ALIGN THE RAPID S TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STUDY. Tech Memo #1: Existing Conditions Report. Prepared By:

Transcription

1 ALIGN THE RAPID S TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STUDY Tech Memo #1: Existing Conditions Report Prepared By: & Table of Contents 1

2 Table of Contents 1.0 Study Area Context and Description Existing Conditions Demographic Conditions Employment Conditions Transit Utilization Ridership Silver Line BRT Performance System Ridership by Time of Day Route Frequency by Time of Day Stop Activity On-Time Performance Bus Stop Infrastructure Locations Walkability Analysis Previous Planning Efforts Introduction Transportation Plans Community Plans Conclusions Table of Contents ii

3 Source: The Rapid 1.0 Study Area Context and Description is a year-long project being led by The Interurban Transit Partnership (aka The Rapid), which will identify, analyze, and prioritize a set of transit improvements that can be made to the existing bus system to improve the transit experience in Grand Rapids and the surrounding communities. The project will look for ways to add to and improve the network, recommend land use and other policies to help grow ridership, and determine the improvements the public would like to see for the system. This study will build upon The Rapid s previous transit projects, The Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and the Laker Line BRT, to identify opportunities to improve and potentially expand transit service within the urbanized area. The Rapid s current Service Area consists of Grand Rapids and the five cities that surround it; Walker, East Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Wyoming, and Grandville. The project Study Area includes these six cities but will pursue a regional approach to transit investment by considering the entire Grand Rapid Urbanized Area (UZA) boundary. The UZA extends north to the City of Rockford and west into Ottawa County and includes Hudsonville, Georgetown Township, and Allendale Township. Figure 1-1 shows the Grand Rapids UZA along with the six cities that make up the Interurban Transit Partnership. 1.0 Study Area Context and Description 1

4 Figure 1-1: Transit Improvement Study Project Study Area 1.0 Study Area Context and Description 2

5 Source: The Rapid 2.0 Existing Conditions Understanding where people live, where people work, and where the highest ridership and most efficient transit routes operate will help create a framework within potential transit investments can be defined to respond to demand and generate benefits across the entire Rapid transit network. 2.1 Demographic Conditions Current and Future Population Grand Rapids is the largest city in the region with a 2015 population of nearly 192,500 people. Wyoming is the second largest with about 74,100, followed by Kentwood which has a population of 50,286. The Urbanized Area has a population of 557,000 and an overall population density of 2 people per square mile. Table 2-1 shows the population for the cities and larger townships in the Grand Rapids UZA, as well as the Grand Valley Metropolitan Council 2040 forecasts for population growth in the region. The UZA is expected to grow by about 43,500 people by Table 2-1: 2015 and 2040 Population Population Population Municipality Total Density Total Density Grand Rapids 192,416 4, ,840 4,370 E. Grand Rapids 11,128 3,478 10,782 3,369 Kentwood 50,286 2,400 52,832 2,522 Wyoming 74,104 1,151 75,717 1,176 Grandville 15,739 2,052 15,618 2,036 Walker 24, ,437 1,038 Rockford 5,956 1,799 5,834 1,763 Hudsonville 32,121 1,756 7,566 1,828 Municipality 2015 Population 2040 Population Total Density Total Density Plainfield Twp 32,121 1,295 35,052 1,413 Cascade Twp 18, , Georgetown Twp 48,911 1,434 53,965 1,583 Grand Rapids Twp 17,510 1,122 18,461 1,183 Urbanized Area 557,002 2, ,470 2,239 Source: US Census ACS 2015, Grand Valley Metropolitan Council 2.0 Existing Conditions 3

6 Figure 2-1: 2015 UZA Population Proportion Grand Rapids Twp 3% Rest of UZA 11% Cascade Twp 3% Georgetown Twp 9% Grand Rapids 35% Plainfield Twp 6% Hudsonville 1% Rockford 1% Grandville 3% Walker 4% Wyoming 13% Kentwood 9% E. Grand Rapids 2% Source: US Census ACS 2015 The portions of the Study Area with the highest population density are located in and around Downtown Grand Rapids, mostly to the south of Fulton Street. There are additional pockets of high population density in Grandville and Wyoming along Byron Center Drive, in Kentwood along 44 th Street SW, in Georgetown Township, and in Allendale Township near Grand Valley State University. The Rapid s Service Area communities currently encompass 368,005 residents, or 66% of the entire UZA population. The Rapid service area population is expected to grow to nearly 380,000 by 2040, accounting for 63% of the UZA. Table 2-2: Current and Forecast Population: The Rapid Service Area and UZA Total Population (2015) Percent of Total Total Population (2040) Percent of Total Rapid Partner Cities 368, % 379, % UZA Population 557, , Existing Conditions 4

7 Figure 2-2: Study Area Population Density (2015) 2.0 Existing Conditions 5

8 Figure 2-3: Study Area Population Density (2040) 2.0 Existing Conditions 6

9 Minority Population Density Minority population in the Study Area is concentrated in the Cities of Grand Rapids, Kentwood, and Wyoming, with the highest densities in southern Grand Rapids. Higher densities of minority populations extend south from Grand Rapids to the northwest side of Kentwood and parts of Wyoming. Additionally, there is a very dense area of minority population in Alpine Township, along Alpine Road. Grand Rapids and Kentwood have the highest minority population density of the cities within the UZA and both are similar to the overall UZA minority density of 400 people per square mile. The cities located farther away from the core area of the study area have much lower proportions of minorities. Figure 2-5 shows the density of minorities in the Study Area. Table 2-3: 2015 Minority Population and Density Study Area Cities Municipality 2015 Minority Population Total Density (people/mile 2 ) % of Total Population Grand Rapids 51, % East Grand Rapids % Kentwood 16, % Wyoming 14, % Grandville 1, % Walker 2, % Rockford % Hudsonville % Urbanized Area 114, % Source: US Census ACS 2015 Figure 2-4: 2015 UZA Proportion of Total Minority Population Hudsonville 1% Grandville 1% Rockford 0% Walker 2% Wyoming 13% Rest of UZA 23% Grand Rapids 45% Kentwood 15% East Grand Rapids 0% 2.0 Existing Conditions 7

10 Figure 2-5: Study Area Minority Population Density 2.0 Existing Conditions 8

11 Limited English Proficiency Households Households with limited English proficiency are scattered throughout the Grand Rapids Metro area. The areas with the highest density of LEP household are located along either side of US- 131 in Southeast Grand Rapids and Wyoming. Other pockets with high concentrations of LEP households are located in Kentwood, Allendale Township, Alpine Township, and Cascade Township. Kentwood, Wyoming, and Grand Rapids have the highest total proportion of low English proficiency households of the cities in the UZA. Grand Rapids has the highest total number of LEP households. Overall, 3% of the households in the Study Area have low English proficiency. Figure 2-7 shows the proportion of households with limited English proficiency. Table 2-4: 2015 LEP Households - Study Area Cities Municipality 2015 LEP Households Total Proportion % of Total Households Grand Rapids 3, % 1.5% East Grand Rapids 0 0% 0.0% Kentwood 1, % 0.6% Wyoming 1, % 0.4% Grandville % 0.1% Walker % 0.0% Rockford % 0.0% Hudsonville 6 0.2% 0.0% Urbanized Area 6, % 3.1% Source: US Census ACS 2015 Figure 2-6: 2015 UZA Proportion of LEP Households Hudsonville Rockford 0% 0% Walker 1% Grandville 2% Rest of UZA 9% Wyoming 22% Grand Rapids 47% Kentwood 19% East Grand Rapids 0% 2.0 Existing Conditions 9

12 Figure 2-7: Study Area Limited English Proficiency Household Proportion 2.0 Existing Conditions 10

13 Individuals Living Below Poverty Line Central Grand Rapids is home to many of the census block groups with high concentrations of individuals living below the poverty line. The densest areas can be found directly to the north and south of Downtown. Allendale Township and Alpine Township also have pockets with high densities of people living below the poverty line. Grand Rapids has the greatest city-wide density of individuals in poverty of the cities in the UZA, followed by Kentwood and Wyoming. The Study Area has a total density of people living below the poverty line of 316 people per square mile. Figure 2-9 shows the density of individuals who live below the poverty line. Table 2-5: 2015 Percentage of Population Living Below the Poverty Line Study Area Cities Municipality 2015 Individuals in Poverty Total Density (people/mile 2 ) % of Total Population Grand Rapids 48, % East Grand Rapids % Kentwood 7, % Wyoming 10, % Grandville 1, % Walker 3, % Rockford % Hudsonville % Urbanized Area 90, % Source: US Census ACS 2015 Figure 2-8: 2015 UZA Proportion of Total Individuals in Poverty Rest of UZA 20% Grand Rapids 53% Hudsonville 1% Rockford 1% Walker 4% Grandville 1% Wyoming 12% Kentwood 8% East Grand Rapids 0% 2.0 Existing Conditions 11

