TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference Houston, Texas
May 2009
Ann Arbor Transportation Ann Arbor Transportation
Plan Update--Plan Update--
Connecting the Land UseConnecting the Land Use
& Transportation Dots & Transportation Dots
to the Futureto the Future
By: Barbara Arens, PE, PTOE
Parsons Brinckerhoff
1990 Transportation Plan Goals
Transportation Plan Update Goals
Provide appropriate access and mobility
Provide appropriate access and mobility1
Protect and enhance the natural and built
environments
Protect and enhance the natural and built
environments
2
Promote a safe, secure, and attractive transportation system
Promote a safe, secure, and attractive transportation system
3
Invest funds wisely, considering all City goals, and
within financial constraints
Invest funds wisely, considering all City goals, and
within financial constraints
4
1990 Transportation Plan Goals
Transportation Plan Update Goals
Promote Regional CooperationPromote Regional Cooperation5
Ensure the public remains involved
Ensure the public remains involved
6
Promote a system that is supportive of and integrated
with land use decisions
Promote a system that is supportive of and integrated
with land use decisions
7
Promote green transportation improvements to reduce
vehicle emissions
Promote green transportation improvements to reduce
vehicle emissions
8
Ann Arbor
UM
County
Green Transportation
Enhance travel choices to reduce dependency on single occupant vehicle trips causing… Decrease in Number of Auto Trips Decrease in Trip Length Decrease in Emissions Less Pavement, More Green Space
Environmentally-friendly design and construction
Energy-efficient vehicle fleets
Input Throughout the Process
Public Workshops (3) Advisory Committee (Over 50
members from the community)
Steering Committee (5 agencies)
Newsletters (3)
1990 Transportation Plan GoalsPrevious Plans
1990 Transportation Plan1990 Transportation Plan1990
Northeast Ann Arbor Transportation Plan
Northeast Ann Arbor Transportation Plan
2006
Non-Motorized PlanNon-Motorized Plan2007
Downtown Ann Arbor Framework
Downtown Ann Arbor Framework
2006
Current Ann Arbor Travel Choices
Bike Walk Auto
Bus (UM/AATA/Paratransit)
Taxi Amtrak
Ann Arbor Current Employment Ann Arbor Current Employment PatternsPatterns
Approximately 58,000 Ann Arbor residents in the work force Approximately 41,000 (71%) work in
Ann Arbor Approximately 17,000 (29%) work
outside Ann Arbor
Person TripsPerson Trips
640,000 Person Trips within the City Daily 51% of Trips stay within Ann Arbor 32% enter the City and leave 17% leave the City and return
Trips entering/leaving City
Vehicular96%
Walk 2%Transit 1%
Bike 1%
AnalysisAnalysis
Past Plan Recommendations
Land Use Changes Critical Crash
Locations Study
Intersections Key Corridors Transit
Opportunities
High Density
12,930 More Households
7,590 More Jobs
Medium Density
7,150 More Households
5,400 More Jobs
Potential Land Use Intensification
Growth in Daily Congestion Based on Growth in Daily Congestion Based on Existing NetworkExisting Network
Existing 2005 Daily Congestion
Future 2030 Daily Congestion
Adopted City Plans will result
in 40-50% increase in
number of auto trips
Looking to the Future
Review current conditions+ Expected growth+ Where it may occur+ Associated new trips and their
impact on the transportation system
----------------------------------------------= Potential future conditions
Corridors for AllCorridors for All
Add Choices Reduce Auto Trips in Peak Hour Maximize Existing Capacity Redesign Streets
for Multiple Users Link
transportation investments to land use and site design changes
Transportation PoliciesTransportation Policies
Transportation Choices as Catalyst for Land Use Change
Variable Street Design Standards
Transit-Oriented Design and Densities
Access Management Transportation
Impact Studies
Focus on Improving TransitFocus on Improving Transit
Evaluate Transit Types & Priorities
Assessment of High-Frequency Transit Corridors
Signature Transit Corridors
Commuter Rail Express Bus
Different Types of TransitDifferent Types of Transit
Bus Rapid Transit
Streetcar
Light RailCommuter Rail
Local Bus
Land Use Density & TransitLand Use Density & Transit
Higher Density of Residential and Commercial allows a higher level of transit:
Density Residents +
Employees per Acre
Appropriate Types of Transit
Low < 10 Lower Level of Bus or No Service
Medium 10 – 25 More Frequent Bus Service/ BRT
High 25 – 40 Streetcar/LRT
Very High
> 40 LRT/Commuter Rail
Lessons Learned from Other Lessons Learned from Other CitiesCities
Assessment of All Transit Choices particularly BRT/Streetcar
Comparisons with similar size cities
Comparison with University cities Positive Economic Impact (created $2
to $30 of development for every $1 invested)
Costs / Funding BRT $6-$25M/mile LRT $30-$40M/mile
Challenges
Reduction in VMT & CO2
2.00
1.94
1.87
1.741.70
1.66
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
Land Use#1
Land Use#2
Land Use#3V
ehic
le M
iles
of Tra
vel a
nd C
O2 in
M
illio
ns
2030 Do Nothing 2030 With Recommendations
Level in
2005
Reduction in Daily Congestion
Future 2030 Daily Congestion with Recommendations
Future 2030 Daily Congestion without RecommendationsWith
Recommendations:54% decrease in
congestion and 30% increase in Transit
Ridership
Short, Medium, and Long Term Short, Medium, and Long Term Recommendations & PrioritiesRecommendations & Priorities
Short Term (within 5 years) Safety Policy, Process, and Study Related Implementable (TIP/CIP) Corridor implementation for modes
Medium Term (5 - 10 years) Continue connective implementation Implement land use and
transportation mode shifts Long Term (10 - 20 years)
Continuation of medium implementation in key corridors
Final Plan Recommendations
Downtown
Thank you!
Questions
