes in the core
portions of the three-county study area
are limited with the most significant
finding being the increasing residential
density in the currently low density
outer portions of the three counties.
The Year 2020 data maps can be found
in the Technical Appendix.
3.2
Figure 3-4: Potential Demand - 2000
Greater Detroit
Travel
The travel data used for the analysis
was provided by SEMCOG. The data is
from the most recent update and was
used
for
the
1999
Regional
Transportation Plan. SEMCOG is in
the process of updating the model for
the region. This update will also
include a modal split component for
transit. However, the model was not to
be completed within the time frame of
this study.
For the purpose of this analysis the
Traffic Analysis Zones have been
aggregated to larger districts so the
regional travel flows can more easily be
identified. The travel flows shown in
the Total Trips for 2025 map (Figure 35) are attached to the centroid (or center
of the district).
The Total Trips
category includes work trips and all
Figure 3-5 : Total Trips - 2025
Greater Detroit
Page 3-3
other trip types both home-based and non-home-based. In most cases, the trip origins and
destinations are not distributed evenly throughout the district or are concentrated somewhere
other than the district center.
The 2025 Travel Flows did not vary significantly from the current patterns within the three-county
study area except for the continuing dispersal of trip-making further into the suburbs with average
trip lengths growing longer.
Key findings include:
•
The travel flows confirm the considerable dispersal of work trips throughout Greater
Detroit.
•
Downtown Detroit and New Center are not the dominant employment centers for the
region.
•
Suburb-to-suburb flows are quite heavy; this pattern was stressed throughout the
stakeholder interviews. Significant movements included between Southern Macomb
County and Oakland County; South Oakland County and the western portion of
Wayne County; and into the Somerset area from all directions. The higher suburban
travel volumes often line up into linear corridors and, in combination with the
increasing density in certain employment nodes, present opportunities for high quality
transit to compete with other modes assuming suburban transit access issues can be
overcome.
•
The City of Detroit has generally lower travel volumes, but shows similar dispersal of
destinations. Of particular interest were the destinations for the transit-oriented
neighborhoods where longer trips on traditional transit begin to create access to jobs
problems for potential commuters; an issue of concern voiced by many of the
stakeholders interviewed.
•
In conclusion:
– The suburb-to-suburb travel demand is quite high and aligns into the linear
corridors conducive to effective transit, but has a challenging propensity to use
personal automobiles due to land use and historic limited transit options.
–
The urban-to-suburban, suburban-to-urban, and intra-urban travel demand, while
lower in total volume to the suburban patterns, also aligns into linear corridors and
also has the propensity to use transit due to transit-supportive land use and positive
demographic profiles.
–
These travel patterns, while linear, do not support a traditional center city
dominated transit network structure (i.e., central hub-and-spoke), but support a
multiple hub network of both regional radial-crosstown services together with
short-distance community shuttles where transit supportive land uses are not
present.
Page 3-4
3.3
Transit
Currently, public transportation is provided by Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) and
Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transit (SMART). DDOT largely serves the City of
Detroit and eastern Wayne County and SMART provides service throughout the remainder of
Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties. While DDOT and SMART operate as separate transit
systems, there are a number of corridors that are served by both operators with DDOT usually
providing local bus service and SMART providing limited-stop or express service with crossagency transfer acceptance reducing barriers for customers.
Transit ridership, frequency and productivity information was provided by both DDOT and
SMART. Figures 3-6 through Figure 3-9 show average daily ridership and peak frequency by
route for both services.
Routes with the highest weekday
ridership for DDOT:
•
•
•
•
Woodward – 12,400 riders
Grand River – 12,000 riders
Seven Mile – 9,100 riders
Gratiot – 9,000 riders
Figure 3-6: Average Weekday Ridership - DDOT
Greater Detroit
Page 3-5
Routes with the highest weekday
ridership for SMART:
•
•
•
•
Woodward Local – 3,800 riders
Gratiot – 3,700 Riders
Van Dyke – 2,500 Riders
Michigan – 2,500 Riders
Figure 3-7: Average Weekday Ridership - SMART
Greater Detroit
Routes with the highest peak service
frequency for DDOT:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Woodward – 6 minutes
Grand River – 6 minutes
Dexter – 8 minutes
Gratiot – 8 minutes
Fort – 10 minutes
Greenfield – 10 minutes
Figure 3-8: Peak Service Frequency - DDOT
Greater Detroit
Page 3-6
Routes with the highest peak service
frequency for SMART:
•
•
•
•
Woodward Limited – 15 minutes
Gratiot – 15 minutes
Van Dyke – 15 minutes
Charlevoix – 15 minutes
Figure 3-9: Peak Service Frequency - SMART
Greater Detroit
The strongest existing transit corridors are:
Woodward
•
Woodward has both local and limited bus services with good frequencies.
•
The Woodward corridor is the highest producing route with approximately 16,400
weekday riders. This is currently over 6,000 more weekday riders than the successful
16-mile long Los Angeles Ventura Metro Rapid BRT corridor.
•
Within walking distance from and paralleling the Woodward corridor is the Hamilton
service which also carries over 6,000 weekday riders, making the expanded corridor
ridership over 22,000 daily boardings with ½ mile on either side.
•
Not surprisingly, there is a high residential transit orientation south of 8 Mile Road and
excellent job concentrations north of 8 Mile Road and in Downtown Detroit, making for
many potential “single seat” transit trips.
•
The Woodward corridor also has strong transit supportive land use with good origin
and destination access over virtually the entire length.
Page 3-7
Grand River
•
Grand River produces over 13,400 weekday riders along the corridor.
•
The service in the corridor is only local, but has good frequencies, a critical necessary
ingredient for transit success according to local stakeholders and prevailing transit
wisdom.
•
There is a high residential transit orientation east of Telegraph and significant
concentrations of jobs west of Telegraph along Grand River and in Downtown Detroit.
•
There is transit supportive land use along eastern half of the corridor ; western portion
reflects suburban land use patterns, especially the far west. There are some instances of
“New Urbanism-type” development in places like Novi and examples of village centers
like Farmington.
Gratiot
•
The Gratiot corridor is also a high producing route with approximately 12,900 weekday
riders.
•
At present, the service is local and has good frequencies.
•
There is a high residential transit orientation south of 8 Mile Road and excellent job
concentrations north of 8 Mile Road and in Downtown Detroit.
•
Like Grand River, the corridor has a split pattern of land use with the southern portion
transit supportive and the northern segment more suburban in terms of densities
ending in the Mt. Clemens village center.
Van Dyke
•
Van Dyke produces approximately 8,600 weekday riders along the corridor.
•
At present, the service is local and fairly frequent.
•
There is a high residential transit orientation south of 8 Mile Road and high
concentration of jobs north of 8 Mile Road along the corridor. Access to Downtown
Detroit is provided via Gratiot.
•
Much of this corridor is dominated by the automotive industrial concentrations with
distant access to the transit corridor across large parking lots.
Page 3-8
7 and 8 Mile Roads
•
7 Mile and 8 Mile corridors parallel each other and carry significant ridership,
approximately 9,100 and 4,200 weekday boardings, respectively, creating a combined
corridor ridership of 13,300 riders.
•
At present, the service on both corridors is local and has fairly frequent service.
•
Both corridors have strong transit supportive development with 7 Mile providing easier
access due to the difference in streets (7 Mile is a community level 2-lane street for the
most part, while 8 Mile is a regional dual carriageway).
Michigan Avenue
3.4
•
The outer portions of the Michigan corridor carry well over 2,500 weekday riders.
Given the approximately 100,000 daily trips in and out of this area, this is less than
expected given the level of transit provided and may be an area of key potential for
transit.
•
At present, the service is local with frequent service provided in combination by DDOT
and Smart.
•
Michigan is a blend of strong transit supportive land uses mixed with some lower
density suburban patterns west of Telegraph and large corporate business campuses
(around Southfield).
Conclusions
Metropolitan Detroit has an increasingly dispersed pattern of residential and employment
densities, not unlike many other metropolitan areas. Downtown Detroit is no longer the dominant
employment and activity center of the region, although a number of initiatives are under way to
reverse this trend. The traditional urban core and major corridors still retain many of the
necessary land use elements conducive to higher levels of transit use.
Metro Detroit shares many similarities with other regions that have recently implemented Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) in terms of travel demand patterns and
residential and employment densities. In many ways Metro Detroit is ahead of many western
region with new BRT/LRT initiatives in having stronger transit supportive land use patterns.
Even in many older suburban areas in Greater Detroit, the patterns still reflect better street access
and stronger pedestrian activity than other areas implementing Rapid Transit initiatives.
In conclusion, the transit needs in Metro Detroit represent a combination of strong transit
orientation in the traditional urban core and corridors together with increasingly automobile
dependent suburbs. As noted earlier these transit needs do not support a traditional center city
dominated transit network structure (i.e., central hub-and-spoke), but support a multiple hub
network of both regional radial-crosstown services together with short-distance community
shuttles where transit supportive land uses are not present. Such a network represents a rational
Page 3-9
integration of the two prevailing current transit networks (i.e., DDOT and Smart) with the hub-tohub connections along major corridors served by higher speed and more frequent rapid transit
services (e.g., SpeedLink). These demand patterns and network structure are not inconsistent with
those of recent or upcoming BRT and LRT projects1 that have or are being successfully undertaken.