14 Figure 2-9: Study Area Percentage of Population Living Below the Poverty Line 2.0 Existing Conditions 12

15 Zero Car Households Concentrations of households without access to a vehicle are spread throughout the Grand Rapids region, however many of them can be found in and around central Grand Rapids. Not surprisingly, many of the same census block groups with higher densities of poverty also have high concentrations of zero car households. Concentrations of zero car households are not directly correlated to poverty though. Rockford, Grand Rapids Township, Georgetown Township, Walker, Plainfield Township, and Cascade Township also have areas with high proportions of zero car households. Overall, 8.2% of the Study Area s households do not have access to a vehicle. Grand Rapids has the highest proportion of zero car households of the cities in the UZA, followed by Kentwood and Wyoming. Surprisingly Rockford has a relatively high concentration of zero car households considering it is about 14 miles from Grand Rapids and The Rapid s Service Area. East Grand Rapids has the lowest concentration of zero car households at only 1.8%. Figure 2-11 shows the proportion of zero car households within the Study Area. Table 2-6: 2015 Zero Car Households and Proportion Study Area Cities Municipality 2015 Zero Car Households Total Proportion % of Total Households Grand Rapids 9, % 4.8% East Grand Rapids % 0.0% Kentwood 1, % 0.9% Wyoming 2, % 1.0% Grandville % 0.1% Walker % 0.3% Rockford % 0.1% Hudsonville % 0.0% Urbanized Area 17, % 8.2% Source: US Census ACS 2015 Figure 2-10: 2015 UZA Proportion of Total Zero Car Households Hudsonville Rockford 1% 1% Walker 3% Grandville 2% Rest of UZA 13% East Grand Rapids 0% Wyoming 12% Kentwood 10% Grand Rapids 58% 2.0 Existing Conditions 13

16 Figure 2-11: Study Area Proportion of Zero Car Households 2.0 Existing Conditions 14

17 Median Household Income Median Household Income East Grand Rapids, Cascade Township, Grand Rapids Township, Plainfield Township, and Georgetown Township have median household incomes of $100,000, which is higher than the rest of the urbanized area. This is due in some part to the lower population density in these areas. Portions of Grand Rapids and parts of Allendale Township have the lowest median household incomes in the region. Figure 2-13 shows the median household income by census block group for the Study Area. Table 2-7: 2015 Median Household Income - Study Area Cities Municipality 2015 Median Household Income Grand Rapids $40,355 East Grand Rapids $112,000 Kentwood $49,612 Wyoming $46,849 Grandville $53,572 Walker $50,903 Rockford $55,508 Hudsonville $54,825 Source: US Census ACS 2015 Figure 2-12: 2015 Median Household Income $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 2.0 Existing Conditions 15

18 Figure 2-13: Study Area Median Household Income 2.0 Existing Conditions 16

19 Senior Population Density Census block groups with high concentrations of senior citizens (age 60+) are scattered throughout the Grand Rapids UZA. Much of The Rapid s Service Area has a density of over 400 seniors per square mile, with high density pockets in Kentwood, Central Grand Rapids, Wyoming, and Walker. Outside of The Rapid s Service Area, high concentrations of seniors exist in Rockford, Georgetown Township, and Canon Township. Grand Rapids has the highest senior population density of the cities within the UZA, followed by East Grand Rapids, and Wyoming. However, the overall Study Area has a greater senior population density than any of the cities. This is likely due to a high number of seniors living in the townships and other municipalities partially inside the UZA. Figure 2-15 shows the density of senior citizens within the Study Area. Table 2-8: 2015 Senior Population Density - Study Area Cities Municipality 2015 Senior Population Density Total Density (people/mile 2 ) % of Total Population Grand Rapids 30, % East Grand Rapids 1, % Kentwood 8, % Wyoming 10, % Grandville 1, % Walker 3, % Rockford % Hudsonville % Urbanized Area 94, % Source: US Census ACS 2015 Figure 2-14: 2015 UZA Proportion of Total Senior Population Rest of UZA 39% Hudsonville 0% Grand Rapids 33% Rockford 0% Walker 4% Grandville 2% Wyoming 11% Kentwood 9% East Grand Rapids 2% 2.0 Existing Conditions 17

20 Figure 2-15: Study Area Senior Population Density 2.0 Existing Conditions 18

21 Transit Score Transit Score is a way to display the previous seven measures on one map. Each block group is ranked from largest to smallest for population density, minority population density, senior population density, density of individuals living in poverty, proportion of limited English proficiency households, proportion of zero car households, and the percentage of transit commuters and sorted into five cohorts. Each cohort is then assigned a score between 1 and 5, 5 points going to the top cohort. The final Transit Score is the total score of all factors for each cohort. Figure 2-16 shows the transit score for each block group in the Study Area. Figure 2-16: Transit Score - Grand Rapids UZA 2.0 Existing Conditions 19

22 Most of the areas with a high transit score are currently served by transit, but there are some areas, outside of the existing service area, that have a high transit score and are not served by The Rapid. There are block groups in Gaines Township near its border with Kentwood, in Georgetown Township on the west side of I-196, and in Plainfield Township along the border with Grand Rapids that have transit scores in the top two tiers. These areas are just outside The Rapid s existing service area and may benefit from an extension of existing routes into these areas. 2.2 Employment Conditions Current and Future Employment The Grand Valley Metropolitan Council developed a model as part of their 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan that forecasts employment levels at the time of the plan s writing until 2040 and every five years in between. These figures were used to determine where employment growth is expected within the Grand Rapids UZA. Between 2010 and 2040, employment in the Study Area is expected to grow by almost 61,000 jobs. As shown in Figure 2-17 and Figure 2-18, employment will continue to fill in throughout the Study Area. Some areas that are expected to see growth are Walker (along 3 Mile Road), Plainfield Township, Grand Rapids Township, and Wyoming. These areas are home to many light industrial facilities and office parks and have been growing in recent years. Some of these areas are not currently served by transit and may require additional investments as more jobs locate here. 2.0 Existing Conditions 20

23 Figure 2-17: 2014 Employment Density - Grand Rapids UZA 2.0 Existing Conditions 21

24 Figure 2-18: Percent Employment Change ( ) 2.0 Existing Conditions 22

25 Figure 2-19 shows the location of the major employers in the Study Area, defined as those that employ 200 or more people. 20 of the 142 total major employers, about 14%, are located in Downtown Grand Rapids. The Rapid Service area is home to 102 major employers, or about 72% of the total large employers. Outside of Downtown, large employers are clustered along the major highways, many on the outskirts of The Rapid s Service Area. Figure 2-19: Major Employers (200 Employees or More) in the Grand Rapids UZA 2.0 Existing Conditions 23

26 Percent Tranist Commuters Journey to Work Overall, 2.3% of the Grand Rapids UZA uses transit to travel to work. The majority of people, about 261,500, travel to work in a single occupancy vehicle. For the most part, the areas with the highest proportion of transit commuters are located in Central Grand Rapids and match up with the areas with high concentrations of individuals living below the poverty line and zero car households. Allendale Township has a large number of transit commuters, likely due to Grand Valley State University, as well as some block groups in Sparta Township, Algoma Township, and Blendon Township. Within each of the The Rapid s partner cities, the percentage of commuters using transit has increased in most cases over the past decade. Residents of Grand Rapids and Wyoming significantly increased overall transit commuting between 2007 and 2015, while East Grand Rapids and Grandville had a 0.9% and 0.7% increases in transit commuting, respectively, between 2010 and Kentwood and Walker had small decreases in commute share between 2010 and Table 2-9 and Figure 2-20 show the change in transit commute share between 2007 and Table 2-9: Transit Commute Share Change ( ) Rapid Partner City Transit Commute Share Grand Rapids 3.1% 3.3% 3.5% 4.1% Wyoming 1.0% 1.6% 1.6% 2.0% Kentwood 1.5% 1.5% 1.3% 1.4% Walker 0.8% 1.8% 1.2% 1.6% Grandville n/a 1.6% 2.1% 2.3% East Grand Rapids n/a 1.1% 2.7% 2.0% Source: US Census, American Community Survey Figure 2-20: The Rapid Service Area Transit Commute Share 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% Grand Rapids East Grand Rapids Grandville Wyoming Walker Kentwood Source: US Census, American Community Survey 2.0 Existing Conditions 24

27 Figure 2-21: Study Area Transit Commuters 2.0 Existing Conditions 25

28 Area Roadway Congestion According to MDOT Traffic Volumes, the highways surrounding the Grand Rapids Region carry between 35,000 and 125,000 cars per day. Congestion appears to be heaviest in the core of Grand Rapids along US-131 and I-196 as this is where the heaviest traffic volumes are found. This is also the area where the most people live and work. Traffic levels dissipate as the roads extend away from Downtown Grand Rapids. Overall, traffic congestion occurs each day, likely at the junction points, but does not appear to be as widespread as in larger metros. Figure 2-22 shows the AADT for the highways within the Grand Rapids UZA. Figure 2-22: AADT on Grand Rapids UZA Roadways Source: MDOT 2.0 Existing Conditions 26

