2025 Long Range Transportation Plan

Introduction

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) is the current federal legislation that governs transportation planning and provides the federal funds for transportation. TEA21 requires that the transportation plan cover at least a 20-year planning period. The plan is updated every three years because Southeast Michigan, including Washtenaw County, is a Maintenance Area for the ozone standard set by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to the 3-year update cycle, the plan is amended as priorities, available revenues, or transportation needs change.

The 2015 Long Range Transportation Plan for Washtenaw County was adopted in September 1993. It included capacity enhancing and safety improvements. The 2015 Plan was the first plan that addressed transportation needs in a multi-modal, environmentally sound, and fiscally constrained improvement specific manner. The 2020 Plan was adopted in January 1997 addressing more deficiencies than the 2015 Plan. The 2020 Plan included capacity, safety, bridge and pavement deficiencies. The 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan Update for Washtenaw County identifies capacity deficiencies, segment and intersection safety deficiencies, functionally obsolete and structurally deficient bridge deficiencies, non-motorized deficiencies, and pavement deficiencies.

The 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan Update for Washtenaw County is the product of many agencies working together to provide a guide for future transportation improvements. Local road and planning agencies, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) were all active partners in the development of this plan. The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration provided limited assistance.

General Background

For over 25 years, the federally mandated "continuing, coordinated and comprehensive" (3C) urban transportation planning process in Washtenaw County has occurred at two levels: the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Urban Area Transportation Study (UATS), comprised of those governmental units and related agencies within Washtenaw County; and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the seven-county region of southeast Michigan. Because the 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan Update for Washtenaw County is incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan both agencies are responsible for its completion.

Plan Goals

The 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan for Washtenaw County was initiated with the development of Plan Goals and Objectives that were completed and adopted in conjunction with the SEMCOG and the MDOT. The 2025 Plan is an update of the 2020 Plan and the original goals were reaffirmed. The goals used by the local agencies as they evaluated the deficiencies and identified improvements were:

Goal 1: Promote a safe and secure transportation system.

Objectives
A. Reduce the number and severity of traffic crashes.
B. Increase the safety and security of the transportation system and its users.
C. Reduce conflicts between rail, auto, transit and non-motorized modes.

Goal 2: Provide accessibility and mobility for all people and goods.

Objectives
A. Reduce distance or time spent traveling.
B. Increase the occupancy rate for all motorized modes.
C. Reduce barriers to the use of the transportation system.
D. Increase continuity of transportation service across the region with appropriate access to major land uses.
E. Increase mode choices for the movement of goods and people.
F. Improve the connections between modes.

Goal 3: Invest strategically in transportation infrastructure to enhance the vitality of the community.

Objectives
A. Give priority to preservation and maintenance of the existing transportation system.
B. Develop a financially responsible plan that allocates available resources.
C. Preserve current and planned right-of-ways for transportation system improvements
D. Develop transportation services that are consistent with regional and local land use plans as well as other development plans.
E. Encourage creative public and private partnerships in transportation improvements.
F. Provide a transportation system that encourages employment growth, economic productivity and international competitiveness of the region.

Goal 4: Protect and enhance the environment.

Objectives
A. Reduce air, water and noise pollutant emissions and concentrations.
B. Reduce energy consumption.
C. Reduce the disruption or damage to wetlands and natural habitats.
D. Increase the use of public transportation and ridesharing.
E. Reduce the risks associated with the transportation of hazardous materials.
F. Preserve and enhance the aesthetic natural and cultural qualities of the region.
G. Encourage the development and use of non-motorized facilities and programs.
H. Reduce negative effects of the transportation system on:
-Households and neighborhoods; commercial and industrial facilities;
-Prime agricultural, open space and recreational resources; and historic sites and districts.

Plan Improvements

Countywide Network

The computerized road network operated by UATS was expanded to include the entire county for use in modeling the congestion deficiencies and mapping the deficiencies and proposed transportation improvements. The 2020 network was constructed using a more geographically precise base and represents the county more accurately than the 2015 network. An update of the network and models used for the long range planning process was initiated but not completed for the 2025 Plan Update. Additional future improvements will include a multi-modal model with a transit network and a non-motorized component. This effort should be completed in Fall 2000.