Projects such as the San Jose LRT, Hartford BRT, North County San Diego LRT, St. Louis LRT extension to
St. Clair, Eugene BRT, and Cleveland’s Euclid BRT all serve or will serve corridors not unlike those
discussed for Metro Detroit.
1
Page 3-10
4.0 BRT Work Elsewhere
4.1
Curitiba, Brazil Model
Curitiba, Brazil has become the model for “today’s” Bus Rapid Transit
throughout the world. The buses run frequently, reliably, and the stations
are convenient, comfortable, and attractive. The service operates much like
any rail system with service unimpeded by congestion in exclusive lanes,
off-vehicle fare payment, and level platform boarding for customers.
4.2
Federal Transit Administration Initiative
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has encouraged American cities to consider, analyze,
and evaluate the benefits of implementing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as a way of meeting their rapid
transit needs. The following features of the Curitiba BRT model are suggested for consideration as
fundamental BRT attributes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Simple Route Layout
Frequent Headways
Less Frequent Stops
Level Boarding and Alighting
Color-coded Vehicles and Stations
Station Stops
Signal Priority
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exclusive Lanes
Higher Capacity Vehicles
Multiple-Door Boarding/Alighting
Off-Vehicle Fare Payment
Integrated Network of Transit Services
Coordinated Land Use Planning
Improved Customer Experience
Cities in the United States that have decided to move forward with implementing BRT as a
solution to their rapid transit needs include (Table 4-1 shows the planned attributes for each of the
projects):
Demonstration Projects
• Boston, Massachusetts
• Charlotte, North Carolina
• Dulles Corridor, Virginia
• Eugene, Oregon
• Hartford, Connecticut
• Honolulu, Hawaii
• Los Angeles, California
• Miami, Florida
• San Juan, Puerto Rico
• Santa Clara, California
Other Participating Projects
• Albany, New York
• Chicago, Illinois
• Louisville, Kentucky
• Montgomery County, Maryland
• Alameda & Contra Costa, California
• Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Figure 4-1: BRT Demonstration and Participating Projects
Page 4-1
Section 4: BRT Work Elsewhere
Table 4-1: BRT Demonstration Project Attributes
Level
Boarding
Time Savings
Shared or
Exclusive
Lane
Type of
Roadway
Yes
3-5 min
Both
Arterial
No
Yes
2-15 min
Exclusive
Yes
Yes
Yes
10 min
Both
Arterial
7.5
Yes
Yes
Shared
Arterial
Fall 2001
10 min
Yes
Yes
Exclusive
Arterial
Mid 2003
"frequent"
Yes
Option
CityExpress!
Honolulu, HI
Mar-99
10-15 min
Future
Future
Yes
Shared
Arterial
South Miam-Dade Busway
Miami, Fl
Feb-97
"frequent"
No
No
Yes
Exclusive
At Rail Grade
Rio Hondo Connector BRT
San Juan, PR
1999-2000
10 min
No
No
5-8 min
HOV
Limited Acess
Highway
Line 22 Rapid Transit Corridor
Santa Clara, CA
Oct-00
10 min
Metro Rapid Lines 720/750
Los Angeles, CA
Jun-00
2-10 min
Service Start
Peak
Frequency
Multi-Door
Entry/Exit
Silver Line
Boston, MA
Dec-00
5 min or less
Yes
Independence Corridor
Charlotte, NC
Dec-98
2 min
Yes
Fall 2005
5-15 min
7/1/1999 Express Service
Pilot Corridor
Eugene, OR
Hartford-New Britain Busway
Hartford , CT
BRT Project
Euclid Corridor
Cleveland, OH
Dulles Corridor
Dulles Corridor, VA
Off-Vehicle
Fare Payment
Yes
16 min
27%-41%
33 min
Some Stations
Yes
25%-40%
Shared
Arterial
Phase II
Yes
23%-29%
Shared; Excl.
Phase II
Arterial
Phase II
Table 4-1 (continued): BRT Demonstration Project Attributes
BRT Project
Silver Line
Boston, MA
Traffic Signal High Capacity
Priority
Vehicles
Use of ITS
Enhanced
Enhanced
Parking
Station Stops Streetscapes Management
Coordinated
Land Use
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Euclid Corridor
Cleveland, OH
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dulles Corridor
Dulles Corridor, VA
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Pilot Corridor
Eugene, OR
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hartford-New Britain Busway
Hartford , CT
Yes
Yes
Yes
CityExpress!
Honolulu, HI
Yes
Some
Yes
South Miam-Dade Busway
Miami, Fl
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rio Hondo Connector BRT
San Juan, PR
Yes
No
Yes
Line 22 Rapid Transit Corridor
Santa Clara, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Metro Rapid Lines 720/750
Los Angeles, CA
Yes
Phase II
Yes
Yes
Independence Corridor
Charlotte, NC
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Phase II
Phase II
Page 4-2
Section 4: BRT Work Elsewhere
4.3
Implications for SpeedLink
The development of BRT proposals from various transit systems and metropolitan areas has
continued to increase with each month. The pattern and volume of travel demand, demographic
and employment characteristics, nature of street and freeway corridors, and existing transit
services in these various regions planning, implementing, and operating BRT services run the
entire range from the Chicago’s and Los Angeles’ to the Hartford’s and Eugene’s. Clearly,
Metropolitan Detroit falls within this range despite having some unique characteristics.
A second aspect of these BRT initiatives is the desire to move ahead with transit and BRT. These
regions have made collective decisions to invest public funds and energy in BRT, each for their
own reasons. The SpeedLink Feasibility Study is a first step in making such a collective decision.
Page 4-3
5.0 BRT Versus Other Modes of Rapid Transit
Historically in North American transit there have been three Rapid Transit mode choices for
corridor service:
•
•
•
Commuter Rail (CR)
Heavy Rail Transit (HRT)
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Two newer options for corridor Rapid Transit include:
•
Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) has been deployed in limited Rapid Transit roles,
generally as a circulator or connector between major activity hubs, in such cities as Detroit
and Tampa. Vancouver and Bangkok represent recent deployment of AGT in corridor
transit applications.
•
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has received attention as an alternative lower cost Rapid Transit
mode. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has introduced an aggressive BRT
initiative as noted in the previous section.
An overview of these modes follows.
5.1
General Characteristics and Performance Characteristics
Figure 5-1: General Characteristics of Rapid Transit Modes
Rapid Transit
Mode
Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT)
Light Rail
Transit (LRT)
Heavy Rail
Transit (HRT)
Automated
Guideway
Transit (AGT)
Commuter
Rail (CR)
Right-of-Way
(ROW) Options
Exclusive ROW
Exclusive travel lanes
Mixed traffic lanes
Exclusive ROW
Exclusive travel lanes
Mixed traffic lanes
Exclusive ROW with
grade separation
Exclusive ROW with
grade separation
Exclusive ROW
Typical Station
Spacing
¼ mile to 1 mile
¼ mile to 1 mile
½ mile to 1 mile
½ mile to 1 mile
2 miles to 10 miles
Vehicles
Articulated and double
articulated low -floor
buses; internal
combustion, hybrid or
electric power
Articulated and double
articulated low -floor;
can operate multiple
train sets; overhead
electric power;
diesel/hybrid multiple
units (DMU)
High platform cars;
train sets – 3rd rail or
overhead electric
power
High platform cars;
train sets – 3rd rail or
overhead electric
power
Locomotive with train
sets or self propelled
multiple units (DMU);
overhead electric
power; diesel/hybrid
multiple units (DMU)
65-85
60-80
30-75
100- 150
Vehicle Seated
Capacity
40 standard
69 articulated
Mixed rail traffic
85 double articulated
Page 5-1
Section 5: BRT Versus Other Modes of Rapid Transit
Figure 5-2: Performance Characteristics of Rapid Transit Modes
Rapid
Transit Mode
Average Speed
Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT)
Light Rail
Transit (LRT)
15-30 mph
15-30 mph
Heavy Rail
Transit
(HRT)
Automated
Guideway
Transit (AGT)
Commuter Rail
(CR)
18-36 mph
18-25 mph
18-40 mph
Up to 60,000 pphpd
Up to 30,000 pphpd
Up to 6,000 pphpd
Exclusive ROW
Exclusive ROW
Passenger
Throughput
Up to 30,000 pphpd
Up to 30,000 pphpd
Arterial
Up to 10,000 pphpd
Arterial
Up to 10,000 pphpd
Capital ROW
Costs per Mile
$0.2-25 million
per mile
$20-55 million
per mile
$50-250 million
per mile
$50- 70 million
per mile
$2-$10 million
per mile
Capital Vehicle
Costs (each)
$0.45-1.2 million
$1.5-2.7 million
$1.5-2.0 million
$1.25-1.75 million
Locomotive $3.0 million
Bi-level car $1.5 million
O&M Cost per
Service Hour
$65-100
$150-200
$175-250
$75- 100
$300 -400
Average Speed
Average speed is dependent upon the right-of-way with higher speed ranges in each Rapid Transit
mode assuming exclusive lanes/right-of-way (ROW) and some grade separation or aggressive
signal priority with stops every one mile or more. Arterial operation for BRT and LRT in mixed
flow represented the lower range of speeds. All of the modes achieve speeds that are attractive to
even current non-transit riders, especially given that market research shows that avoidance of
delays, rather than sheer speed is more important in consumer choice.