29 3.0 Transit Utilization 3.1 Ridership System Ridership Since 2006, The Rapid has grown from a system of about 7.5 million annual rides to one that provided over 11.5 million rides in 2016 (representing growth of approximately 53% over that time period). In 2014, The Rapid hit a record total annual ridership of over 12.5 million riders and was the culmination of 10 years of system growth. Ridership has decreased since 2014, but is still providing about the same amount of rides as in This has also led to a significant increase in the effectiveness of The Rapid s bus system, measured in terms of riders per revenue hour (which increased by 27% over that same time period). The levelling off of ridership growth is consistent with a national trend since 2015, when the national economy started improving and gasoline prices fell drastically from a global supply increase. Table 3-1: The Rapid Annual Ridership FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 Annual Ridership 7,461,775 8,192,599 9,078,469 9,336,708 9,773,397 10,817,509 Percent Change - 9.8% 10.8% 2.8% 4.7% 10.7% FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 2016 Annual Ridership 11,982,971 12,506,289 12,524, ,906 11,446,144 Percent Change 10.8% 4.4% 0.1% -4.5% -4.3% Source: The Rapid It should be noted that the total route ridership shown on the following pages will not add up the total annual trips because The Rapid provides other services that are not included in their ridership reports, including the DASH service and various school trips. 2.0 Existing Conditions 27

30 Riders per Revenue Hour Figure 3-1: The Rapid Annual Ridership Total Annual Ridership Millions Source: The Rapid Figure 3-2: Total Annual Riders per Revenue Hour Individual Route Ridership In 2016 the top two routes by total ridership were contracted routes, Route 50 Campus Connector and Route 48 GVSU South Campus. The contracted routes are those that are paid for by a different entity than The Rapid. In this case the operating costs for each contracted 2.0 Existing Conditions 28

31 route are paid for by GVSU, Grand Rapids Community College, and Ferris State University to provide the service to their students. The Silver Line BRT, Route 2 Kalamazoo, and Route 9 Alpine round out the top five and are the highest performing non-contracted routes. Based on the ridership on the non-contracted routes, most people are traveling north or south within the service area. The Silver Line, Route 2, Route 9, Route 4, Route 1, Route 11, and Route 8 are all oriented in a general north/south direction and end in Downtown Grand Rapids. All of these routes, except for Route 1, have 15 minute or better peak hour headways. Route 1 has 30 minute headways, but the Division Avenue Corridor overall has less than 8 minute headways when the Silver Line and Division Avenue lines are combined. Other than Route 28, there is much less east/west travel happening in the service area. Table 3-2: Average Daily Ridership and Percent Change by Route Route 2016 Total Ridership 2016 Passengers per Hour 2016 Farebox Recovery 50 GVSU Campus Connector* 1,316, n/a 48 - GVSU South Campus* 797, n/a Silver Line 773, % 2 Kalamazoo 641, % 9 Alpine 584, % 4 Eastern 584, % 1 Division 540, % 37 - GVSU North Campus* 467, n/a 28-28th 416, % 6 Eastown 394, % 15 - E. Leonard 377, % 11 Plainfield 356, % 8 Rivertown 329, % 5 Wealthy 307, % th 276, % 10 - Clyde Park 270, % 18 Westside 256, % 7 - W. Leonard 253, % 24 Burton 248, % 3 Madison 246, % 13 - Michigan North 233, % 16 - Wyoming/Metro 226, % 14 - E. Fulton 187, % 12 - W. Fulton 172, % 60 GRCC* 145, n/a 17 - Woodland/Airport 83, % 19 - Michigan South 25, % FSU* 6, n/a Source: The Rapid *Contracted Service paid for by GVSU, GRCC, or FSU The routes that have higher ridership and higher passengers per hour also tend to have higher farebox recovery rates than lower ridership routes. Almost all of these routes run every 15 minutes or faster during the peak hour, making service much more convenient for riders. The 2.0 Existing Conditions 29

32 contracted services do not have a farebox recovery because Grand Valley and Ferris State pay The Rapid to operate the system to benefit their students. Throughout The Rapid s system, ridership on each route has generally been increasing over the past decade. Some notable exceptions in ridership have been on Route 1 Division, Route 6 Eastown, and Route 10 Clyde Park. These three routes are the only routes in the system to have a significantly lower ridership in FY 2016 than they did in FY Routes 1 and 10 may be losing ridership due to the Silver Line since Route 1 travels along Division Street, the same street as the Silver Line, and Route 10 runs along a nearby corridor parallel to the Silver Line. Route 6 s ridership loses could be attributed to a variety of issues which will require further study to determine. The remaining routes have experienced a modest gain in ridership since 2006 or have about the same amount of passengers as in Figure 3-3 shows the change in ridership over time for The Rapid s non-contracted, fixed route transit services. The Rapid has provided contracted services to Grand Valley State University (GVSU) since 2003 when they introduced the Route 50 GVSU Connector to connect the two GVSU campuses in Allendale and Downtown Grand Rapids. The Rapid also provides contracted services to Grand Rapids Community College and Ferris State University. Over the years, additional services have been added and now contribute significantly to the total ridership on The Rapid system. Route 50 has historically been the main driver of the contracted ridership. All of the contracted routes have grown since their start, except for the Center for Health Sciences route, which was eliminated in November 2016 and combined with Route 50. All services experienced a dip in ridership in FY 2015, but rebounded to ridership levels that were near or above 2014 ridership in FY Figure 3-4 shows the 10 year ridership history for The Rapid s contracted services. It should be noted that the total route ridership will not add up the total annual trips because The Rapid provides other services that are not included in their ridership reports, including the DASH service and various school trips. 2.0 Existing Conditions 30

33 Total Annual Ridership x Figure 3-3: Annual Ridership by Route for Non-Contracted Services 10 8 Silver Line Rt 2 Kalamazoo 6 Rt 4 Eastern Rt 9 Alpine Rt 1 Division Rt 28 28th 4 2 Rt 6 Eastown Rt 15 E. Leonard Rt 11 Plainfield Rt 8 Rivertown Rt 5 Wealthy Rt 44 44th Rt 10 Clyde Park Rt 18 Westside Rt 7 W. Leonard Rt 24 Burton Rt 3 Madison Rt 13 Michigan North Rt 16 Wyoming/Metro Rt 14 E. Fulton Rt 12 W. Fulton Rt 17 Woodland/Airport 0 Rt 19 Michigan South Source: The Rapid 2.0 Existing Conditions 31

34 Figure 3-4: Total Annual Ridership by Route for Contracted Services Total Annual Ridership x Rt 50 Campus Connector Rt 48 GVSU S Campus Rt 37 GVSU N Campus 2 0 CHS Rt 60 GRCC GVSU Weekend FSU Source: The Rapid System-wide Ridership Breakdown The majority of ridership on The Rapid system is carried by the High Ridership Routes, which are those non-contracted routes with annual ridership totals of 280,000 or more in FY These routes combined account for about 50% of the total system ridership. The following 11 routes are considered High Ridership Routes : Silver Line BRT Route 2 Kalamazoo Route 9 Alpine Route 4 - Eastern Route 1 Division Route th Street Route 6 Eastown Route 15 E Leonard Route 11 Plainfield Route 8 Rivertown Route 5 Wealthy The remaining 12 non-contracted routes were considered connector routes for this study and generally function to connect riders to their final destinations or to high capacity routes, and provide about 25% of the total system ridership. The other 25% of total ridership is accounted for by the six contracted services that serve GVSU, Grand Rapids Community College, and Ferris State University. The majority of this block of ridership comes from Route 50 GVSU 2.0 Existing Conditions 32

35 Campus Connector. Figure 3-5 shows the total system ridership and how each service contributes. Total Annual Ridership Millions Figure 3-5: Total Annual Ridership by Operating Characteristic Other Routes Total Contracted Ridership Total High Ridership Routes Total Connector Routes Total Annual Ridership 0 Source: The Rapid The contracted services provided by The Rapid account for more of the total ridership now than they did in 2006, but have leveled off since Based on the figures in Table 3-3, the contracted services have contributed about ¼ of the total ridership since 2008 and appear to mirror the trend in the overall system ridership. Table 3-3: Total Contracted and Non-Contracted Rides Tot. Rides % Tot. Rides % Tot. Rides % Tot. Rides % Non-Contracted Rides 5,098,339 68% 5,983,021 66% 7,985,781 67% 7,785,926 68% Contracted Rides 1,362,114 18% 2,114,952 23% 3,092,553 26% 2,801,039 24% Other Routes 1,063,230 14% 980,496 11% 904,637 8% 859,179 8% Total 7,461,775 9,078,469 11,982,971 11,446,144 Source: The Rapid Figure 3-6 shows The Rapid s routes depicted by ridership and frequency. Routes rendered in thick lines are those routes with ridership greater than 280,000 rides per year. These are considered high ridership routes and also include those contracted routes with ridership over 280,000. The thin lines are the connector routes that have less than 280,000 riders per year. 2.0 Existing Conditions 33

