Gratiot Avenue Transit Study Tech Memo #4: Ridership

Gratiot Avenue Transit Study Tech Memo #4: Ridership 5/31/2016

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION... 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION... 3 2 TECH MEMO #4 OVERVIEW... 5 METHODOLOGY... 5 3 THE ALTERNATIVES AND POTENTIAL STATION LOCATIONS... 6 NO BUILD / TSM ALTERNATIVE... 6 BUS RAPID TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES... 6 4 CODING OF ALTERNATIVES... 8 TRANSIT SPEEDS / DWELL TIMES... 8 ACCESS AND EGRESS CODING... 8 FARE... 9 UPDATES TO NO BUILD / TSM ALTERNATIVE ROUTES... 9 UPDATES TO BRT ALTERNATIVES... 9 5 EVALUATION RESULTS... 11 STATION LOCATION SUMMARIES... 11 OVERALL RIDERSHIP SUMMARIES... 12 IMPACT TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM... 14 List of Tables Table 4-1: No Build Route Updates... 9 Table 4-2: BRT Route Updates... 10 Table 5-1: Station Ridership... 11 Table 5-2: System, Corridor and Route Ridership (2010)... 12 Table 5-3: Gratiot Ridership by Provider (2010)... 13 Table 5-4: Regional Vehicle Miles Travelled and Vehicle Hours Travelled... 14 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Study Area... 4 Figure 2-1: SEMCOG Region... 5 Figure 3-1: No Build Alternative... 6 Figure 3-2: Station Locations and Segments... 7 Figure 3-3: Mount Routes... 7

1 Introduction Project Description The Gratiot Avenue Corridor Study represents a crucial early step in the development of enhanced transit along Gratiot Avenue. This study is being led by the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan (RTA); it includes the development and evaluation of multiple rapid transit alternatives between Downtown Detroit and M-59 (Hall Road). The study area spans the 23-mile Gratiot Avenue corridor that serves portions of Wayne and Macomb counties. The corridor communities along Gratiot Avenue include five cities and townships in Wayne and Macomb Counties: Clinton Township Detroit Eastpointe Mount Roseville The study area includes a two-mile wide buffer centered on Gratiot Avenue, as represented in Figure 1-1. This report is the fourth in a series of technical memoranda (tech memos) that report the results of the Tier 2 Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives. The five other tech memos are available under separate cover and can be found at the RTA website (http://www.rtamichigan.org/best-projects/gratiot-avenue/) under the Documents section: 1. Tech Memo #1: Transportation 2. Tech Memo #2: Operations and Maintenance Costs 3. Tech Memo #3: Capital Costs 4. Tech Memo #4: Ridership 5. Tech Memo #5: Environmental Analysis 6. Tech Memo #6: Station Area Evaluation Results contained in the six tech memos are summarized in the Tier 2 Summary Report, also available under separate cover and available on the website.

FIGURE 1-1: STUDY AREA

2 Tech Memo #4 Overview This tech memo includes the results of ridership forecasting that were used to evaluate the station location and the various routes and runningway alternatives along the Gratiot Avenue corridor. The Tier 2 alternatives, station locations, and segments under evaluation are described in Section 3. How each of the alternatives were coded into the model is summarized in Section 4, and results of the ridership evaluation are presented in Section 5. The results are broken into ridership by station, ridership for the bus-rapid transit, ridership for the Gratiot Avenue corridor, and then ridership for the entire transit system. Methodology The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) has developed a travel demand forecasting model for the seven-county southeast Michigan. This model is a traditional 4-step, trip based model which includes a robust mode choice model. Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the seven counties (plus the City of Detroit) included in the model and the locations of the three corridors within the model area. FIGURE 2-1: SEMCOG REGION The overall model was last updated in February 2013 and utilizes the TransCAD platform. The current version of the model is E6. The E6 model was calibrated for the base year of 2005 and a validation year of 2010. A subsequent update was conducted by SEMCOG in early 2015 and included the trip distribution and mode choice components of the model. The version was then modified to E6C+. SEMCOG staff led the update efforts. The following summarizes the key characteristics of the E6C+ model: The trip distribution and model choice model were calibrated to a base year of 2010, The highway assignment utilizes five different time periods (AM, mid-day, PM, evening, overnight), The transit assignment uses two time periods (peak and off-peak), Transit assignment is implemented by using trip tables in P-A format, The revised time of day model was calibrated using 2010 traffic patterns, E6 model managed lane features were incorporated in highway assignment, The model summary program was revised to reflect the changes made in E6C+, and Alternative Specific Constants for non-included attributes were added for the premium modes. A Forecasting Methodology document was developed for all RTA projects, including the Gratiot Avenue Transit Study. That document provides a more detailed description of the regional model, the input data, the model validation, and the forecasting strategy. This document is available upon request through the Southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority.