Passenger Throughput
This characteristic varies significantly depending on both right-of-way and vehicle size. Heavy rail
transit carries 60,000 passengers per peak hour peak direction (pphpd) with very frequent multicar trains operating in grade-separated exclusive ROW. In the middle range with up 30,000
pphpd are BRT, LRT, and AGT with good speeds and very high frequency. Normal arterial
operation for frequent BRT and LRT limits maximum throughput to around 10,000 pphpd with
signal priority and exclusive lanes. All of these levels exceed any reasonable need for Metro
Detroit in the near term and long term assuming no major changes in urban densities.
Right-of-Way Costs (exclusive of land purchase costs)
Right-of-way costs vary largely with the exclusivity of the ROW and the need for grade separation
and/or subway construction. Heavy rail has the highest ROW requirements making it the most
expensive, especially for subway at up to $250 million per mile. LRT and AGT are less costly rail
options, but still very expensive with costs running from $20 million per mile for basic at grade
Page 5-2
LRT (not including land costs) to aerial LRT/AGT at $50-70 million per mile. Commuter rail is
even less expensive at $2-10 million per mile depending upon the availability of existing ROW.
BRT can be very inexpensive at under $500,000 per mile for arterial mixed flow operation (stations,
signal system, and “next trip displays”) and run up to $20 million for exclusive at grade right-ofway.
Vehicle Costs
Individual rail vehicle costs tend to run between $1 and $2 million each based on the size and type
of the vehicle. Commuter rail also requires locomotives at $30 million each. These vehicles have a
life span of 25 years with proper maintenance and rehabilitation. BRT vehicles range from
traditional articulated buses costing less than $500,000 each to new state-of-art guided double
articulated buses at over $1 million each. The life span of traditional buses in normal street
operations is 12-15 years with buses operating on exclusive rights-of-way lasting somewhat longer.
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Costs range from $65-100 per hour for BRT traditional bus (not guided bus) due to lower vehicle
maintenance costs and lower incremental cost as part of regular bus operations. LRT and heavy
rail typically running 2 to 3 times as high per hour of service. AGT is competitive with bus due to
its lack of an on-board operator with commuter rail the most expensive due to the large train sets
and FRA crew requirements. The per seat costs vary widely with the size of the individual vehicle
(for bus and LRT) and with the size of the train set for rail. With large train sets, LRT and heavy
rail usually have lower per seat costs than bus, but large train sets are not expected to be necessary
or efficient for the required Metro Detroit passenger throughput.
5.2
Key Elements
A review of new Rapid Transit initiatives in the United States found four principal objectives in
developing Rapid Transit:
•
•
•
•
To increase personal mobility for both dependent and independent travelers
Reduce congestion and need for additional roadways
Improve the environment by reducing vehicle miles traveled
Improve community quality of life
To accomplish the first three goals Rapid Transit must both attract new riders and encourage
current riders to use transit more often for travel. Rapid Transit accomplishes this through:
•
•
•
Reduced travel times
Increased passenger throughput
Increased reliability and travel comfort
The fourth goal, improved quality of life, usually relates to the collateral economic and community
benefits of Rapid Transit. Figure 5-3 shows the impact each mode of rapid transit has on each of
the goals.
Page 5-3
Figure 5-3: Key Elements of Rapid Transit Modes
Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT)
Light Rail
Transit (LRT)
Heavy Rail
Transit (HRT)
Automated
Guideway
Transit (AGT)
Commuter Rail
(CR)
Reduced Travel
Times
¢¥
¢¥
¢
¢
¢
Increased
Passenger
Throughput
¢¥
¢
¢
¢
¥
Increased
Reliability
¢¥
¢¥
¢
¢
¢¥
Increased Comfort
¥£
¥
¥
¥
¢
Collateral Benefits
¥£
¢¥
¢
¢¥
£
Rapid Transit
Mode
¢ High impact
¥ Moderate impact
£ Low impact
Reduced Travel Times
All of the modes achieved significant impacts on travel times. Intersections are assumed to be
either grade-separated or have active transit signal priority. Improvements will range from 25 to
40 percent compared with baseline local bus service. BRT and LRT in mixed flow arterial
operation would have only moderate improvement (10-15%) in areas with significant traffic
congestion.
Increased Passenger Throughput
All of the modes support passenger volumes higher than needed today or in the foreseeable future
in Metro Detroit. At the recent meeting of the Transportation Research Board the consultant
developing implementation guidelines for BRT reported that there is no practical difference
between the passenger carrying capacity of BRT and LRT in similar rights-of-way.
Increased Reliability
Heavy rail and automated guideway transit provide greatly increased reliability due to exclusive
rights-of-way and grade separation. Both BRT and LRT operate nearly as reliably when in
exclusive rights-of-way with full signal priority; less so in when in congested mixed traffic with
low/no signal priority. Commuter rail in mixed operations with freight and other competing rail
can experience similar reliability to BRT/LRT in mixed traffic.
Page 5-4
Travel Comfort
All of the rail modes have increased comfort over traditional bus service with commuter rail
having the greatest improvement (amenities and guaranteed seats). BRT may have little
improvement or moderate improvement depending on the type of vehicle and the right-of-way.
Hybrid and electric BRT vehicles will have smoother and quieter operation with the high quality
roadbed in an exclusive lane or right-of-way delivering smoother travel for customers.
Collateral Economic and Community Benefits
Unlike the other objectives, economic and community benefits are highly dependent upon the
individual area. Community zoning, level of economic development, and preferences will heavily
impact benefit attainment. However, some general findings can be identified:
5.3
•
Economic benefits generally occur around heavy rail and AGT stations. LRT stations have
a good, but inconsistent history of providing economic benefit. BRT is an unknown in
terms of station economic development, although Curitiba -type BRT is expected to perform
similarly to LRT.
•
Community quality of life benefits resulting from lower noise, increased personal mobility
and pedestrian activity, improved air quality, and reduced dependence on personal
vehicles follow the economic benefit findings in terms of mode with diesel BRT options
providing the least benefits.
Summary
Bus Rapid Transit comes in four basic configurations as can be seen in Figure 5-4:
Figure 5-4: Four Basic BRT Configurations
Exclusive Lanes
Bus Signal
Priority
Intersection
Grade Separation
Station
Stops
A
Arterial Operation:
Mixed Traffic
Short segments of
exclusive lanes or
bypass lanes
Yes
None
Yes
B
Arterial Operation:
Exclusive ROW
Full length exclusive
lanes
Yes
Possible
Yes
C
Freeway
Operation: Mixed
HOV Traffic
Semi-exclusive
shared with HOV
Yes, if needed
Yes, on freeway
segments
Yes, on-line
D
Exclusive ROW
Yes
Yes
Possible
Yes
SpeedLink Option
Page 5-5
The evidence from initial BRT startups in the United States and more mature systems overseas
supports the finding that BRT meets the performance standards of Rapid Transit and is considered
by existing and potential riders as a completely separate “brand” of service. Daniel McFadden,
Nobel-winning economist, in testing consumer choice theory found that users perceived the time
and cost of rail rapid transit (BART) and high quality bus service (TransBay expresses) to be
equivalent with all things being equal. In Los Angeles almost half of the initial ridership increase
of 30 percent on its BRT has come from new customers, even without exclusive lanes or right-ofway (although some are planned).
In conclusion, if the Bus Rapid Transit is provided with equal priority and attributes to rail rapid
transit (the “all things being equal”), transit’s market share will increase.
Page 5-6
6.0 Feasibility Conclusion
6.1
Feasibility
Metro Detroit is a region without a major center city employment focus. Downtown Detroit
continues its effort to attract business and is experiencing some success such as the move of
General Motors, the development of the CompuWare site, Ford Field, and Comerica Park.
However, travel will likely remain highly dispersed throughout the region, with continuing
development in several key nodes. This dispersal of employment will have the positive impact on
transit of creating demand for services in both directions. The focus of development at particular
nodes will also help create the densities needed to support both rapid transit and necessary hubs
supporting an integrated network of services.
Residential and employment densities along major corridors while lower than some traditional
eastern urban areas, are not unlike those of many new and planned BRT and LRT lines. As well,
current transit ridership on several Metro Detroit corridors is comparable to that of BRT and LRT
lines elsewhere in the United States. Transit supportive land use (transit-oriented residential
neighborhoods and employment) is focused along these same corridors. The continuing dispersal
of employment continues to lead to increasingly long average commute times and growing
congestion for everyone, but especially for those in the traditional urban neighborhoods relying on
transit.
Yes, a SpeedLink network is feasible for Metro Detroit provided that it has the right combination
of attributes to attract riders from both new and existing market segments. Figure 6-1 identifies
these SpeedLink attributes.
Figure 6-1: SpeedLink Attributes
Less Frequent
Stops
Exclusive
Lanes
Simple Route
Layout
Integrated
Transit
Network
Frequent
Headways
Station
Stops
Level
Boarding and
Alighting
However, ”all things need to be equal”
with rail rapid transit for success!
Multiple-Door
Boarding/
Alighting
Signal Priority
Off-Vehicle
Fare
Payment
Coordinated
Land Use
Planning
Improved
Customer
Experience
Color-coded
Vehicles and
Stations
Higher
Capacity
Vehicles
Page 6-1
7.0 Conceptual Network
7.1
Conceptual Network Criteria
Objectives and criteria were developed to assist with the identification and assessment of candidate corridors that would comprise the conceptual SpeedLink network and to assist in identifying
Starter Line(s). The objectives and criteria were broken into two categories: mobility needs and
corridor design.