36 The routes displayed in green come every 15 minutes or faster, while the routes in blue are those with frequencies of 30 minutes or more. Figure 3-6: The Rapid Ridership and Frequency of Routes 3.2 Silver Line BRT Performance In 2014, The Rapid introduced the State s first bus rapid transit (BRT) line along Division Avenue, from Downtown Grand Rapids to 60 th Street. The Silver Line improves the rider experience by using off-board fare payment, level boarding, peak hour bus lanes, and transit signal priority (TSP). All of these help the BRT achieve a faster travel time from end to end. 2.0 Existing Conditions 34

37 Travel Time Comparison The Silver Line BRT has an average one-way trip time of 34 minutes, 16 seconds, based on the data provided by The Rapid. Travel times tend to range between 30 and 38 minutes, likely due to traffic congestion during specific times of the day and other factors like road construction. The Rapid s schedule lists the end-to-end travel time as being 33 minutes. Route 1 travels along Division Avenue also, but operates as a traditional bus service with closer stop spacing, on-board fare payment, and no transit signal priority (TSP). The routing for Route 1 and the Silver Line differs at the end of each route, but the two services travel along the same stretch of roadway between Wealthy Street and 60 th Street heading southbound. Travel time was compared for this section. Average travel speed between Wealthy Street and 60 th Street for the Silver Line is 18.8 mph and takes 19 minutes to complete. In comparison, Route 1 averages 14.9 mph for the same stretch of roadway and takes 24 minutes. Overall, the addition of BRT amenities like TSP, offboard fare payment, and limited stop spacing allow for a 4-5 minute travel time savings over 6 miles for the section of the corridor the two routes share. The Silver Line average travel time drops to 13.7 mph while operating through Downtown, likely due to congestion. Table 3-4 shows the speed and travel time comparison between BRT and standard bus on the same road. Table 3-4: Travel Time Comparison - BRT vs Standard Bus Route Average Speed: Average Speed: Travel Time: Entire Route Wealthy St 60 th St Wealthy St - 60 th St Silver Line BRT mph 18.8 mph 19 minutes Route 1 Division mph 14.9 mph 24 minutes Source: The Rapid On Time Performance The Silver Line s overall On Time Performance (OTP) is slightly lower than the system average throughout the day. It is particularly low during the evening peak time (3 PM 7 PM), where only 59.6% of trips arrive on time, compared to nearly 74% for the entire system. This low on time performance is likely due to conditions on Division Avenue as Route 1 has a similar performance during the PM peak of 61.9%. AM Peak OTP averages 90% and average midday performance is 82.3%. Table 3-5 shows the average on time performance by time of day. Table 3-5: Silver Line BRT On Time Performance by Time of Day FY16 OTP AM Peak Avg. Midday Avg. PM Peak Avg. Silver Line BRT 90.0% 82.3% 59.6% Route 1 - Division 92.0% 82.3% 61.9% *On Time Performance Average by hour for April 2017 Source: The Rapid 2.0 Existing Conditions 35

38 The BRT has much better on time performance on the outbound trips than inbound trips. Average OTP doesn t fall below 90% until the Division/28 th Street stop and continues until the turn-around at Division and 60 th. On time performance never falls below 70% on the outbound trips. Headed inbound toward Downtown, average OTP dips below 90% at the Division/Cottage Grove stop, only six stops into the return trip. Performance falls below 80% in the Downtown area and averages 62.7% at the Monroe/Lewis stop, the last in Downtown. Table 3-6 shows the on time performance by stop for the Silver Line (note: stops are in order extending from Downtown). Stops highlighted in orange have an average on time performance lower than 90%. Table 3-6: Silver Line BRT - On Time Performance by Stop Terminus Rapid Central Station 100% Outbound Inbound Stop On Time Stop On Time Monroe/Louis 100% Monroe/Louis 62.7% Devos Place 100% Devos Place 72.1% Michigan/Bostwick 98.6% Michigan/Bostwick 77.9% Ransom/Crescent 98.5% Ransom/Crescent 76.5% Ransom/Fulton 98.6% Ransom/Fulton 77.9% Mercy Health 97.1% Mercy Health 82.4% Division/Wealthy 92.8% Division/Wealthy 79.4% Division/Franklin 94.2% Division/Franklin 82.4% Division/Hall 92.8% Division/Hall 85.3% Division/Cottage Grove 92.8% Division/Cottage Grove 88.2% Division/Burton 91.3% Division/Burton 92.6% Division/Kroc 91.3% Division/Kroc 98.5% Division/28th St 85.5% Division/28th St 100% Division/36th St 82.6% Division/36th St 97.1% Division/44th St 73.9% Division/44th St 97.1% Division/54th St 70.1% Division/54th St 98.5% Terminus Division/60th St 88.2% *On Time Performance Average for March 2017 Source: The Rapid OTP Less than 90% 3.3 System Ridership by Time of Day Based on the aggregated system-wide stop boarding data, The Rapid appears to have the largest amount of ridership from 2 PM to 4 PM. The largest amount of ridership during the AM peak is between 6 AM and 7 AM, but is fairly consistent between 5 AM and 9 AM. The PM peak appears to run from 2 PM to 6 PM, based on this data. Overall, ridership is fairly constant 2.0 Existing Conditions 36

39 Percent of Total Daily Ridership between 6 AM and 6 PM, though a few ridership lulls exist during the midday. Figure 3-7 shows the average boardings by time of day for the entire Rapid system. Figure 3-7: System-Wide Ridership throughout the Day 10.00% 9.00% 8.00% 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% *Based on data collected between 1/23/17 and 2/5/17 Source: The Rapid The service AM and PM peaks match up well with the ridership peaks, but could be tweaked during the PM peak to provide more convenient service to additional riders. Currently the PM Peak service runs from 3:15 5:45 PM. 3.4 Route Frequency by Time of Day Eight routes offer service for the entire service span, 7 days a week. All of these routes, except Route 1 have 15 minute peak hour service. Route 1 operates on 30 minute headways at all times. The remaining 15 non-contracted routes do not operate past 11:30 pm. 15 of The Rapid routes run on Sunday as well. Table 3-7 shows the routes in The Rapid system and the frequency of service offered by time of day. 2.0 Existing Conditions 37

40 Table 3-7: The Rapid Route Frequency by Time of Day Route Silver Line Route 2 Route 1 Route 28 Route 4 Route 6 Route 9 Route 11 Route 8 Route 15 Route 10 Route 16 Route 12 Route 13 Route 14 Route 7 Route 5 Route 18 Route 44 Route 3 Route 24 Route 17 Route 19 Weekday AM/PM Peak (6:15a - 8:45a, 3:15p - 5:45p) Weekday Midday (5a - 6:15a, 8:45a - 3:15p, 5:45p - 6:45p) Weekday Evening (6:45p - 11:30p) Weekday Late- Night (11:30p - 12:15p) Saturday Morning (6:30a - 9:30a) Saturday Mid-Day (9:30a - 5p) Saturday Evening (5p - 10p) Sunday (7a - 7p) Route 37 Route 48 Route 50 Route Minutes or Better 30 Minutes or Better 60 Minutes or Better No Service 3.5 Stop Activity As most of The Rapid s routes are more than 8 miles long, there are spots along each where ridership is higher than others. In order to understand where the most efficient and inefficient sections of the routes are, it is important to analyze the average daily activity occurring at each stop. Figure 3-8 shows daily activity of each stop within The Rapid s Service Area. The most used bus stops are those that occur either in greater Downtown Grand Rapids, on Grand Valley s campus, and at transfer points; either where two or more routes meet or at defined transfer areas. The transfer stops with high ridership may warrant additional stop amenities to designate the stops as miniature transit hubs. 2.0 Existing Conditions 38

41 Table 3-8: Top 20 Stops by Boardings in The Rapid System Stop Name Total Average Weekday Boardings Rapid Central Station 6,009 Kirkhof Center GVSU 5,727 Pew Campus Entrance GVSU 1,957 Campus Mack 1,840 Woodland Mall 1,226 Campus West Apartments GVSU 1,159 Copper Beach Townhomes GVSU 737 Fountain Street at Library Place - GRCC West Apartments GVSU 587 Lake Michigan Drive at Wilson Drive 536 Fulton Street at Grand Rapids Community College th Avenue at TRIO Townhomes - GVSU 409 Center for Health Sciences GVSU th Street Meijer 361 Pierce Street at J Lot GVSU 301 Seward Avenue at Lake Michigan Drive 300 Fulton Street at Garfield St 290 Lake Michigan Drive at Walker Fire th Street at Kalamazoo Avenue 234 Pierce Street at Greek Housing GVSU 233 Source: The Rapid 2.0 Existing Conditions 39