3 The Alternatives and Potential Station Locations No Build / TSM Alternative FIGURE 3-1: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build / Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative is comprised of transit service and facilities that currently exist within the corridor. For purposes of the detailed Definition of Alternatives, the No Build Alternative is assumed to be continued operations of existing service for all corridor routes and a relatively modest improvement of service on select existing routes. The No Build Alternative is shown in Figure 3-1. Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives Bus Rapid Transit is being considered between Detroit and Macomb County along Gratiot Avenue, from downtown Detroit to M-59, with potential a potential deviation in downtown Detroit to serve the central business district, and a potential deviation along Main Street in downtown Mt.. The potential BRT route and station locations are shown in Figure 3-2. Four (4) BRT runningway alternatives have been evaluated as part of this technical memo, including: 1. Bus Rapid Transit Mixed Traffic Curb Running 2. Bus Rapid Transit Dedicated Lane Curb Running 3. Bus Rapid Transit Dedicated Lane Median Running 4. Bus Rapid Transit Dedicated Lane Center Running All of the BRT alternatives share several common elements, including having the same Service Plan, Stop Locations, Fare Collection, Technology / Customer Information, Identify / Branding, and maintenance Facility. The runningway is the primary difference between each of the alternatives. The runningway also impacts the type of vehicle, primarily based on the positioning of doors. Because runningway alternatives 2, 3 and 4 produce the same analysis results, they have been grouped together within this memo.

The BRT alternative s potential station locations shown in Figure 3-2 are: 1. Bricktown 2. Eastern Market 3. Mack Avenue 4. Warren Avenue 5. Van Dyke Avenue 6. McClellan Avenue 7. Harper Avenue 8. Outer Drive 9. McNichols Road 10. 7 Mile Road 11. 8 Mile Road 12. 9 Mile Road 13. 10 Mile Road 14. 11 Mile Road / I-696 15. Utica Junction 16. 12 Mile Road 17. Common Road 18. 13 Mile Road 19. Macomb Mall 20. 15 Mile Road 21. Metro Parkway 22. South River 23. Downtown Mt. 24. Sandpiper 25. M-59 26. 23 Mile Road (not shown) FIGURE 3-2: STATION LOCATIONS AND SEGMENTS There are two downtown Mount route options that are also included in the alternatives. One route would be along Main Street in downtown Mount and the other route options is along Gratiot Avenue going around downtown Mount. Figure 3-3 illustrates these two routing options. FIGURE 3-3: MOUNT CLEMENS ROUTES