7.1.1 SpeedLink Corridor Mobility Objectives
1. Coordinate with transit supportive land uses
• Integrate with existing transit supportive land uses
• Foster development of short and longer term transit supportive land use
2. Serve high travel demand routes with market opportunities
• High population and employment densities along route
• High travel demand and traffic volumes along route
• Presence of major activity centers
• High current transit ridership
3. High level of network integration
• Consistent with development of regional intermodal network
• Provides high level of trip connectivity with DDOT & SMART network
Maximize attraction of ridership from promising travel markets
7.1.2 SpeedLink Corridor Design Objectives
1. Compatible roadway or right-of-way physical characteristics
• Opportunity for full or partial exclusive lanes
• Opportunity for optimal station location
2. Compatible with use of transit priority measures
• Exclusive lanes
• Traffic signal priority
3. High accessibility to stations
• Positive walking environment
• Strong transit network transfer opportunities
• Potential for development of Park-and-Ride access
Maximize service speed, reliability, and access
Page 7-1
Section 7: Conceptual Network
7.1.3 SpeedLink Corridor Evaluation Criteria
The objectives were defined by a series of evaluation criteria that were either quantitatively or
qualitatively measurable for use in assessing the network corridors and in selecting a starter line
short list. The criteria employed are as follows:
Mobility Needs Criteria
The Mobility Needs criteria are quantitative and based on SEMCOG Year 2000 data.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Total Population within ½ mile
Population Density within ½ mile
Total Employment within ½ mile
Employment Density within ½ mile
Travel Demand Origin-Destination Connections
Traffic Volumes
Transit Ridership
The Network Criteria are qualitative due to the nature of the criteria and the unavailability of definitive quantitative data at this time.
Corridor/Network Criteria
•
•
•
Major Activity Centers
Transit Supportive Land Use
Network Connectivity
7.2 Preliminary Conceptual Network
The preliminary conceptual network for SpeedLink was based on the quantitative Mobility Needs
Criteria. The candidate corridors for SpeedLink were identified from the preliminary MAC list,
input from the Task Force and stakeholders, and from TMD team fieldwork. The candidate corridors included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
M-59
Gratiot Avenue
Van Dyke Avenue
Telegraph Road
Grand River Avenue
I-275
•
•
•
•
•
•
Michigan Avenue
Woodward Avenue
I-96
I-94
I-696
8 Mile Road
•
•
•
•
•
•
7 Mile Road
Schaeffer Highway
Greenfield Road
Southfield Freeway
Fort Street
Fort/Eureka
The evaluation matrix for the candidate network corridors can be seen in Table 7-1.
Page 7-2
Table 7-1: Mobility Criteria Evaluation Matrix
Corridor
Total
Population
Population
Density
(persons/acre)
Total
Employment
Employment
Density
(jobs/acre)
Traffic
Volumes
Transit
Ridership
7 Mile
174,575
11
38,977
2
LOW
9,140
8 Mile
139,167
8
62,523
4
LOW
4,180
I-696
111,703
6
95,035
5
HIGH
–
Fort
95,276
7
100,490
7
LOW
2,340
Fort-Eureka
80,317
8
96,573
9
LOW-MEDIUM
3,170
Greenfield
119,340
9
93,705
7
LOW
7,990
Schaefer Highway
119,031
9
70,307
5
LOW-MEDIUM
2,520
Southfield
125,300
8
104,976
6
HIGH
–
Big Beaver
56,241
5
55,285
5
MEDIUM
–
Grand River
133,367
10
103,195
7
MEDIUM
13,400
Gratiot
134,573
10
110,748
8
MEDIUM -HIGH
12,720
I-94
128,391
7
83,655
4
HIGH
–
I-96
98,285
7
60,331
5
HIGH
–
I-275
39,149
3
33,516
3
HIGH
–
M-59
64,152
4
55,729
3
MEDIUM -HIGH
130
Michigan
79,492
6
137,430
10
LOW-MEDIUM
3,740
Telegraph
104,580
5
65,551
3
MEDIUM
Van Dyke
84,480
6
132,974
9
LOW
8,665
126,760
8
185,548
11
LOW-MEDIUM
18,040
Woodward
640
The preliminary SpeedLink network contained three corridors groups where only one corridor
would be selected for the final network.
•
•
•
I-696, 8 Mile, 7 Mile
Schaeffer, Greenfield, Southfield
Fort, Fort/Eureka
The preliminary network was mapped against the principal criteria in order to ensure that no major mobility needs have been missed. This preliminary SpeedLink network was taken back to the
Stakeholder groups for review and comment, following initial review by the SpeedLink Task
Force.
Page 7-3
Preliminary SpeedLink
Network
Shown in Figure 7-1.
Figure 7-1 – Preliminary SpeedLink Network
Accessible Corridor
The area within walking distance
of the preliminary corridors was
mapped to provide a visual indication of Metro Detroit coverage.
This accessible buffer was ½ mile1
on either side of the corridors as
shown in Figure 7-2.
Figure 7-2 – Preliminary SpeedLink Network with ½ Mile Buffer
The typical walking distances for various transit modes was the subject of a Chicago Transit Authority
study that found that 90% of the customers came from within the following distances of the transit services:
local bus (0.25 miles), light rail (0.60 miles), and heavy rail rapid transit (0.9 miles). We have used 0.5 miles
for the SpeedLink BRT.
1
Page 7-4
Residential and Employment
Concentrations
The network covers the major residential and employment concentrations with the exception of some
employment in the central I-75
area and along Groesbeck Highway. This overlay is shown in Figure 7-3.
Figure 7-3 – Residential and Employment Concentrations
Travel Demand
The preliminary SpeedLink network provides good coverage and
directness for the major origindestination patterns as shown in
Figure 7-4.
Figure 7-4 – Travel Demand
Page 7-5
Traffic Volumes
The preliminary SpeedLink network provides good coverage of
major traffic volumes as shown in
Figure 7-5.
Figure 7-5 – Traffic Volume
Current Transit Ridership
The preliminary SpeedLink network provides good coverage of
major transit ridership corridors as
shown in Figure 7-6 with the exception of western Warren and
Jefferson Avenues.
Figure 7-6 – Transit Ridership
Page 7-6
The preliminary SpeedLink network provides good coverage for
nearly all major activity centers as
shown in Figure 7-7.
Figure 7-7 – Major Activity Centers
7.3
Network Refinement
The preliminary network was reviewed with both the Task Force and the Stakeholders with pa rticular emphasis on choosing among the corridor groups, identifying any missing corridors, and
discussing starter line priorities.
7.3.1 Preliminary Corridor Groups
•
•
•
I-696, 8 Mile, 7 Mile
Schaeffer, Greenfield, Southfield
Fort, Fort/Eureka
Recommended: 8 Mile
Recommended: Greenfield
Recommended: Fort
7.3.2 Identification of Missing Corridors
Three corridors were discussed relative to inclusion in the SpeedLink conceptual network:
•
•
•
Jefferson Avenue
Groesbeck Highway
I-75
None of the three were included in the final SpeedLink network for the following reasons. Jefferson was deemed to be a relatively short line where the speed advantages were not likely to attract
Page 7-7
major ridership and it had a limited positive impact on overall network connectivity.2 Groesbeck
Highway was considered to be the lesser choice compared with Gratiot and since the two were in
close proximity to each other it was not included. I-75 was not included for reasons germane to all
of the freeway choices as discussed in the following section.
7.3.3 Freeway SpeedLink Corridors
The preliminary SpeedLink conceptual network included several freeway corridors, including I-94,
I-96, and I-696 as well as a possible additional candidate, I-75. Discussions with Michigan Department of Transportation indicated significant unresolved local and state-wide issues regarding
inclusion of dedicated transit lanes or HOV lanes on freeways at this time. MDOT indicated that it
could not support these SpeedLink corridors until those issues were resolved. Consequently, these
corridors are not included in proposed network, but remain as possible future options.2
7.4
Final SpeedLink Conceptual Network
The final SpeedLink conceptual network includes some 11 corridors in alphabetical order:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8 Mile
Fort Street
Grand River Avenue
Gratiot Avenue
Greenfield Road
M-59
Michigan Avenue
Telegraph Road
Van Dyke Avenue
Woodward Avenue
Figure 7-8: Final SpeedLink Conceptual Network
7.4.1 Corridor/Network Criteria
The preliminary SpeedLink conceptual network was assessed with the quantitative mobility criteria. The final SpeedLink network corridors were additionally assessed using the qualitative corridor/network criteria as presented in Table 7-2.
At the time of this publication, Jefferson Avenue and I-275 remain in SEMCOG’s Regional Transit Plan as
SpeedLink corridors.