42 Figure 3-8: Average Daily Stop Boardings 2.0 Existing Conditions 40

43 3.6 On-Time Performance On average, the on-time performance of The Rapid system has increased from 81.7% to 84.6% between 2014 and All routes had a better on-time performance in FY16 than in FY14 except for Route 10 Clyde Park, Route 15 East Leonard, Route 18 Westside, and Route th Street. These routes, however, only dropped in on-time performance by a percentage or two. Six routes averaged an on-time rate 90% or more and eight others were on-time at least 85% of trips. Table 3-9 shows the average on-time performance for each route between 2014 and Figure 3-9 shows the monthly system-wide average on-time performance for The Rapid between 2014 and Table 3-9: On-Time Performance: FY FY2016 Route FY14 Average FY 15 Average FY16 Average FY16 by Time of Day AM Peak Avg. Midday Avg. PM Peak Avg. Rt 90 - Silver Line 64.2% 82.2% 81.7% 90.0% 82.3% 59.4% Rt 1 - Division 70.4% 75.3% 77.0% 92.0% 82.3% 60.7% Rt 2 - Kalamazoo 77.6% 78.4% 80.1% 87.7% 78.7% 71.6% Rt 3 - Madison 81.0% 87.2% 88.1% 88.8% 92.9% 82.4% Rt 4 - Eastern 72.9% 76.1% 79.2% 91.3% 85.6% 62.8% Rt 5 - Wealthy/Woodland 89.4% 89.5% 92.0% 92.7% 95.8% 86.4% Rt 6 - Eastown/Woodland 82.6% 84.4% 81.0% 94.6% 92.6% 81.7% Rt 7 - West Leonard 86.6% 86.2% 87.8% 95.0% 90.3% 77.7% Rt 8 - Grandville/Rive 81.0% 81.2% 84.1% 95.6% 95.2% 88.2% Rt 9 - Alpine 74.2% 80.0% 84.8% 95.4% 88.7% 80.6% Rt 10 - Clyde Park 87.8% 87.8% 86.5% 97.4% 96.7% 79.8% Rt 11 - Plainfield 81.3% 81.1% 83.8% 87.2% 87.3% 64.7% Rt 12 - West Fulton 93.2% 93.1% 93.6% 96.4% 93.2% 79.4% Rt 13 - Michigan/Fuller North 83.3% 84.5% 89.6% 95.5% 91.1% 74.4% Rt 14 - East Fulton 91.3% 90.2% 93.0% 96.6% 93.7% 86.5% Rt 15 - East Leonard 86.3% 84.9% 85.9% 85.2% 84.7% 69.6% Rt 16 - Wyoming/Metro Hospital 90.3% 91.8% 92.6% 86.1% 88.9% 87.7% Rt 17 - Woodland/Airport 80.0% 86.1% 90.7% 94.1% 93.0% 90.3% Rt 18 - Westside 86.1% 88.5% 88.5% 92.0% 89.5% 76.3% Rt 19 - Michigan/Fuller South 85.9% 85.9% 89.0% 84.8% % Rt 24 - Burton Crosstown 89.9% 90.7% 91.4% 97.2% 96.7% 83.6% Rt 28-28th St Crosstown 77.5% 77.4% 76.7% 93.7% 78.3% 58.9% Rt 44-44th St Crosstown 87.0% 90.0% 89.5% 92.3% 88.3% 75.5% Average 81.7% 83.8% 84.6% 91.7% 87.5% 73.7% *Time of Day On Time Performance collected in April 2017 Source: The Rapid 2.0 Existing Conditions 41

44 Feb-14 Apr-14 Jun-14 Aug-14 Oct-14 Dec-14 Feb-15 Apr-15 Jun-15 Aug-15 Oct-15 Dec-15 Feb-16 Apr-16 Jun-16 Aug-16 Oct-16 Dec-16 Feb-17 Apr-17 Average System-Wide On-Time Performance Most routes have an on time arrival rate of 90% or more during the AM peak and midday. However, nearly all of the routes have a decrease in on time performance during the PM peak hour. Sometimes this decrease is over 30%. This could be due to the PM peak traffic congestion causing slower roads. The increased number of riders using the bus at this time could be causing slowdowns also since on-board fare payment can slow travel time. Figure 3-9: System-Wide On-Time Performance: FY14 - FY Source: The Rapid 3.7 Bus Stop Infrastructure Locations The locations of bus stop infrastructure, in this case bus shelters and benches, were mapped to determine which stops are lacking these facilities. It appears that most of the high use transit stops have either a bench or a shelter. The high use stops that do not have shelters or benches are found where multiple routes cross. For example, 44 th St and Division, 28 th St and Eastern, and Kalamazoo Ave and Burton St all have a high number of daily boardings, but are lacking stop infrastructure. Figure 3-10 shows the locations of the existing shelters and benches in The Rapid s service area. 2.0 Existing Conditions 42

45 Figure 3-10: Bus Stop Infrastructure Locations 2.0 Existing Conditions 43

46 3.8 Walkability Analysis All transit trips have a walking component. Areas with better walkability make it easier to reach transit on foot and can capture a greater number of riders. Walkability is based on a variety of different factors, including sidewalk density, population density, presence of highways, transit density, park density, and school density, all of which have been factored into the analysis shown on Figure The most walkable areas in the Service Area are in the neighborhoods south of Downtown Grand Rapids, south of I-196 and east of US-131. Other areas of highly walkable areas are located northwest of Downtown, in Allendale near Grand Valley State, and in central Wyoming. Figure 3-11 shows the walkability in the Grand Rapids region in relation to The Rapid s bus routes. In most cases the buses are running through areas with a high walkability score. Areas of very high walkability without direct fixed-route transit service include the following areas: Franklin Road from Fuller Road to Breton Road in East Grand Rapids Knapp Street from Monroe Ave to Leffingwell Ave in northeast Grand Rapids Ivanrest Avenue in Grandville Downtown Hudsonville Downtown Rockford 2.0 Existing Conditions 44

47 Figure 3-11: Rapid Service Area Walkability 2.0 Existing Conditions 45

48 Source: The Rapid 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 4.1 Introduction An important part of every planning study is learning and building from previous planning and policy decisions. As part of the project initiation process for The Rapid Transit Improvement Study, the project team has compiled this summary of existing planning studies and documents with relevance to the Study Area. It is intended that this previous work will inform the development of goals and objectives, help guide the development of conceptual transit improvements, and be used as an evaluation measure, with candidate projects rated based on their consistency with these previous plans. The Service Area Map (Figure 4-1) was utilized to set the boundaries for the transportation and land use plans compiled for this report. In the sections that follow, each of these types of plans are presented in chronological order, with the most recent (or ongoing) plans presented first. Understanding that plans respond to current challenges and represent a particular moment in time, this summary primarily focuses on plans completed in the previous 10 years. 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 46

49 Figure 4-1: The Rapid Fixed Route Service Area 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 47

50 4.2 Transportation Plans The Rapid Short Range Plan (2016) Summary This plan lays out assumptions that will assist The Rapid in creating operating revenue forecasts, planning service levels and projecting ridership over the 5-year period between 2016 and In this time period, The Rapid projects that ridership will reach an annual high of almost 13 million in 2020, surpassing 2014 ridership figures the highest in recent record. Agency operating expenses and revenues are expected to rise slightly during this timeframe, and more service hours are expected to be programmed for Bus Rapid Transit. A list of priorities is included in the short range plan, and ranked from low to high. These priorities are shown below: High Priority Extend 15-minute service on weekday by 1.5 hours Increase weekday off-peak frequency to every 15-minutes Extend weekday evening service to 12:15 AM Medium Priority Additional Sunday service on the west side of Grand Rapids Increase frequency of service on Sundays to every 30-minutes Add 15-minute service on Route 3 Madison on weekdays Increase Saturday frequency to every 30-minutes Expand existing Saturday 30-minute frequency by 2 hours Extend Saturday evening service until 12:00 AM Expand Route 19-Michigan service to all-day on weekdays Extend Route 2 Kalamazoo to Gaines Township Meijer Extend Route 11 Plainfield into Plainfield Township Low Priority Additional Sunday service Extend Sunday service until 9:00 PM 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 48