4 Coding of Alternatives In terms of ridership forecasting, two different running options were evaluated, a dedicated guideway and a mixed in traffic guideway. Two (2) BRT runningway alternatives were compared to a Base Year and No Build scenarios as briefly described below: Base: no change from existing conditions, used as a baseline for comparison to actual ridership No Build/Transportation Systems Management (TSM): some updates to service along Gratiot Avenue from existing conditions, includes increases in headways for traditional bus service along Gratiot Avenue and park and ride locations Mixed Traffic BRT: utilizes Transit Signal Priority (TSP) on all BRT vehicles and signals to enhance travel time efficiency, without the use of dedicated bus lanes Dedicated Lane BRT: utilizes Transit Signal Priority (TSP) on all BRT vehicles and signals to enhance travel time efficiency, with the use of either curbside, median, or center dedicated bus lanes in operation during peak and off-peak models Transit Speeds / Dwell Times The SEMCOG model allows for roadway segments to either have the BRT coded as mixed in traffic or to allow the use of dedicated BRT transit lanes. When roadways segments are coded as dedicated transit lanes, the transit speeds along the roadway are equivalent to the speed limit of the roadway. When the roadway segment is coded as mixed traffic (as all current bus routes are), the transit speed is the speed of prevailing traffic, which is typically less than the speed limit. This allows an advantage for dedicated lanes. Dwell times for the BRT, whether mixed in traffic or dedicated in a separate lane, was kept consistent between all alternatives. The dwell time was also consistent between all RTA projects and complementary to the dwell time for SMART routes. The dwell time was set for 0.28 minutes per station location. Access and Egress Coding All BRT station locations allowed for all types of transfers from SMART, DDOT, DPM, and AAATA. There were no restrictions placed on access or egress. A first model run was coded such that all station locations allowed for park and ride to determine which stations had the highest park and ride boardings. After that first run, only specific locations were allowed for park and ride based on ridership and also land availability. The following station locations were determined to be the best locations for park and ride access: 1. 23 Mile Road 2. M-59 (Hall Road) 3. Metropolitan Parkway 4. Macomb Mall 5. I-696 / 10 Mile Road 6. Harper Avenue 7. McClellan Avenue 8. Rosa Parks Transit Center / Michigan Avenue

Fare The model allows for various fares by route. The fare utilized for all the BRT service was kept consistent between all alternatives as well as consistent between all RTA projects. The AAATA fare was utilized for all BRT services within the region and was set for $0.60. The fares for all other routes were kept the same. The fares within the SEMCOG model are not the actual fare that is charged to those boarding a vehicle but an average fare including those that are discounted or subsidized by other means. For example, University of Michigan students do not pay a fare and other riders pay a monthly fee that equates to less than the published daily fare. Updates to No Build / TSM Alternative Routes Table 4-1 illustrates the updates to routes and headways for the No Build / TSM alternative as compared to the Base Year. Currently, inbound SMART routes does not allow for boarding to occur in the City of Detroit and the same for outbound SMART routes to egress in the City of Detroit. This was changed for the No Build / TSM to allow for SMART Route 560/565 to allow for open access and egress within the City of Detroit. SMART Route 580 was extended to start and end in downtown Mount. TABLE 4-1: NO BUILD ROUTE UPDATES Route Base Year No Build / TSM PEAK OFF-PEAK PEAK OFF-PEAK QLINE (Woodward Streetcar) n/a n/a 7 min 7.5 min SMART Route 560 13 min 19 min 10 min 15 min SMART Route 565 30 min n/a 15 min n/a SMART Route 550 40 min 40 min 30 min 30 min SMART Route 580 25 min n/a 20 min 30 min SMART Route 610 40 min 40 min 15 min 20 min SMART Route 710 20 min 40 min 15 min 20 min DDOT Route 17 20 min 30 min 15 min 15 min Updates to BRT Alternatives Table 4-2 summarizes updates made to adjacent routes for all of the BRT alternatives. There were no changes made to the Gratiot DDOT Route 34 along the corridor. SMART Route 560 was changed to start and end at 8 Mile Road. SMART Route 565 was eliminated due to duplicate service being provided by the BRT. A route was added along M-59 / Hall Road between Schoenherr Road (Lakeside Mall) and Gratiot Avenue. A route was also added between Lakeside Mall and downtown Mount along Cass Avenue. The Blue Water Area Transit (BWAT) Route 94 was extended from 23 Mile Road to M-59, except for the option that evaluated the 23 Mile Road station. SMART Route 580 was extended to start and end in downtown Mount. For the dedicated lane alternatives, roadway laneage along Gratiot Avenue and/or Main Street was reduced by one lane in each direction in the following locations: Gratiot Avenue between Randolph Street and 8 Mile Road (Detroit) Gratiot Avenue between Remick Drive and Patterson Street (Clinton Township and Mount ) Main Street between Robertson Street and Cass Avenue (Mount )