2
Page 7-8
Table 7-2: SpeedLink Network
Transit
Supportive
Land-use
Network
Connectivity
(Core/Peripheral)
Partial
Corridor
Village
Centers
Major
Shopping
Core
1
2
No
Peripheral
2
2
Fort
Yes
Core
3
Greenfield
Yes
Core
Grand River
Yes
Gratiot
M-59
8 Mile
University
& College
Sports
Center
4
2
Core
1
2
1
2
Yes
Core
1
2
1
2
No
Peripheral
1
2
1
1
Michigan
Partial
Core
1
3
1
2
Telegraph
Partial
Peripheral
1
3
Van Dyke
Partial
Core
1
Yes
Core
2
2
6
Major
Airport
2
1
Woodward
1
Major
Hospitals
2
1
2
Transit Supportive Land Use
This criterion assesses the level of propensity of the land use to foster transit use. Elements such as
pedestrian streetscape and crossing amenities, street width, vehicle travel speeds, access to adj acent origins and destinations, good street lighting, and appropriate development densities were all
factors in assessing this qualitative ranking.
Network Connectivity
The assessment of network connectivity was a function of the number and type of direct transit
connections for each corridor. Connections with proposed SpeedLink lines and with existing
DDOT and SMART services all influenced the scoring. The rankings of “core” or “peripheral”
were primarily to assist in assessing the starter line, recognizing that the initial line would be hea vily dependent upon synergy with the existing DDOT and SMART services for success. As the network is completed, the additional SpeedLink lines would also heavily influence success.
The number and type of major activity centers was determined for each SpeedLink corridor. Following discussions with the Task Force, the categories of “hospitals” and “village centers” were
added to the list.
Page 7-9
1
8.0 Ridership Estimation
The SpeedLink ridership estimation process was intended to provide order-of-magnitude
ridership estimates with the intention of actually testing market feasibility as part of one or more
starter line projects. The existing Regional Travel Demand model, maintained by the Southeastern
Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), does not have two mode-split capability.
SEMCOG is currently addressing this as part of its overall upgrade of its regional modeling
capability, but did not have the work complete in time for use on the SpeedLink Feasibility Study.
Furthermore, the short time frame of the study and budgetary constraints hinder the development
of a complex model. As a result, two relatively straight-forward techniques were each used to
estimate the corridor ridership and provide a range of potential ridership.
•
•
8.1
Peer Comparison
The Incremental Logit Formulation
Peer Comparisons
The objective of the peer comparisons was to look at light rail and bus rapid transit corridors in
other cities that are similar to those in Greater Detroit. Table 8-1 shows the corridors examined
along with its corresponding performance statistics. In developing the ridership statistics for the
SpeedLink network 75 percent of the average performance for all the peers was used to
approximate short term ridership possibilities. These averages were applied to the SpeedLink
corridor operating estimates to determine ridership based on revenue hours, service miles and
operating speeds (Table 8-2).
Table 8-1: Peer Comparisons
System
Unlinked
Passengers Per
Passenger Trips
Rev Hour
Passengers Per
Rev Mile
Passengers Per
Route Mile
St. Louis – LRT
43,711
273.2
10.9
1,207.5
Dallas – LRT
37,563
149.7
9.2
804.3
Buffalo – LRT
22,067
124.7
15.5
1,565.0
Cleveland – LRT
15,395
87.5
5.6
466.5
Santa Clara – LRT
22,487
86.8
5.5
547.1
Baltimore – LRT
24,970
83.2
5.1
490.6
Pittsburg – LRT
24,749
68.9
4.6
532.2
Metro Rapid – Wilshire/Whitter
28,000
47.0
3.7
1,076.9
6,500
32.8
2.2
406.3
25,049
91.1
6.1
726.1
68.3
4.6
544.5
Metro Rapid – Ventura
Average
75% of Average
Most recent data from Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, or 2001
Page 8-1
Section 8: Ridership Estimation
8.2
Incremental Logit Model
The incremental logit formulation model is formula-based from random utility choice theory,
developed by Dan McFadden in early 1970’s. The most common form is the multi-nomial logit
model, in which shares of alternatives are evaluated based on the utilities (“value” or “worth”) of
each choice as a exponent for e, the base of the natural log system.1 A reduced form, the
incremental logit model, is particularly important in evaluating improvements in alternatives, such
as SpeedLink in Detroit. Its form is based on changes in utilities caused by improvements to service
and is described in more detail in NCHRP Report 365. 2 The advantages to the incremental logit
model are:
•
•
•
Uses observed, measured mode shares
Requires only a description of the changes to the transit service
Is highly transferable among urban areas because mode-specific bias and local
socioeconomic biases are accounted for in the observed measured shares of travel by each
mode.
However, the incremental logit model does not:
•
Address the fundamental changes in service quality beyond those affecting in-vehicle travel
times, out-of-vehicle travel times, and costs. Thus, improvements in such attributes as
reliability, safety and security, vehicle comfort and cleanliness, service accessibility (park-nride, low floor buses) and availability of information are not reflected in the ridership
estimates (nor in regional mode split models). This means that the incremental logit model is
likely to underestimate patronage of a service with improved quality.
•
Accurately estimate ridership on corridors with little or no existing transit service. Thus,
corridors like 16 Mile (Big Beaver/Metropolitan Parkway) and M-59 have lower ridership
based on incremental change from current conditions (the regional mode split model
would provide better estimates in these cases).
The results of the incremental logit model can be seen in Table 8-2.
8.3
Summary
In summary, the results of the logit model are low and the model does not capture the
fundamental changes in Rapid Transit service quality improvements that will be seen with BRT
versus the existing bus services. The peer comparative model provides a range of ridership
estimates that are achievable with rapid transit. Once SEMCOG completes that new model with
the transit mode split component for the Detroit Region, the SpeedLink corridor and network
ridership can be updated.
1
Meyer, Michael and Eric Miller. (2001). Urban Transportation Planning (2 nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill
Higher Education.
2 Martin, William and Nancy McGuckin. “Travel Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning.” National
Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) Report 365. (1998): 62-75.
Page 8-2
Section 8: Ridership Estimation
The following ridership estimates are based on individual corridors and do not
reflect the positive synergistic impacts of a network of SpeedLink services, nor
do they show the concurrent increases in ridership that corridor local services
will also likely experience. Thus, these figures should be considered baseline
conservative estimates and will need refinement when SEMCOG’s new regional
mode split model is completed late in 2001.
Table 8-2: SpeedLink Ridership Estimates
Current Transit
Ridership
SpeedLink Line
8 Mile
1
Corridor Ridership Estimate Basis
Logit Model
Peer Rev Hour
Productivity
Peer Rev Mile
Productivity
Peer Route Mile
Productivity
4,177
5,800
17,900
36,200
14,100
409
1,200
19,600
23,800
9,300
3,181
3,800
17,300
25,300
9,900
Grand River
13,401
15,700
19,400
30,100
11,700
Gratiot
12,735
14,900
17,900
29,000
11,300
9,750
12,500
21,400
28,600
11,100
94
300
20,100
35,800
14,000
3,744
4,700
16,100
29,000
11,300
Fort
Greenfield
M-59
Michigan
Telegraph
Van Dyke
Woodward
1
640
1,300
31,500
43,400
16,900
6,560
8,000
18,900
29,200
11,400
18,041
21,200
22,900
35,300
13,800
Big Beaver/Metro Parkway does not currently have transit service operating on it; Maple Road (15 Mile Road) was used as a surrogate (SMART Route 780).
Page 8-3
9.0 Cost
The development of operating and capital costs for the conceptual SpeedLink network and
candidate starter lines requires that the attributes for SpeedLink be formalized. Based on
discussions with the Task Force and stakeholders the following has been proposed for SpeedLink.
9.1
SpeedLink Design and Performance Assumptions
Right-of-Way Assumptions
• Exclusive lane arterial operation
• Signal priority at all intersections
• No new grade separations or existing roadbed
reconstruction
Station Assumptions
• Lighted and heated stations
• “Real-time” passenger information
• Ticket vending machines
• New joint-use park-and-ride lots
Vehicle Assumptions
• Low-floor single-articulated vehicles
• Hybrid vehicle power
• New maintenance facility assumed
• No automatic vehicle guidance proposed
Service Operation Assumptions
• Service performance estimated based on exclusive lane arterial operation
• Operation of low-floor articulated vehicles
“Hold Harmless” Assumptions
• Assumed that DDOT and SMART continue to operate current service or reallocate
saved resources to provide additional connecting service
• Assumed that only net gains in operating revenue attributed to SpeedLink Starter
Line
• DDOT and SMART financial situation unchanged1
DDOT and SMART will not incur any net cost due to SpeedLink; additional operating subsidy has also
been budgeted under SpeedLink for enhanced baseline bus and shuttle services.
1
Page 9-1
Section 9: Cost
Operating Cost Assumptions
• Operating cost per service hour of $100.00 assumed2
• Includes additional facility and articulated fleet maintenance
• Includes additional DDOT/SMART/ADA enhancements (25% of total)
9.2
SpeedLink Line and Service Characteristics
The development of line and service characteristics for SpeedLink was based on the assumptions
from the previous section. At this point, some general concepts were used for each line:
•
SpeedLink would operate 7-days per week from approximately 4:00 am to 1:00 am.
•
SpeedLink would operate at 5-minute intervals during peak weekday periods and
every 10-minutes on weekends and during weekday midday periods. Evening service
would operate every 20-minutes.
•
Stations would be spaced at all major transfer points with DDOT and SMART services,
at major activity centers, and at connecting points with other SpeedLink lines.
•
Service operating speeds would be based on improvements over current bus service
running times with assumed 15 percent terminal recovery time.