51 All capital project priorities through 2020 are expected to be fully funded. These projects are listed below: Transition to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fueled Vehicles Route Flag Installation Smart Card Project Continued Bus Stop Improvements Continued Growing Partnerships Continued Support of Transit Supporting Activities Laker Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project Moving Michigan Forward: 2040 State Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) (2016) Summary The four goals of the 2040 Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) LRTP are as follows: System Improvements Efficient and Effective Operations Safety and Security Stewardship The State s long-range transportation plan, prepared by the Michigan Department of Transportation, included input received from stakeholders and the public. The highest priority response given by stakeholders was maintain/preserve the existing transportation system, followed by better integration of transit services into the transportation system. A number of the State s transportation goals relate directly to transit: Public Transit Transit is recognized in the SLRP as an integral part of the state s transportation system and economy. The Plan suggests that although hours of service are increasing overall for public transit agencies, without additional revenue funding ridership may continue to drop. This is in part because state funding is not planned to increase alongside rising costs to agencies. The Plan notes that vanpooling is increasing both in number of riders and vans. A demonstration project providing vanpools to Department of Health and Human Services clients was started in 2014 and continues to date. 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 49

52 Trends in the state point to increased momentum for rapid transit projects, and increases in the use of intelligent transportation systems to enhance public transit. Notable too is the evolution of transit agencies from service providers to mobility managers. The Plan notes that mobility managers are particularly helpful in filling gaps for cross-county trips and between neighboring transit systems. Intercity Bus Service Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Indian Trails, Inc. are the state s two principal intercity bus carriers. In response to carrier service reductions, some subsidized bus service has emerged. The above-mentioned carriers provide service on five contracted routes that the marketplace had abandoned. The state s objective in subsidizing these routes is to maintain community access to the national intercity bus network. These two carriers, through a combination of contracted services and subsidized capital, provide the majority of intercity bus service in Michigan. Passenger Rail Michigan is served by one principal intercity passenger rail service provided by Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corp.), established by Congress with the passage of the National Railway Passenger Service Act of Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network that serves more than 500 destinations in 46 states, on about 21,000 miles of routes. It is both a business and a public enterprise that relies on funding from Congress. Amtrak initiated service in Michigan in 1971 as part of its nationwide system. The Amtrak Wolverine line passes through Jackson. Connected and Automated Vehicles: MDOT is currently testing Vehicle-to-Infrastructure communication technology. This and other emerging connected vehicle technology has the potential to improve signal phase and timing for transit services throughout the state. Tests are limited to certain geographic areas but are expected to expand in the future. 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 50

53 GVMC Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (2014) Summary The Grand Rapids region originally developed a bicycle and pedestrian plan in 1996, and this plan represents the most recent update of the non-motorized planning for the region. This update sets the following vision for non-motorized improvements in the region: It is the vision of the Grand Valley Metropolitan Council (GVMC) Non-Motorized Transportation element of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) that an area-wide network of interconnected, convenient, safe, and efficient non-motorized routes may become an integral mode of travel for area residents. Goals and objectives outlined in the plan promote identifying projects that will provide access to transit among other destinations and uses. The plan also offers recommendations for correlating actions that could improve the prospects for non- motorized transportation in the region, including land use planning concepts such as denser mixed- use and transit-oriented development. In Appendix A, the plan discusses the complementary relationship between non-motorized access and transit travel, showing a map highlighting the overlapping geography of fixed-route transit with pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 51

54 GVMC Congestion Management Process (CMP) (2014) Summary The purpose of the CMP is to systematically monitor, measure and diagnose the causes of current and future congestion on [the] region s multi-modal transportation systems; evaluating and recommending alternative strategies to manage or mitigate current and future regional congestion; and monitoring and evaluating the performance of strategies implemented to manage or mitigate congestion. To address congestion, the CMP includes strategies that incorporate transit, transportation demand management, land use and bicycle and pedestrian projects. The CMP recognizes that transit projects reduce peakperiod congestion and system-wide vehicle miles traveled. Laker Line Study Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Report (2015) Summary The Laker Line LPA is a combination mixed traffic / dedicated lane Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route, principally running on Lake Michigan Drive, which will connect the Grand Valley State University Allendale campus with the University s Center for Health Sciences campus along Lake Michigan Drive, Fulton Street, and Monroe Street. If constructed, the Laker Line would be the second BRT route both in Grand Rapids and the State of Michigan. The project addresses identified needs in the following ways: Providing additional corridor capacity to reduce overcrowding Creating high-capacity service with room to accommodate additional transit trip-making in the future Supporting economic revitalization at corridor station locations Increasing multi-modal access to key regional destinations, including downtown and the Medical Mile Connecting with Silver Line service, providing access to high-capacity transit serving Central Station and Division Street Corridor Future expansions of the Laker Line include extending west to Downtown Allendale on the west end of the route, and eastward to Plymouth Avenue outside of Downtown Grand Rapids. 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 52

55 West Michigan Transit Linkages Study (2012) Summary The West Michigan Transit Linkages study, prepared by Ottawa County, suggests that there is potential for new intercity and inter-county public transit services in West Michigan. The document outlines six different route options for commuter transit linkages connecting Holland, Muskegon, Grand Rapids and Allendale. The study forecast ridership for each commuter route and determined that the five routes could serve approximately 91,000 riders. If developed in conjunction with the planned Laker Line route between GVSU and downtown Grand Rapids, the routes would serve most major employment and education centers in the West Michigan. The study includes the following recommendations and findings: Peak hour commuter transit services are unlikely to be viable based on demand, projected low ridership, and lack of local funds. However, some of the following changes may increase the potential productivity and efficiency of such services: o o o o Fuel prices reach levels that cause people to actively seek alternative transportation Economic development factors such as the creation of a large centralized employment destination Unforeseen demographic changes The ability of local units to provide funding for public transportation improvements Potential exists to connect existing services that are already close in proximity. For example, Harbor Transit and Macatawa Area Express services are only 3 miles apart and could possibly be connected via an interlocal agreement. A regional connection of this nature could serve as pilot that could be built upon in the future if successful. 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 53

56 GVMC 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) (2015) Summary The regional Long Range Transportation Plan is an extremely important document in the context of potential public transit routes, as it must be approved by a number of state and federal agencies in order for federal transportation dollars to be expended in the Grand Rapids area. The document outlines a 25 year vision to establish a sustainable multimodal transportation system for the mobility and accessibility of people, goods, and services; it will provide an integrated system that is safe, environmentally sound, socially equitable, economically viable, and developed through cooperation and collaboration. The LRTP addresses all forms of transportation, including vehicular, rail/freight, transit, air travel and non-motorized transportation, and also contains information on pavement conditions, intelligent transportation systems, congestion management and safety. The Rapid Transit Master Plan Final Report (2010) Summary The report states that the Transit Master Plan (TMP) was envisioned as a tool that would provide a strategic direction for The Rapid over the next twenty years. The document identifies current and future transit needs, examines alternate courses of action, and targets transit improvements that tackle the challenge of a growing region. The plan recognizes improvements can enhance the quality of life for area residents. The TMP also includes an update of the 2005 comprehensive operational analysis, a review of the paratransit service (GO!Bus), and prescribes transit-supportive land use policies for corridors identified for possible BRT or modern streetcar service. The planning process resulted in three transit development scenarios, with a preferred scenario based on components of each of the first three scenarios. The preferred scenario 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 54

57 consists of the following improvements: Expansion of system-wide hours of operation Improved service frequencies for fixed route service Extension of routes outside the ITP service area along major corridors, extension of service into Byron and Gaines Townships Expansion of Go!Bus services, accessibility and improved booking New transit services, including: o Bus rapid transit (Division and Lake Michigan Drive) o Express Bus Services along I-196, I-96, US-131 o Modern streetcar services connecting the Monroe North district and the Medical Mile along Michigan Street to The Rapid Central Station o New crosstown routes along Leonard Rd and 3 Mile Rd o New routes connecting to Georgetown Township/Hudsonville, Walker/3 Mile Rd, Rockford, Comstock Park/Belmont In discussing the details of the Preferred Scenario, the plan recommends bus rapid transit service for Route 1 (Division Ave) and Route 50 (Lake Michigan Drive), noting that the proposed service frequencies for BRT would be 10 minutes (or less) for weekday peak periods, 15 minutes for weekday off-peak periods and 30 minutes on weekday evenings, weekends and holidays. The corridors would also have underlying local service (Lake Michigan s local service would only extend west to Standale Meijer), with 30-minute service during all periods. 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 55

58 4.3 Community Plans Rose Center for Public Leadership - Grand Rapids Equity Study (2017) Summary The Mayor of Grand Rapids, Rosalynn Bliss, is a 2017 Daniel Rose Fellow with The Rose Center for Public Leadership. Through this opportunity, and along with the National League of Cities and the Urban Land Institute, Grand Rapids is participating in a yearlong engagement process with experts and fellowship participants. The challenge posed to Grand Rapids through this process is How can Grand Rapids align its community & economic development policies, practices and incentives to achieve a more equitable city? Equity was chosen as the lens for the process because: Equity improves fiscal health Equity increases city competitiveness Equity improves pro-formas Equity (done right) lifts all boats Equity is risk management A list of implementation ideas included in a March 2017 powerpoint for the project lists mobility as a way to operationalize equity-driven policies. Reasons for advancing equity through mobility included: Multi-modality High impact on household expenditures Connectivity to housing, food, employment, education and recreation opportunities 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 56