TABLE 4-2: BRT ROUTE UPDATES Route Base Year BRT Alternatives PEAK OFF-PEAK PEAK OFF-PEAK QLINE (Woodward Streetcar) n/a n/a 7 min 7 min SMART Route 560 13 min 19 min 30 min 30 min SMART Route 565 30 min n/a n/a n/a SMART Route 550 40 min 40 min 30 min 30 min SMART Route 580 25 min n/a 20 min 30 min SMART Route 610 40 min 40 min 15 min 20 min SMART Route 710 20 min 40 min 15 min 20 min DDOT Route 17 20 min 30 min 15 min 15 min M-59 Route n/a n/a 30 min 30 min Lakeside Route n/a n/a 30 min 30 min

5 Evaluation Results This section provides the results of the ridership evaluation. A stepwise process was utilized in order to compare different station locations. This was done in order to minimize the number of runs that would be needed to gather the information. The number of station locations were kept consistent for each model run, but the actual station locations would vary between model runs. For example, one model run would have a station at Harper Avenue and not McClellan Avenue and another run would have McClellan Avenue and not Harper Avenue. This was done to determine variations in ridership between different station locations. In addition, the addition of a station location at 23 Mile Road was conducted between two different model runs to determine the ridership at 23 Mile Road compared to a model run that did not have a station at 23 Mile Road. Station Location Summaries Table 5-1 illustrates the potential ridership at each station location, a range is given based on results from various model runs. TABLE 5-1: STATION RIDERSHIP Station Location Ridership Range Downtown Detroit 2,870 3,360 Bricktown 350 415 Brush 380 410 Eastern Market 265 300 Mack Avenue 355 415 Warren Avenue 410 470 Van Dyke Avenue 370 430 McClellan Avenue 1,025 1,080 Harper Avenue 1,100 1,150 Outer Drive 230 265 McNichols Road 345 410 7 Mile Road 770 875 8 Mile Road 1,050 1,170 9 Mile Road 740 810 10 Mile Road 620 670 11 Mile Road / I-696 305 330 Utica Junction 205 225 12 Mile Road 700 800 Common Road 260 275 13 Mile Road 150 165 Macomb Mall 440 985 15 Mile Road 225 250 Metro Parkway 310 340 South River 190 200 Downtown Mt. 140 220 Sandpiper 45 75 M-59 180 215 23 Mile Road 70 85 There were some station locations that ranged a lot, such as the Macomb Mall station. This number depended on whether there was a station at 12 Mile Road and also at 13 Mile Road. When there was a

station at 12 Mile Road, the ridership at Macomb Mall decreased, which was due to transfers occurring from SMART routes. The stations at both McClellan Avenue and Harper Avenue show a large amount to the park and ride location. Approximately 90-percent of the ridership at these locations are either park and ride or kiss and ride. Most of the ridership (70-percent) is coming from the north and going south and utilizing the southbound route. It is expected that this amount will decrease and there will be additional park and ride usage north of McClellan, either at 8 Mile Road or further north. Overall Ridership Summaries Table 5-2 illustrates the overall ridership for the system, the corridor, and the BRT route for the base year, the No Build/TSM and by each BRT alternative. The overall system ridership includes all the transit providers in southeast Michigan, including the Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT), the Detroit People Mover (DPM), the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (AAATA), the University of Michigan, Blue Water Area Transit, and Lake Erie Transit. The Gratiot Avenue corridor ridership was determined by adding the ridership for the BRT route, DDOT Route 34, and SMART Route 560/565. One option was evaluated where the BRT service was extended to 23 Mile Road north of M-59. This service was evaluated with a mixed traffic option between M-59 and 23 Mile Road. A park and ride was added at 23 Mile Road. TABLE 5-2: SYSTEM, CORRIDOR AND ROUTE RIDERSHIP (2010) Alternative System Ridership Gratiot Ridership BRT Ridership Base Year 231,260 10,555 n/a No Build / TSM 235,685 13,400 n/a Mixed Traffic along Gratiot Avenue around Downtown Mount 241,160 16,615 12,270 Mixed Traffic to Downtown Mount 240,600 16,520 12,195 Dedicated Lane along Gratiot Avenue around Downtown Mount 243,305 17,930 13,475 Dedicated Lane to Downtown Mount 242,255 17,710 13,425 Dedicated Lane to Downtown Mount with extension to 23 Mile Road* 242,110 17,825 13,590 * BRT in mixed traffic between M-59/Hall Road and 23 Mile Road As shown in Table 5-2, the ridership increased for the entire system by about two-percent when regular bus service was increased slightly. The ridership along Gratiot Avenue increased by 27-percent, indicating that there is some unmet demand along the corridor. Adding a BRT route onto Gratiot Avenue further increased the ridership by another 24- to 34-percent. Having a dedicated BRT lane along Gratiot Avenue instead of having the BRT mixed in traffic increased ridership by an additional 1,200 riders. The difference between the route going into Downtown Mount and around Mount did not vary by much, indicating that the zones are too large in the model to take into account a small difference in routing. The extension to 23 Mile Road would add approximately 165 riders to the BRT service.