Travel Survey

The 2020 Plan also utilized the most recent origin and destination study completed for the southeast Michigan region in 1994. The survey results allowed for more accurate estimation of the travel patterns of residents living in the county and the region. This is the first complete update of the travel data since the 1960's. The Washtenaw County model used the preliminary external survey data taken at the edge of the county to estimate the number of trips that travel through the county without stopping. The 2025 Plan Update continued to use the travel survey data and the resulting trip generation equations. These may be updated with the model improvements to be completed in Fall 2000.

Expanded Multimodalism

The 2025 Plan addresses more deficiencies and identifies more improvements than the 2015 and the 2020 Plans. The following types of deficiencies are identified and addressed with improvements in the 2025 Plan:

· Congestion
· Safety -- Intersections and segments
· Bridge -- Functionally obsolete and structurally deficient
· Transit -- Maintenance, operations and capital
· Pavement
· Non-motorized -- Bicycle and pedestrian

Significant Factors Impacting the Plan

There were several factors that significantly impacted the Plan's development process as well as the final Plan document. These factors were:

· TEA21 requirements for Plan Adoption
· Urban Sprawl
· Lack of dedicated funding for transit outside the City of Ann Arbor
· Limited revenues

TEA21 requirements for Plan Adoption

The Surface Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) requires that air quality non-attainment and management areas develop a new 20-year transportation plan every three years. This short time frame makes it difficult to complete major plan improvements such as the construction of a transit network, the implementation of a new travel model using the results of the travel survey, the inclusion of more types of plan deficiencies and the allowance of adequate time for public participation. The time constraint makes it necessary to implement these scheduled improvements over several completed plans.

Urban Sprawl

The 1995 regional development forecast (RDF) shows higher gains in housing and to a lesser degree population and employment than previously expected within the region and Washtenaw County. With development continuing in the urban townships surrounding the City of Ann Arbor, the demands on the transportation infrastructure also continue to increase. The development stimulates requests for increased road capacity, transit service and non-motorized paths that must compete for transportation dollars needed for operation and maintenance of the existing system. Land use plans and development proposals must consider the necessary transportation improvements that will eventually accompany the planned growth. In late 1999, Ypsilanti Township completed an update of their land use and thoroughfare plan that evaluated the link between land use and transportation needs. Several other local governments are also reviewing their land use and its implications on transportation.

Public Transit

The City of Ann Arbor has a dedicated millage to support the transit system within the city. This dedicated funding allows the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) and UATS staff to plan for future improvements to the transit system within the City. The surrounding cities, townships and villages pay for transit service with annual service contracts paid out of their respective general funds or other sources such as downtown development funds. This limits the amount of long-range planning outside the City of Ann Arbor that can include the expansion of transit service. The development of the transit model as part of the next plan will help provide insight into the future need for transit but will not be able to address the lack of dedicated funding.

Limited Revenues

The state transportation user fee or gas tax was increased in July 1997. Even with the increase in funds provided by the state gas tax increase and TEA21 revenue increases, there are transportation needs that are not met. As each new fleet of automobiles is developed, the number of miles they can travel on one gallon of gas increases. This has limited the money available to provide improvements to the transportation system with the amount of money actually decreasing in some years. Revenues will need to be monitored closely to ensure that Michigan can continue to make the needed improvements to its transportation system.

Public Participation

Public participation in the long-range transportation planning process was stressed in ISTEA and continues to be a priority in TEA21. The Washtenaw County planning process provided varied opportunities for the public to review and comment on the plan. Information was provided to the newspaper, radio stations, public libraries, and local governmental offices. Both written and oral public comments were received during the public comment period.