59 City of Kentwood Draft Non-motorized Facilities Plan (2017) Summary The Non-motorized Facilities Plan is intended to guide growth, land use, development and open space conservation in the City of Kentwood, southeast of the City of Grand Rapids. The plan establishes that safe streets with options for alternate modes of transportation are desirable. The plan identifies key transit corridors in Kentwood, such as: 28 th Street (Route 28) 44 th Street (Route 44) Division Avenue (Route 1 and the Silver Line) Eastern Avenue (Route 4) Kalamazoo Avenue (Route 2) Service to industrial areas near the airport (Routes 5 and 17) Non-motorized connections to the above corridors are encouraged to allow residents and business to sustain and improve the effectiveness of transit services in the community. All fixed route bus stops through Kentwood have been upgraded to include concrete landing pads, and services are made up of low-floor buses to accommodate barrier-free access. The Plan notes that paratransit services are also offered to Kentwood residents through the Interurban Transit Partnership. Some goals of the plan include: Meeting ADA accessibility standards Designing a non-motorized network for users of all skill levels Providing non-motorized connections to adjacent communities Providing non-motorized connections to transit Promoting practical uses of non-motorized transportation 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 57

60 Grand Rapids Draft Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan (2017) Summary The Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan will serve as a guiding document for policy decisions; prioritizing and balancing demands and opportunities; and providing a framework for evaluating future land acquisitions, park improvements, and other expenditures of public funds for parks and recreational activities. Four Vision Strategies were developed throughout the plan development process. The strategies are as follows: Connected Network of Parks, Natural Areas and Waterways Neighborhood Investments Healthy Community Sustainable System Each strategy addresses different aspects of the Master Plan. The first strategy, Connected Network of Parks, Natural Areas and Waterways, will enhance Grand Rapids system accessibility and promote greater, walkable access. This strategy looks at the connectivity of the city comprehensively and proposes several layers of connectivity systems: from restored natural corridors along the river and waterways, to long distance trail connections along railway corridors, to revitalized pedestrian and bike-friendly streetscapes. The Plan emphasizes that parks depend on safe street connections to effectively serve residents. To that end, a network of key streets is identified for potential streetscape improvements to better connect the city s parks and provide safer and more comfortable pedestrian and bike-friendly access. Streets envisioned for enhancements include Burton Street, Franklin Street, Fulton Street, Knapp Street, Leonard Street and 3 Mile Road. These streets all provide east-west connections to parks while Diamond Avenue in the east and Covell Avenue in the west provide connections north-south. Priority streetscape improvements are aligned with the City of Grand Rapids Vital Streets Plan recommendations for transportation corridors and bike routes. Recognizing the importance of walkable access to recreation, the Plan encourages collaboration with other streetscape projects in the city. The City s recent Vital Streets Plan represents overlap between goals of the Planning Department and the Department of Parks and Recreation. 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 58

61 City of Grand Rapids Vital Streets Plan (2016) Summary City s Vital Streets Plan represents an effort to make city streets safe and friendly to all modes of travel. This plan identifies street types, especially those designated as safe routes for non-motorized traffic, to guide future road improvements and enhance connectivity throughout the city. At the same time, the Vital Streets Plan goals overlap with those of the Planning Department and the Department of Parks and Recreation. Streetscape enhancements suggested in the Draft Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan were chosen based on alignment with the Vital Streets Plan. The Plan seeks to advance existing City of Grand Rapids goals and targets including: Increasing alternative transportation mode share Advancing equity in the transportation system Reducing traffic-related serious injuries Promoting health through active transportation Accommodating all ages from infants to aging seniors Reducing vehicle related emissions through reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled The plan lists out strategies for Grand Rapids roadway network by street typologies. These are described below with their envisioned relationship to transit: Neighborhood Residential: Neighborhood Residential streets generally do not feature transit service Link Residential: Fixed route bus transit may be provided on some Link Residential streets Network Residential: Network Residential streets often have some level of transit service and some may feature frequent transit service Neighborhood Business: Access for delivery vehicles, patrons and workers is equally critical to the success of Neighborhood Business streets; users may arrive by foot, bicycle, transit, or personal vehicle, and all modes should be comfortably accommodated Crosstown Connectors: 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 59

62 In addition to automobiles, streets often have significant demands by transit users and bicyclists; include frequent pedestrian crossings to minimize crossing at uncontrolled locations; marked crosswalks must be provided at all transit stops Urban Center: These streets represent a wide spectrum from the highly pedestrianized Monroe Center, to transit-intensive Fulton, to high vehicular demands on Ottawa and Monroe; frequent transit service should be anticipated with transit stops suitable for higher rider volumes Maker/Industrial Primary: These streets often have relatively moderate traffic volumes; because they are locations of significant employment, access via a variety of modes including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access is critically important In addition to street typologies, the Vital Streets Plan identifies a mode emphasis for each of the vital streets. Mode emphases are Balanced, Vehicle/Truck + Transit, Vehicle/Truck, Bicycle: Commuter, Bicycle: Community, and Transit. Design treatments that emphasize transit include relocated transit stops, enhanced stop amenities, smart signal operations, bus bulbs, queue jump lanes at intersections, and/or dedicated transit lanes, among others. The following were identified as Transit or Vehicle/Truck + Transit emphasized streets: Plainfield Avenue NE Jefferson Avenue Lafayette Avenue NE Lake Drive SE Michigan Street Eastern Avenue SE Monroe Avenue NW Division Avenue S Grandville Avenue SW Lake Michigan Dr Fulton Street Michigan Street Corridor Plan (2015) Summary Locally considered the Medical Mile, the Michigan Street Corridor Plan covers the area of Michigan Street from Monroe Street in Downtown Grand Rapids the west to E. Beltline Avenue NE in the east. According to the Corridor Plan, the area is one of the largest employment centers in Michigan with 50,000 employees and 1.25 estimated annual visitors. Six neighborhoods surround the Corridor, with approximately 20,000 residents. Parking pressures are increasing, and since 2010 at least 3,500 new parking spaces have been constructed to accommodate demand. The intent of the Corridor Plan is to allow the area to achieve a sustainable future through land use changes, improvements to the transportation system, and framing important community conversations. 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 60

63 Guiding principles for the Plan are strongly protransit, encouraging not only development and transit-oriented housing options that promote nonautomobile travel, but also directly recommend creating a transportation system that is accessible, interconnected and multimodal. Some specific recommendations of the Plan include: Creation of a separated two-way bicycle facility is suggested for parallel Lyon Street Implementation of Transportation Demand Management strategies like parking management, transit and live-near-work programs along with establishment of mode share targets for the Corridor Redevelopment of Michigan Street as a Complete and Vital Street Improve the pedestrian environment through a mixed-use development pattern, continuous sidewalks of appropriate width, safe and frequent crossings, inviting streetscapes, comfortable places to sit and wait particularly for transit and lighting Creation of an employer partnership with The Rapid to provide circulator transit service with 10-minute headways on weekdays, between 6:30am and 7:30pm along the Corridor 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 61

64 GR Forward: Downtown and River Action Plan (2015) Summary The action plan is described in the Introduction in the following way: GR Forward is a comprehensive plan and investment strategy that envisions the future of Downtown and the Grand River two of the City s strongest assets. Grand Rapids is poised to become a resilient, waterfront city and an urban playground for all ages centered around a progressive and lively Downtown. GR Forward is designed to guide this ongoing transformation. Goal 3 of the Plan is to Implement a 21 st Century Mobility Strategy. This goal involves the following objectives: Provide a stress free pedestrian experience for all ages and abilities Grand Rapids is unique because of its overall walkability. While density and land use have helped create this asset, there are still many forces in Downtown working against it - from the design of streets, to driver behavior, to gaps and barriers in the pedestrian network. As the future growth and success of Downtown directly correlates to the amount of pedestrian activity on its streets, GR Forward prioritizes pedestrian improvements and offers designs to help improve safety along key Downtown corridors including Cherry, Division, Fulton, Market and Michigan. Establish Mobile GR In order to best serve the future of Grand Rapids residents, businesses, and visitors, the way that Downtown parking is managed must continue to evolve to meet the City s future transportation demands. Recognizing this, Parking Services must broaden its scope to cover all transportation choices, not solely driving and parking. This expanded department, Mobile GR, will encompass multiple modes of transportation to help achieve the City s economic development and quality of life goals by increasing the number of people who take transit, walk, bike, or commute/travel in a way other than driving alone, in addition to continuing to manage the City s parking assets. Complete the networks in and out of Downtown Just like every street cannot be a car street, every street cannot be a bike street or a transit street. Street typologies should be created that aligns the right type of improvements with the right type of street. Get connected: utilize technology to make getting around easier 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 62