Table 9-1: SpeedLink Line Characteristics
SpeedLink Line
Total OneWay Route
(miles)
Number of
Stations
Ave Station
Spacing
(miles)
Service Frequencies
Peak
Off-Peak Weekend
Night
8 Mile
25.9
24
1.08
5
10
10
20
17.0
13
1.31
5
10
10
20
Fort
18.1
27
0.67
5
10
10
20
Grand River
21.5
26
0.83
5
10
10
20
Gratiot
20.8
22
0.94
5
10
10
20
Greenfield
20.4
24
0.85
5
10
10
20
M-59
25.6
11
2.33
5
10
10
20
Michigan
20.8
25
0.83
5
10
10
20
Telegraph
31.1
28
1.11
5
10
10
20
Van Dyke
20.9
26
0.80
5
10
10
20
Woodward
25.3
31
0.81
5
10
10
20
247.5
257
0.96
TOTAL
The $100 per hour Operating Cost represents the high end for BRT; SpeedLink will not likely be an
incremental increase to an existing bus operation but a new bus operation with minimal economies of scale.
2
Page 9-2
Section 9: Cost
Table 9-2: SpeedLink Service Characteristics
Peak
Vehicles
Required
SpeedLink Line
Annual
One-Way
Trips
Annual
Annual
Service Miles Service Hours
Average
Operating
Speed (mph)
8 Mile
21
102,450
2,657,143
87,160
30.5
23
102,450
1,742,265
95,515
18.2
Fort
20
102,450
1,856,599
84,645
21.9
Grand River
23
102,450
2,207,388
94,420
23.4
Gratiot
21
102,450
2,125,838
87,160
24.4
Greenfield
25
102,450
2,094,693
104,235
20.1
M-59
24
102,450
2,626,203
97,300
27.0
Michigan
19
102,450
2,129,782
78,440
27.2
Telegraph
37
102,450
3,185,683
153,635
20.7
Van Dyke
22
102,450
2,140,488
92,635
23.1
Woodward
27
102,450
2,587,938
111,495
23.2
262
1,126,950
25,354,019
1,086,640
23.3
TOTAL
9.3
SpeedLink Operating Costs and Net Operating Subsidy
Table 9-3: SpeedLink Operating Costs and Net Operating Subsidy
SpeedLink Line
SpeedLink
Operating Cost
DDOT/SMART
New Feeder
Service
Total Annual
Operating Cost
Net Annual
Operating
1
Operating Cost
Revenue
2
Net Annual
Subsidy
Net Annual New
3
Passengers
8 Mile
$8,716,000
$2,179,000
$10,895,000
$3,249,000
($7,646,000)
4,512,000
$9,552,000
$2,388,000
$11,940,000
$2,968,000
($8,972,000)
4,122,000
Fort
$8,465,000
$2,116,000
$10,581,000
$2,474,000
($8,107,000)
3,436,000
Grand River
$9,442,000
$2,361,000
$11,803,000
$1,323,000
($10,480,000)
1,838,000
Gratiot
$8,716,000
$2,179,000
$10,895,000
$1,258,000
($9,637,000)
1,747,000
$10,424,000
$2,606,000
$13,030,000
$1,963,000
($11,067,000)
2,727,000
M-59
$9,730,000
$2,433,000
$12,163,000
$3,960,000
($8,203,000)
5,500,000
Michigan
$7,844,000
$1,961,000
$9,805,000
$2,618,000
($7,187,000)
3,636,000
Telegraph
$15,364,000
$3,841,000
$19,205,000
$5,134,000
($14,071,000)
7,131,000
Greenfield
Van Dyke
Woodward
TOTAL
$9,264,000
$2,316,000
$11,580,000
$2,342,000
($9,238,000)
3,253,000
$11,150,000
$2,788,000
$13,938,000
$1,192,000
($12,746,000)
1,655,000
$108,667,000
$27,168,000
$135,835,000
$28,481,000
($107,354,000)
39,557,000
1
These are additional funds for enhanced connecting services and for any additional ADA paratransit.
2
Additional operating revenue based on current DDOT average fare of 72¢.
3
Net ridership from SpeedLink based on average of logit model and peer comparison; does not include boardings on enhanc ed DDOT/SMART services.
Page 9-3
Section 9: Cost
9.4
SpeedLink Capital Costs
Table 9-4: SpeedLink Capital Costs
Right-of-Way
Construction
(millions)
SpeedLink Line
Stations/P&R
(millions)
Design &
Total Capital
Implementation
Costs (millions)
(millions)
Vehicles
(millions)
Unit Cost
$2.52
$1.14
$0.65
8 Mile
$65.4
$27.4
$16.4
Average Cost
per Mile
(millions)
36%
$61.7
$170.9
$6.59
$42.9
$14.8
$17.9
$42.7
$118.3
$6.96
Fort
$45.7
$30.8
$15.6
$52.0
$144.1
$7.95
Grand River
$54.3
$29.6
$17.9
$57.5
$159.3
$7.39
Gratiot
$52.3
$25.1
$16.4
$53.0
$146.8
$7.07
Greenfield
$51.5
$27.4
$19.5
$55.6
$154.0
$7.53
M-59
$64.6
$12.5
$18.7
$54.1
$149.9
$5.85
Michigan
$52.4
$28.5
$14.8
$54.1
$149.8
$7.21
Telegraph
$78.4
$31.9
$28.9
$78.6
$217.8
$7.00
Van Dyke
$52.7
$29.6
$17.2
$56.2
$155.7
$7.45
Woodward
$63.7
$35.3
$21.1
$67.9
$188.0
$7.44
$30.0
TOTAL
$623.9
$292.9
$234.4
$30.0
$633.4
$1,784.6
$7.21
Costs based on Woodward Corridor Transit Alternatives Study prepared by IBI Group.
9.5
SpeedLink Pilot Project Costs
Table 9-5: SpeedLink Pilot Project Costs
SpeedLink Line
2-Year Operating
Subsidy
Capital Costs
Total Pilot Project
Costs
8 Mile
$15,292,000
$170,900,000
$186,192,000
$17,944,000
$118,300,000
$136,244,000
Fort
$16,214,000
$144,100,000
$160,314,000
Grand River
$20,960,000
$159,300,000
$180,260,000
Gratiot
$19,274,000
$146,800,000
$166,074,000
Greenfield
$22,134,000
$154,000,000
$176,134,000
M-59
$16,406,000
$149,900,000
$166,306,000
Michigan
$14,374,000
$149,800,000
$164,174,000
Telegraph
$28,142,000
$217,800,000
$245,942,000
Van Dyke
$18,476,000
$155,700,000
$174,176,000
Woodward
$25,492,000
$188,000,000
$213,492,000
$30,000,000
$30,000,000
$1,754,600,000
$1,969,308,000
TOTAL
$214,708,000
Page 9-4
10.0 Starter Line
10.1 Starter Line Selection Criteria
The starter line(s) are the initial elements of the SpeedLink network to be implemented. They are
usually selected on the basis of their likelihood of success, ease of implementation, and affordability, as well as their importance as a foundation upon which to build the remainder of the network. The starter line(s) selection followed a three-step process that was built from the conceptual
network criteria developed in Section 7.0 followed by assessing short-term implementation and
demonstration testing criteria.
1. Develop short list candidates based on corridor mobility and design criteria
2. Fast implementation potential (3-5 years)
• Projects can be implemented with resources that can acquired in the near term
• Willingness of jurisdiction(s) to partner on SpeedLink Starter Line
3. Opportunity to test in variety of settings
• Minimum SpeedLink design standards achievable
• Serves variety of travel market groups
• Tests variety of transit priority measures
• Tests in geographically diverse areas
• Potential to achieve broad public and political support
• Allows testing of individual lines and network connectivity
10.2 Short List Scoring
The scoring of criteria for the short list builds from the criteria identified in Section 7.0. The highest score in each criteria is awarded 100 percent and the remaining corridors are scored as a percentage of the highest.
Table 10-1 – Short List Scoring
Corridor Mobility Criteria
SpeedLink Line
8 Mile
Total
Population
Population
Density
Total
Employment
Employment
Density
Corridor Design Criteria
Traffic
Volumes
Current
Transit Use
Supportive
Land Use
Connectivity
Major Activity
Centers
100%
83%
33%
33%
25%
23%
67%
60%
25%
48%
53%
36%
48%
75%
2%
33%
50%
33%
Fort
65%
79%
53%
76%
25%
13%
100%
50%
42%
Greenfield
98%
98%
56%
66%
25%
44%
100%
50%
67%
Grand River
99%
100%
61%
73%
75%
74%
100%
80%
25%
Gratiot
88%
95%
51%
65%
100%
71%
100%
80%
42%
M-59
48%
41%
32%
33%
100%
1%
33%
50%
42%
Michigan
56%
58%
72%
88%
50%
21%
67%
70%
75%
Telegraph
77%
54%
35%
29%
75%
4%
67%
50%
33%
Van Dyke
62%
64%
72%
87%
25%
48%
67%
80%
25%
Woodward
93%
79%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Page 10-1
Section 10: Starter Line
The criteria scores are averaged for a final composite ranking.