Public Notification

The public was notified of the availability of the draft plan and opportunities for public comment using several different methods: one article appeared in the October issue of the UATS quarterly newsletter, The Vehicle; one article appeared in the January issue of The Vehicle; two news articles appeared in the Ann Arbor News, one in December and one in January; and UATS staff notified, by mail, nearly 200 citizens, agencies, and other interested parties about the draft plan's availability and the public comment opportunities.

Plan Review Opportunities

The draft plan was available for review and public comment beginning November 24, 1999. Copies of the draft plan, with comment forms, were distributed to 24 locations throughout the county and region with a majority being within the urbanized area of Washtenaw County. The locations where the plan was available for review are:

· Ann Arbor Public Library - Loving Branch
· Ann Arbor Public Library - Main Branch
· Ann Arbor Public Library - Northeast Branch
· Ann Arbor Public Library - West Branch
· City of Ann Arbor - City Hall
· Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA)
· Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Urban Area Transportation Study Committee (UATS)
· Ann Arbor Township Hall
· Village of Chelsea - Village Office
· Village of Dexter - Village Office
· Dexter District Library
· Village of Manchester - Village Office
· Michigan Department of Transportation - Brighton TSC
· Northfield Township Library
· Pittsfield Township Hall
· City of Saline - City Hall
· Saline District Library
· Scio Township Hall
· Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG)
· Superior Township Hall
· Washtenaw County Road Commission
· City of Ypsilanti - City Hall
· Ypsilanti District Library - Downtown Branch
· Ypsilanti Township - Civic Center

The draft plan booklets included a memo explaining the plan development and adoption process; the dates of public meetings where information would be presented and comments could be provided in person; scheduled adoption dates for the committees to consider the 2025 Plan Update; locations where the draft plan could be reviewed; a plan summary including Introduction, General Background, Plan Goals, and explanations of how the deficiencies were identified; maps of each of the deficiencies, including jurisdiction-specific maps; a listing of the unfunded transportation improvements; funding summaries of the proposed improvements; and analyses of completed improvements from the 2020 Plan.

To make it easier for the public to comment on the plan, a comment form was developed and included in the draft plan booklets. The form included several questions regarding the plan and public comment process. There was also extra space so that citizens could include additional comments. The form was pre-addressed to UATS, but required postage. The forms could be left with the booklet and each location was periodically checked for completed public comment forms. A copy of the public comment form, as well as the comments received by UATS, is included in Appendix A.

Public Comment Opportunities

In addition to the public comment forms included in the draft plan booklets, UATS hosted seven public meetings at various locations throughout the county. These meetings were in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings of the Technical Advisory Subcommittee and the Policy Committee. Meetings were scheduled both in the day and evening so that the public would have the flexibility to attend whatever was most convenient. Geographical equity was a major consideration in determining meeting locations. A list of the meeting dates, times, and locations are below:

UATS Staff also met with individual citizens on several occasions at the UATS office to discuss the plan. Citizens also called and e-mailed UATS with questions about the plan or regarding specific transportation improvements in the draft plan. Staff answered the citizens' questions and when necessary referred the citizen to a contact person at the agency responsible for the specific proposed improvement.

Comments provided to UATS through e-mail messages, comment forms, and the public meetings were summarized and provided to the Technical and Policy Committees prior to their February meetings. Agencies received a copy of the comments that were specific to one of their transportation improvements. In several instances, improvements were changed in some way to reflect the public comment. Copies of the public comments were also provided to SEMCOG for inclusion as part of their public comment period.

UATS received written comments from five different people. In addition to some improvement-specific questions, the citizens expressed concerns about road widening and its relationship to sprawl. Some of the other questions were about the process and criterion for determining the deficiencies, particularly congestion deficiencies. The comments and discussions that ensued at the various public meetings were mostly focused on particular transportation improvements that were either proposed in the plan or where the citizen felt a need was not met. A comment that was repeated at nearly all of the meetings was the lack of transportation improvements identified by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in the later years of the plan. In response to this particular comment, additional improvements on the MDOT system were included prior to approval of the plan. A copy of the public comments received by UATS is included in Appendix A.