Table 5-3 summarizes the ridership along Gratiot Avenue for each alternative by provider. TABLE 5-3: GRATIOT RIDERSHIP BY PROVIDER (2010) Alternative DDOT SMART RTA/BRT Total Base Year 5,605 4,950 n/a 10,555 No Build / TSM 1,840 11,560 n/a 13,400 Mixed Traffic along Gratiot Avenue around Downtown 3,300 1,045 12,270 16,615 Mount Mixed Traffic to Downtown Mount 3,310 1,030 12,870 16,520 Dedicated Lane along Gratiot Avenue around Downtown 3,175 1,280 13,475 17,930 Mount Dedicated Lane to Downtown Mount 3,255 1,030 13,425 17,710 Dedicated Lane to Downtown Mount with extension to 23 Mile Road* 3,235 1,000 13,590 17,825 As shown in Table 5-3, ridership for the DDOT and SMART providers decreased with the addition of the BRT. However, ridership on the DDOT route is still significant even with the BRT. Ridership for SMART decreased with the BRT service and provides local service along Gratiot Avenue within Macomb County. The increase in SMART service and decrease in DDOT service for the No Build had to do largely with changes in access within the City of Detroit for SMART service. The dwell time for SMART within the model is shorter than the DDOT headway and there are less stops in the City of Detroit for SMART than it is for DDOT routes. It is expected that there would be some increase in SMART ridership, but DDOT ridership would remain the same.

Impact to the Transportation System One of the evaluation criteria that is required by the Federal Transit Administration and used to determine the impact that a BRT system would have on the region is the overall impact to the Transportation System. This is determined by the amount of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and vehicle hours of travel (VHT) within the region. A decrease in VMT and/or VHT is beneficial for the region because it indicates that an additional of a BRT system reduces overall vehicle travel in a region. Table 5-4 illustrates the VMT and VHT for the region for the Base Year, the No Build, and each of the BRT Alternatives. TABLE 5-4: REGIONAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED AND VEHICLE HOURS TRAVELLED Alternative Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Vehicle Hours Travelled (VHT) Base Year 124,398,185 3,727,310 No Build / TSM 124,371,015 3,726,315 BRT Mixed in Traffic going into downtown 124,342,735 3,725,815 Mount BRT Mixed in Traffic going around downtown Mount 124,346,160 3,725,810 BRT in a Dedicated Lane going into downtown Mount 124,322,245 3,726,400 BRT in a Dedicated Lane doing around downtown Mount 124,337,485 3,726,975 BRT in a Dedicated Lane going into downtown Mount extended to 23 Mile Road 124,324,630 3,725,940 According to the results, there was very little difference in the amount of vehicle hours travelled. However, the options with the dedicated lane had fewer vehicle miles travelled with the greatest reduction for the BRT in a dedicated lane going into downtown Mount. The VHT is higher with the dedicated lane options due to the reduction in laneage along Gratiot Avenue causing speeds to be decreased. However, this is still less than what would occur from the base year, indicating that fewer vehicles are driving and switching to transit.