Table 10-2 – Short List Ranking
SpeedLink Corridor
Composite Score
Woodward
91%
Gratiot
77%
Grand River
76%
Greenfield
67%
Michigan
62%
Van Dyke
59%
Fort
56%
8 Mile
50%
Telegraph
47%
M-59
42%
42%
SHORT LIST
10.3 Implementation Potential and Demonstration Criteria
While it is critical that the SpeedLink starter line attract significant numbers of new and existing
transit users in order to be deemed successful, it will also be important that the experience gained
with developing, implementing, and operating the SpeedLink starter line provide insight into the
optimal strategies for developing the remaining ten lines into the SpeedLink network. To that end,
the next step in selecting a starter line was to assess the opportunity that each candidate provides
to test SpeedLink in a broad range of settings. The following criteria identify these opportunities:
•
•
•
•
•
•
SpeedLink design standards achievable
Serves variety of travel market groups
Tests variety of transit priority measures
Tests in geographically diverse areas
Potential to achieve broad public support
Allows testing of individual lines and network connectivity
The findings for these criteria follow for the three short-listed SpeedLink lines (Table 10-3):
Page 10-2
Section 10: Starter Line
Table 10-3: Criteria Evaluation for the Three Short-Listed SpeedLink Lines
Criteria
Grand River
SpeedLink design
Standards achievable
Gratiot
Yes
Woodward
Yes
Yes, previously studied;
head start on next steps
Serves variety of travel
market groups
Highest population and
densities
High population and
density
Highest employment and
densities; provides best
special event co nnections
(Tigers and Lions); highest
number of major activity
centers on line; provides
greatest residential crosssection
Tests variety of transit
priority measures
Yes, possible signal priority
and exclusive lanes
and exclusive lanes
and exclusive lanes
Among the highest traffic
volumes
Can provide mitigation for
major I-75 reconstruction
and expansion
Tests in both urban core
and suburban
environments
and suburban
environments
Competitive opportunities
with other modes
and suburban
environments
Tests in geographically
diverse areas
Potential to achieve broad
public support
Oakland and Wayne Counties; City of Detroit
Macomb and Wayne Counties; City of Detroit
Existing community redevelopment activity along
corridor; Oakland and
Wayne Counties; City of
Detroit
Allows testing of
individual lines and
network connectivity
Provides good network
connectivity with both
DDOT and SMART
Provides good network
connectivity with both
DDOT and SMART
Provides maximum network connectivity with
both DDOT and SMART
10.4 Recommended Starter Line
The preliminary recommendation for the SpeedLink Starter Line pending assessment of available
resources and the agreement among all key partners is:
Jefferson
Cadillac Square
Temple
Adams
Mack
Canfield
Warren
New Center
Grand Blvd
Euclid
Owen
Trowbridge
Buena Vista
Manchester
Savannah
McNichols
7 Mile
State Fair
8 Mile
9 Mile
Channing
Woodward Hgts
Zoo
11 Mile
13 Mile/Coolidge
12 Mile
14 Mile
Maple
16 Mile/Big Beaver
Downtown Pontiac
South Blvd
Woodward Avenue
Page 10-3
11.0 Starter Line Phasing Plan
The Starter Line Phasing Plan takes a brief look at two basic options for implementing the
SpeedLink starter line. The first option considers opportunities to implement the starter line in
phased segments. The second option looks at different combinations of design, build, and operate
options for implementing SpeedLink.
11.1
Implementation of the Starter Line by Segments
The starter line short list of Woodward, Gratiot, and Grand River all have two-year demonstration
costs of between $166 million and over $210 million plus the cost of a maintenance facility. The
starter line could be implemented in phased segments. The benefits of this include:
•
•
Reduced demonstration capital and operating costs
Reduced implementation time
The three short listed starter lines were assessed for opportunities to implement a partial segment
of the line in the initial startup. Based on a review of ridership, mobility needs, corridor
development patterns, and network interconnectivity, a partial implementation was possible on
two of the three short listed lines: Grand River and Woodward, but not Gratiot. Gratiot does not
have a natural break point for an initial segment and would need to be implemented all at one
time. Details on the segmentation analysis follow for each of the three lines.
Woodward Avenue
Phase I (initial segment) – Implement from Downtown Detroit
to Birmingham/Troy (ending at Somerset)
Phase II (completion of the line) – Extend to Pontiac
Woodward
SpeedLink
2-Year Operating Subsidy
SpeedLink
Capital Costs
Enhanced Feeder
Total Pilot Project
Costs
Phase I
$15,048,000
$4,358,000
$157,600,000
$177,006,000
Full Line
$19,916,000
$5,576,000
$188,000,000
$213,492,000
Page 11-1
Section 11: Starter Line Phasing
Gratiot Avenue
No logical break-point for an initial segment.
Gratiot
SpeedLink
SpeedLink
Full Line
Enhanced Feeder
$14,916,000
Capital Costs
$4,358,000
Total Pilot Project
Costs
$146,800,000
$166,074,000
Grand River Avenue
Phase I (initial segment) – Implement from
Downtown Detroit to 8 Mile Road
Phase II (completion of the line) – Extend
to Novi
Grand River
SpeedLink
SpeedLink
Capital Costs
Enhanced Feeder
Total Pilot Project
Costs
Phase I
$13,240,000
$3,504,000
$130,700,000
$147,444,000
Full Line
$16,238,000
$4,722,000
$159,300,000
$180,260,000
Summary
The lowest cost segment is now Grand River at $147 million with Gratiot still less costly than
Woodward at $166 million versus $177 million. These starter line options may become important
if starter line funding is very limited or the implementation schedule needs to be expedited.
Page 11-2
One of the key implementation issues of the SpeedLink starter line relates to the “who’s going to
develop and oversee SpeedLink, who’s going to operate it, and who’s going to fund it.” It was not
the intention of this study to develop and/or recommend any particular organizational model for
transit in Metro Detroit, but rather to identify the key issues and requirements that SpeedLink will
require organizationally in order for an informed decision to be made in the larger context beyond
just SpeedLink’s technical needs.
12.1
Major Organizational Issues
At the present time there are two existing public service providers in Metropolitan Detroit: the Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) and Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART). DDOT is the principal provider of service in the City of Detroit with SMART
the principal provider of transit service in the suburban county areas. There are numerous instances of overlap in meeting prevailing mobility needs and in a number of instances DDOT and
SMART have worked effectively together in the customer’s interest. However, SpeedLink represents a fundamental change in transit by transcending the service areas of both existing service
providers and is not logically predisposed for operation by one or the other.
The existing regional transit coordination is handled by the Regional Transit Coordinating Council
(RTCC). However, the RTCC provides only a limited mechanism for coordinating implementation
and delivery of public transportation and as such is not ideally suited for an aggressive transit
program like SpeedLink.
The organizational assessment focused on three areas of concern:
•
•
•
12.2
SpeedLink implementation and operational requirements
Regional versus municipal and county focus
Need to comply with regulatory environment
SpeedLink Implementation and Operational Requirements
There are three principal implementation and operational requirements for SpeedLink.
Able To Accept Funding
SpeedLink will require ongoing operating and capital funding as presented in the section of costs.
These funds are normally comprised of a combination of local, state, and federal funds that are
used in interrelated formulas of matching funds where local and state funds can be matched with
federal funds, and local funds can be matched with state funds in certain instances. These activities will require that an organization in Metro Detroit have the capability to receive this funding.
Organizationally for SpeedLink, the funding can be received directly or via pass-through arrangement. Thus, it is not imperative that SpeedLink be part of an organization that can directly receive
funds, only that there is a mechanism to make these funds available for SpeedLink capital and operating activities.
Page 12-1
Section 12: Organizational Issues
Enter Into Agreements With Public And Private Entities
SpeedLink will need to enter into a variety of agreements as part of its normal business through
inter-local agreements, memoranda of understanding, and basic contracts. Thus, the SpeedLin k
organization will need this capability directly. Given the demonstration nature of the SpeedLink
starter line, the organization will need to be flexible and expeditious in order to respond quickly
and correctly to the changing needs of building, implementing, and operating the starter line.
Power To Design, Build, And Operate SpeedLink
In the previous paragraph the need for flexible and expeditious response was identified as a key
ingredient for success. The SpeedLink organization will need the capability to look at a variety of
different short and longer term options for building, implementing, and operating the starter line.
Thus, it will be beneficial if the organization for SpeedLink is not restricted in terms of these options since SpeedLink represents a fundamentally new transit service for the region.
12.3
Regional versus Municipal and County
SpeedLink is rapid transit and as such it is regional in nature with a service area that includes
Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties. It is a regional service that is being developed in response to mobility needs that clearly transcend municipal and county jurisdictional boundaries
and existing DDOT and SMART boundaries. SEMCOG provides for regional mobility planning in
a seven county area that includes the SpeedLink service area. The RTCC provides only a limited
mechanism for coordinating implementation and delivery of public transportation.
One recurring theme from the Task Force and the stakeholders is the need for a fully integrated
system of transit services, which would include SpeedLink. This simply repeats MAC’s early issue
paper on the need for an integrated network of SpeedLink, Interlink (regional and community
bus), and Homelink (community and neighborhood shuttle) services. The current network of services is only partially coordinated despite DDOT and SMART efforts. For SpeedLink success, customer travel must be seamless between all transit service types and operators. Further, close coordination will be needed to maximize efficiency and effectiveness of the transit investment in
SpeedLink and in the other transit services. Regional cooperation will be necessary to respond to
the challenges effectively and ensure that SpeedLink and the entire transit system are a success.