Public Meeting Format

The public meetings were formatted to provide information about the planning process, about the UATS agency, and to allow time for questions and comments. Information about the plan was presented as large maps showing the identified deficiencies and proposed improvements; handouts detailing the deficiencies, proposed improvements, unfunded improvements and funding breakdowns by types of improvements and time period. A PowerPoint presentation was also developed to highlight the planning process and to demonstrate the deficiencies at selected locations where transportation improvements were proposed. The presentation included charts and photos of the deficiencies and proposed improvements.

The meeting usually started with introductions and the PowerPoint presentation. After the presentation, citizens were encouraged to ask questions either of UATS or representatives of the operating agencies present. Citizen comments were recorded by UATS staff and subsequently provided to the agency's Technical and Policy Committee representatives and SEMCOG.

Plan Development Process

Transportation deficiencies were identified for congestion, safety, bridges, transit, pavement and non-motorized using the methods detailed below. Financial forecasts were developed at the regional level by SEMCOG staff and provided to UATS. UATS staff worked with the operating agencies using the deficiencies to develop proposed improvements. The proposed improvements were then divided into funded and unfunded categories within the limitations of the financial forecasts. The list of funded improvements was amended prior to final approval to reflect changes made based on the public comments.

A map of the funded improvements is included in this report on page 12. Charts depicting the improvements by number of improvements and cost of improvements are provided on pages 13 and 14. The list of funded improvements begins on page 17. The unfunded improvements are included in Appendix B. Although a list of unfunded improvements has been included, it is not comprehensive because several of the agencies did not provide unfunded improvements even though needed improvements were identified by the deficiencies and through public comment. A description of how each type of the plan deficiencies was identified is included below.

Congestion Deficiencies - MAP

The congestion deficiencies were identified by five-year periods using a computer model based on the recent regional travel survey, projected employment and household data. Once the future trips were assigned to the countywide network, the deficient facilities are defined using volume to capacity ratios (V/C) of 0.80 or more.

Safety Deficiencies - MAP

Two types of safety deficiencies were addressed: intersections and segments. Safety deficient intersections were identified using traffic crash data from the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. The intersection deficiencies were ranked based on the combination of crash frequency and crash rate. Safety deficient segments were identified using traffic crash data from 1993, 1994 and 1995. The segment data was analyzed and locations were considered deficient if they exceeded the regional averages for frequency rates, casualty rates and crash rates for similar facilities throughout the region. The safety deficient segments were grouped into tiers according to the degree of deficiency.

Bridge Deficiencies - MAP

Bridge deficiencies were identified using data from the Michigan Structure Inventory and Appraisal (MSIA) database created and maintained by the MDOT from data collected by the local agencies. A structurally deficient bridge was defined as needing extensive repair or replacement by the year identified. A functionally obsolete bridge was defined as needing some improvement, repair or upgrade by the year defined.

Transit Deficiencies - MAP

Assessments of current service, the federally recommended bus and facility replacement schedule and a limited expansion plan was used to identify transit deficiencies. Large buses were identified as needing replacement once they reach 12 years of use and small buses once they reach 5 years of use. Transfer and maintenance facilities need upgrading or replacement after 20 years of use.

Pavement Deficiencies - MAP

Pavement deficiencies were determined on an individual agency basis using available pavement management systems. The City of Ann Arbor uses PAVER, a computerized program. The Washtenaw County Road Commission uses RoadSoft to evaluate their pavements. The City of Ypsilanti, the City of Saline, and the Village of Dexter periodically survey the pavements under their jurisdiction using staff or consultants. The Michigan Department of Transportation uses biennial surveys and sufficiency ratings to determine pavement deficiencies.

Non-motorized Deficiencies - MAP

Non-motorized deficiencies were also identified using the methods currently available to each of the transportation agencies. The non-motorized deficiencies include bike and pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian deficiencies and improvements were generated from the City of Ann Arbor ADA Transition Plan and include those improvements in the Ann Arbor Capital Improvements Plan 1999-2005. The bike portion of the deficiencies was generated from the City of Ann Arbor Bicycle Plan, the Ypsilanti Township Bike Plan, the Washtenaw County Bicycle Plan and other sources.