65 As Downtown modernizes its transportation system with more options, it must also begin to integrate technology with those options to provide users with more information and ability to pay for these options in a variety of ways. Put Grand Rapids On the Map Transportation is the first and last experience for most visitors and should help support the overall unique experience of Downtown. The different regional connections to Grand Rapids - from Amtrak to the Airport - should be actively marketed, (particularly within the Midwest) and new wayfinding should be installed in those locations that will best serve to welcome visitors to Downtown. Green Grand Rapids (2013) Summary The Green Grand Rapids Plan from the City of Grand Rapids updated policy recommendations in the 2002 Master Plan, and also focused resources on the preparation of materials that provide both tools for future decision making and the foundation for implementing projects. With regarding to transit and transportation, Green Grand Rapids strongly embraces transit, stating that land use decisions must be coordinated with efforts to improve and expand transit service, and to create a balanced transportation system that reduces dependence on the automobile. More compact development patterns and higher development densities in some areas of the city will concentrate travel origins and destinations to support more efficient transit operation. Reaffirmed recommendations from the 2002 Master Plan include: higher housing densities near transit corridors, the creation of compact, mixed-use centers on popular bus routes, and encouragement for locating job centers on transit routes. The Green Grand Rapids plan also discussed site planning and street design, noting that the design of buildings and parking areas can have a significant effect on how easily riders can reach their destination. The Plan recommends transit-friendly development and design, particularly at neighborhood, village and sub-regional mixed use centers. Objective BT 6 of the Plan is to Increase the use and effectiveness of transit. The objective components are as follows: 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 63

66 a. Coordinate land use, site design and transportation planning to make transit convenient, efficient and affordable. Locate mixed-use centers on transit routes and higher density housing within walking distance. Encourage transit-supportive development densities in proposed neighborhood, village and sub-regional centers. Ensure that major employment centers are well served by transit. Coordinate parking, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and transit strategies to reduce peak hour congestion and on-site parking needs. Encourage building placement and parking design that facilitates access to transit stops. Include transit-related improvements (bus stations and shelters, benches, sidewalks) in roadway re- construction and streetscape improvement projects. Ensure that transit is accessible to persons with disabilities. b. Support The Rapid s efforts to implement the 2030 Transit Master Plan, including the proposed BRT and Downtown streetcar routes. 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 64

67 City of Wyoming Land Use Plan 2020 (2012) Summary Originally an agricultural area, the City of Wyoming is south and slightly southeast of Grand Rapids. The City grew along transportation routes between itself and Grand Rapids, and those connections remain important today. Major streets in Wyoming include: US-131 highway (north-south access) Burton, 28th, 36th, 44th and 54th Streets (east-west access). I-196 highway (cuts across the northwest corner of Wyoming) The Plan notes that major north-south streets in Wyoming typically do not carry as much traffic as east-west corridors. This may be due partially to the natural barrier created by the Grand River, and the lack of river crossings along the city s northern border. This results in a major north-south network of streets that for the most part terminates at Chicago Drive. The Plan recognizes the influential link between transportation and land use, and calls for continued investment to ensure a comprehensive transportation system, preserve the quality of life for residents and retain a desirable business climate. The transportation vision for Wyoming involves a balanced and coordinated multi-modal transportation system that accommodates ongoing growth and development. Thus, recommendations are provided both for the street system and toward continued improvements for modes other than the automobile, such as walking, bicycling, or use of transit. A convenient, congestion free, safe and multi-modal transportation system will continue to be an important goal for the community. Specific recommendations for Division Avenue north of 44 th Street include: Provide twelve to fourteen foot wide sidewalks where feasible that can also accommodate appropriately spaced sheltered transit stops Facilitate the use of public transit by providing: sheltered transit stops; where possible, provide bus pullouts outside travel lanes; and increase residential densities within the corridor Specific recommendations for Division Avenue from 44th Street south to 60th Street: 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 65

68 Reinvent and reinvigorate the corridor by increasing the level of activity and intensity of use. This can be accomplished in part by promoting residential development and more stable commercial land uses. The overall concept is to redevelop underutilized or marginal properties with residential, thereby increasing the population to support businesses, to improve the potential for transit use, and to focus on the aesthetics and functionality of buildings and infrastructure. Emphasize a development pattern that safely and comfortably accommodates pedestrians by providing sidewalks and pathway connections to the bike trail and public transit on Division Avenue. Specific recommendations for 28th Street & Division Avenue: A mixed-use concept within the parameters of transit-oriented development is proposed City of Kentwood Master Plan (2012) Summary The City of Kentwood is located southeast of the City of Grand Rapids. The City Master Plan vision is to sustain the viability of Kentwood s unique economic, environmental, community, and housing resources while enhancing the quality of life and creating a more balanced transportation system. The specific issues and policies in the plan development process included a number of transit and transportation-related topics, such as: Evaluating the issues relating to the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line along Division Avenue and the potential it brings to the redevelopment of the Division Avenue Corridor Reviewing the city s open space network, non-motorized transportation network and integrating the city s Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommendations Address the relatively new concept of Complete Streets Provide insight into the location and standards for Transportation Oriented Development Not just one, but many sections of the Kentwood Master Plan relate to public transit and multi-modal transportation. Language supporting diversification of transportation modes and creating comfortable, walkable places is interspersed throughout the document. 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 66

69 Although the City does designate Transit Oriented Developments in some places, City policy still encourages single family housing throughout its jurisdiction. Highlights from the Plan related to public transit include: The City should develop a list of streets to evaluate for compliance with Complete Street standards; the streets to consider should include Shaffer Avenue, Stauffer Avenue, Eastern Avenue, and Burton Streets Connect pedestrians to transit and parks; provide bike lanes within existing streets Establish the locations of potential TODs on the Future Land Use Map Encourage mixed use and higher densities around TODs Use a form based code template for future TOD areas Make sure pedestrian/bicycle transportation is connected to transit corridors Transit service and sidewalk interconnections will be considered for all new development and redevelopment; the city will support alternate modes of transportation, such as bike paths to allow connections to transit Continue to support the ITP and require transit stops near new developments; transit stops and non-motorized facilities will be considerations for all new development and redevelopment 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 67

70 City of Grandville Master Plan 2020 (2008) Summary Grandville is to the southwest of the City of Grand Rapids, between the City of Wyoming and Georgetown Township. The Grandville Master Plan identifies the City s main corridors as I-196 (crosses Grandville s northern edge and links to Grand Rapids in the northeast and Holland in the southwest) 28 th Street (M-11) Chicago Drive Wilson Avenue Ivanrest Avenue Rivertown Parkway Prairie Street 28 th Street and Chicago Drive respectively carry approximately 34,000 and 20,000 cars per day. Wilson Avenue and Ivanrest Avenue are major north/south streets. Rivertown Parkway and Prairie Street are other major east/west streets. Grandville joined with other area cities in 2000 to form the Interurban Transit Partnership (ITP) which is now The Rapid. The Rapid operates both the GO! Bus service for elderly and disabled persons, as well as 18 fixed- bus routes, two of which serve Grandville. The Rapid also operates several other specialized services such as the Passenger Adaptive Suburban Service (PASS), which carries persons within certain service areas either to their destinations or to a regular bus stop, and the Downtown Area Shuttle (DASH) service, which links commuters with three specially operated parking areas and employment shuttles. According to the Plan, a portion of Kent Trails runs along the Grand River, down Ivanrest Avenue, Prairie Street, and then along an abandoned railroad bed south through Wyoming to Byron Center. Several other trails run through the city, including along the Grand River, and Buck Creek, connecting to City Hall and the Kent Trails system. 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 68

71 City of Grand Rapids Master Plan (2002) Summary Chapter 6 of the Grand Rapids Master plan is entitled Balanced Transportation. The section discusses the coordination of land use and transportation decision to reduce automobile dependence and to provide choices in travel modes. The section also discusses balancing auto and truck access needs with long-term objectives of improving transit, walkability and bikeability. Highlights from this section include following objectives, which support the balanced, protransit approach in the Plan: BT1: Improve and expand transit service b. Assist in assessing the feasibility of fixed guideway routes and alternative transit modes within the city and region BT3: Design all streets to be safe and walkable and to present a pleasing image of the city BT5: Encourage the more efficient provision of parking and reduce its impact on the city s appearance and walkability. a. Coordinate transit and parking strategies d. Encourage the development of transportation demand management programs by major employers BT6: Improve bicycle access c. Encourage bike/transit linkages (e.g., bus bike racks; bike storage lockers at major transit stops) 4.0 Previous Planning Efforts 69