12.4
Regulatory Issues
The SpeedLink organization will need to be in compliance with federal, state, and local requirements. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has a broad range of regulations that require
compliance if Federal funds are accepted. Other Federal regulations, including Civil Rights and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are not tied to funds and are required in any circumstance.
Of specific interest in establishing a new transit organization are the statutory requirements of Section 13C of the Federal Transit Act: ‘That fair and equitable arrangements are made, as determined by the
Secretary of Labor, to protect the interests of employees affected by (Federal) assistance.’
There will be numerous state and local requirements that are attached to any enabling legislation
creating a new transit organization and SpeedLink will need to address these as they are known.
Page 12-2
12.5
How Others Have Started Rapid Transit?
There have been two general organizational models that most new rapid transit starts have followed:
•
•
Existing single regional authority – started within existing organization
Multiple operators or authorities – create another regional authority or create new operating entity within existing regional authority
New Rapid Transit Starts
The following examples present the range of new rapid transit organizational models that have
been implemented:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
12.6
San Diego – new wholly-owned subsidiary (multiple operators in region), part of existing operator (commuter rail), BRT (two largest operators)
Denver – part of single regional authority
Dallas – part of single regional authority (LRT); new entity (commuter rail)
Houston – part of single regional authority
St. Louis – part of single regional authority (MO) and interlocal agreements (IL)
Seattle – new regional authority with multiple operators
Los Angeles – part of new county regional authority with multiple operators
(BRT/LRT), new multiple-county regional authority (commuter rail)
Santa Clara County – one of multiple regional authorities (BRT/LRT)
Organizational Options for SpeedLink
The organizational options for SpeedLink vary somewhat depending upon the short term versus
the longer term due to the need to develop, implement, and operate/manage a starter line(s) versus an entire network of SpeedLink lines. To this end, organizational options are simply identified
for consideration under both time frames.
Near Term Starter Line(s)
•
– Cannot operate service directly in-house
– Requires third party operation (public or private)
– RTCC has not been used previously on a project like SpeedLink
•
DDOT and/or SMART
– One or both could implement and operate SpeedLink in-house or with third
party contract
– Both would have to acquire technical expertise for a SpeedLink-type implementation
– Both are focused on their respective service areas and SpeedLink will require a
regional perspective
Page 12-3
•
– Brand new operating entity – starting a brand new transit service at the same
time would be a challenge
– Depending on enabling legislation, could implement in-house or with third
party
Long Term Full SpeedLink Network
12.7
•
– Possible oversight for new SpeedLink entity
– Does not have mechanism for long term funding for SpeedLink
•
DDOT and/or SMART
– Neither has the regional funding capability needed for implementing SpeedLink
– Neither has the regional operating and implementation planning authority
•
– Assumes availability of long term dedicated funding
– Likely ability needed to accept federal and state funds
– Operating and implementation planning authority required
Organizational Options for Implementation
There are four principal areas of expertise that will be required for a successful starter line(s) implementation: oversight/planning, design, build/acquire, and operate/manage. Table 12-1 presents three general options available for implementation of the starter line.
Table 12-1: Implementation Options
Option
A
Traditional
B
TurnKey
C
DBOM
1
1
Oversight &
Implementation
Planning
Design
Build
Operate
Separate
Regional Entity
Third Party
Third Party
Third Party or
Existing Provider
Separate
Regional Entity
Separate
Regional Entity
Third Party
Third Party or
Existing Provider
Third Party
Design, build, operate, manage
Page 12-4
All three approaches involve the provision of oversight and implementation planning by the new
regional organization noted earlier. This entity would have direct responsibility for ensuring that
the other three functions, design/build/operate, all take place in a timely, cost-effective manner
such that expectations for the SpeedLink starter line(s) are met.
A – Traditional
The traditional approach involves undertaking the design, build, and operation as three separate
activities with separate parties or contracts. The advantage of this approach is that the contracting
organization can select whom they believe to be the optimal choice for each activity, including the
option of operating the starter line(s) with either a third party or an existing transit provider (i.e.,
DDOT/SMART). This approach also allows for deficiencies in one activity to be easier to identify
because there is no shared performance risk between contractors. The downside is that three separate activities must be individually managed and monitored, the primary risk for the overall
SpeedLink starter line(s) rests solely with the regional organiz ation, and the overall cost may be
higher.
B – Turnkey
The turnkey approach recognizes the synergy between the design and build activities and consolidates these under one third party contractor. The major advantages with this approach over the
traditional is the opportunity to realize capital cost savings through the design-build synergy and
the shifting of primary risk for these activities to a third party. The downside is that you no longer
have the design firm and builder monitoring each other’s performance.
C – DBOM
The Design/Build/Operate/Manage (DBOM) or Design/Build/Operate/Transfer (DBOT)1 are
developments that recognize the linkages between good design/construction and a successful operation. Typically, this synergy leads to a design and construction effort that seeks to provide an
efficient and effective operation, something of significant long-term benefit for SpeedLink. Thus,
the DBOM/DBOT entity will likely propose a starter line(s) project that balances capital and operating costs such that an attractive lower life cycle cost (design, build, and operate for a specified
number of years) will result. This approach is the easiest to administer because there is just one
contractor involved who assumes the primary risk for executing a successfully operating
SpeedLink starter line(s). Having responsibility for all aspects of the work usually results in the
contractor internally resolving issues in the different activities such that the long term SpeedLink
goals are realized, since in many ways these are shared with the SpeedLink organization.
12.8
Summary
While there are many technical challenges to making SpeedLink a reality for Metro Detroit customers, the more difficult may be solving the organization issues. The successful resolution of the
The primary difference between DBOM and DBOT is that the latter will transfer the operation back to the
public organization at some specified date.
1
Page 12-5
organizational issues and the establishment of an effective structure for transit will likely be the
most important element in the future of SpeedLink in the region.
Page 12-6
13.0 Funding
This section is an overview of funding requirements and opportunities.
13.1
Funding Requirements
SpeedLink will need short-term funds to cover the capital and operating costs of the starter line(s)
demonstration. There are two possible options for funding the starter line(s):
•
•
Possible one-time grant covering portion of demonstration cost
Allocate from new long term dedicated funding source (not yet determined)
These funds will need to be available quickly to implement starter line within the next 3-5 years as
desired by the Task Force and the Stakeholders. Neither of the existing transit operators have any
surplus funds available for SpeedLink. In fact, one of the basic assumptions in the costing is that
neither operator will suffer a negative financial impact from SpeedLink.
Once the starter line(s) is successfully demonstrated (if not sooner), there will be a critical need to
secure a long term source of funds to build and operate the full SpeedLink network and make
necessary improvements in other transit services that comprise the integrated system.
13.2
Funding Options
There are three principal sources of funds outside of operating revenues:
Federal Funds
As discussed earlier, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has a major Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) initiative underway that has drawn significant interest from many regions in using FTA
funding to help develop their BRT networks. Thus, the competition for capital funds is quite
intense with FTA now requiring substantial ongoing local investment in matching funds. FTA had
historically funded up to 80 percent of new start programs, but has in recent years been requiring
higher local match commitments with the typical FTA match now just 50 percent. Many systems
continue to provide even higher local matches in order to move up the new start lists for federal
funding.
Federal operating funds for SpeedLink are not available. There are other federal funding sources
that are available for special aspects of developing SpeedLink. For instance HUD will sometimes
fund streetscape and access improvements and FHWA, transit priority measures.
State Funds
The state funds may be ongoing (long term implementation and operation) or special grants (pilot
projects). Competition state-wide, not only between transit regions but for other purposes, creates
major challenges to establish a priority for SpeedLink in particular and transit improvements for
Metro Detroit in general. There are a large variety of tax sources for transit that can be considered.
Page 13-1
Section 13: Funding
Local Funding Sources
Just as at the federal and state levels there are a variety of potential sources available; but the
competition with other important infrastructure improvements within the three county area is
severe. There are possible joint funding initiatives with related projects (e.g., roadways, traffic
signals) and individual initiatives. These options are currently being assessed by the Citizens
Research Council.
13.3
Summary
Funding is nearly as important as the organizational issues in establishing SpeedLink; the only
difference is that an effective organization is usually a required first step to securing the necessary
funding, making it slightly more important.
A long term dedicated funding source for both SpeedLink and the necessary enhancement of the
other elements in the integrated network of transit services is imperative to moving ahead.
Page 13-2
14.0 Next Steps
The conclusion of the SpeedLink Feasibility Study with the identification of a short list of
candidate starter line(s) begins the “next steps” process. The following list covers the general steps
that will be involved in moving forward with a SpeedLink starter line:
•
Public comment – stakeholders
(Months 1-3)
•
Coordination with SEMCOG – finalize starter line
(Months 1-6)
•
Address organization and funding issues
(Months 1-24)
•
Decide on implementation option
(Months 24-27)
•
Select design, construction, and operations entities
(Months 27-30)
•
Complete implementation
(Months 30-54)
•
Initiate SpeedLink starter line
(Months 54-60)
Page 14-1

here - Publictransit.us

Transcription

Similar documents

Froggy Drawing handout2 - Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority

Pharr District Regional Characteristics and Inventory

The Use of Geographic Data at Winnipeg Transit

Introduction Transit Oriented Developments(TOD) have gained

Building what matters - SNC

Technical Advisory Committee Presentation

route 23

BurLink - Cross County Connection TMA

1947 bus flxible