2025 Plan Improvements for Washtenaw County

Over the next 25 years, the transportation agencies in Washtenaw County are proposing 362 improvements at a total cost of over $1.6 billion. A map of the plan improvements is shown on page 12. Charts showing the breakdown of projects by project type and cost are shown on the following two pages. The list of funded plan improvements begins on page 17.

It is important to note that the transportation agencies have also identified an additional 76 improvements at a total cost of over $783 million for which funding is not available. These unfunded improvements are technically not part of the 2025 Plan but are included in the Plan documentation to highlight the unmet needs. The unfunded projects are listed in Appendix B.

2020 Plan Analysis

The 2020 Plan was adopted in January 1997 and was the first Washtenaw County Plan using the new countywide network and model. The Plan addressed more deficiencies and included a more comprehensive public participation component than the previous plans. The 2020 Plan included and addressed capacity, safety, bridge and pavement deficiencies.

The completed improvements from the first time period (1996-2000) of the 2020 Plan were compiled and analyzed. During the first five years of the 2020 Plan, 90 transportation improvements (94 including the Transit Operating) were completed at a total cost of nearly $100 million. Road resurfacing accounted for the largest number of projects and the most money spent on improvements during the first time period of the plan. This represented 33 improvements and over $56 million, more than half of the money spent during the five-year period. Bridge projects represented the next largest category of improvements with 14 occurring at a cost of over $13 million. Widening improvements accounted for the second largest amount of money spent, however they were the fifth highest number of improvements tied with transit capital improvements at 8 projects each.

The City of Ann Arbor has been a proponent of controlled growth favoring the use of alternative forms of transportation since the 1970's. During the last five years, many of the local units of government in Washtenaw County have worked for sustainable development within the County to counter strong development pressure from the east. Development has been intense in the County with Pittsfield, Ypsilanti and Scio Townships experiencing the most growth in recent years. The development pressures have begun to move farther to the south and west. As a preventive measure to control growth the City of Saline, and Manchester and Chelsea Villages with the surrounding townships are all working toward sustainable development plans. The projects completed during 1996-2000 reflect both the development pressures and the local commitment to maintain what exists and to try alternative transportation improvements. As one example, non-motorized improvements made up 10 percent of the improvements funded and public transit improvements made up nearly 9 percent.

Charts that depict the transportation improvements completed during the first time period of the 2020 plan are provided on the following two pages. A chart is provided by total cost of the improvements and another shows the number of improvements by type of project.

Next Steps

Plan Implementation

The 2025 Transportation Plan for Washtenaw County will allow for the orderly development of transportation improvements within the limits of available funds. Improvements generated by the Long Range Plan process will be prioritized and programmed through the Washtenaw County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This includes all improvements that utilize federal funds and those that have a regional impact.

Planning Process Improvement

The transportation plan is an ongoing, continually evolving process. Work will begin immediately on the development of the 2030 plan. The tools used to develop the deficiencies will be refined and further developed with the complete calibration of the road network, the addition of a transit network and the addition of a non-motorized component. Continued work with local communities will help them recognize the impact their land use development plans have on the future of our transportation system.

The next transportation plan will also address Environmental Justice and the impact of the plan on disadvantaged populations. The guidance on Environmental Justice arrived too late to be incorporated in the 2025 Plan Update at the Washtenaw County level.

Public Participation

The public participation process for Washtenaw County has evolved over the past three transportation plans. UATS has continually improved its outreach efforts and has received and acted on considerable input from the public. This is not to say that there is little more for UATS to do. The development of a website is a high priority and is viewed as a supplement instead of a replacement of the Agency's current outreach efforts. UATS also hopes to reach disadvantaged groups through minority news media and to present the plan on public access television.

UATS also plans to develop a citizen's public participation guide that will educate the public on the opportunities for providing comments and having an impact on transportation improvements at all levels. This will include providing information and meeting times for the Board and Commission meetings of its member agencies. This will provide an overview of the decision process for all transportation improvements.