Building Equitable Sustainable Transit: Woodward Avenue November - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Building Equitable Sustainable Transit: Woodward Avenue

November 12, 2015

Agenda

• Introductions
• Project Background
• Next Steps:
• Modified LPA
• Section 106
• Traffic Analysis
• Public Involvement

Project Background

Study Area

• 27 mile-long corridor
• 11 municipalities; 2 in

Wayne County and 9 in Oakland County

• Transit currently provided

by SMART and DDOT

• Transit not competitive

with automobiles due to long travel times

Project Background

Public Involvement

• 18 public meetings were held in various communities along the

corridor:

• 7 meetings in December 2012
• 5 meetings in April 2013
• 6 meetings in December 2013
• Continued meetings with communities and stakeholders

Project Background

Evaluation of Mode, Alignment, Stations, Cross Sections

• Ridership
• Will the system serve areas with the highest ridership?
• Cost
• What are the capital costs? What will it cost to operate?
• Economic Development
• Will the system connect riders to jobs? Downtowns? Destinations? Will the system

promote new, transit-oriented development?

• Social Equity
• Will the system serve transit-dependent populations? What mode, alignment, and

stations were preferred by the community?

• Intermodal Connections
• Will the system connect to existing SMART/DDOT routes? Will the system operate

smoothly with streetcar, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians?

• Legibility
• Will the system be easy to use? Will the system provide rapid, on-time service to

riders?

Project Background

Locally Preferred Alternative

• 27 miles of contiguous Bus Rapid

Transit service

• Service within 11 municipalities
• 26 stations (typical 1-mile spacing)
• 13 miles median-center
• 8.5 miles median-edge
• 5.5 miles edge running
• Mixed traffic on Cass and in

Downtown Pontiac

• Exclusive transit lane on John R.
• Note: station locations shown on

maps assume precise location would be within a few blocks of location

Modified LPA

Reverse flow in Downtown Detroit

• Inbound (John R.)
• Outbound (Cass)

Modified LPA

Temple (Alfred) – John R

RPTC Intermodal

Grand Circus Park

Modified LPA

Benefits

• Right hand access to future Amtrak Intermodal Transportation Center at

Woodward and Baltimore, for both north and southbound service.

• Does not require a counter-flow lane, northbound on John R.
• Creates the opportunity for an HOV lane on John R.
• Far-side stops at:
• Warren
• Mack
• Alfred (Temple pair)
• Grand Circus Park
• Right hand access to existing Rosa Parks (Intermodal) Transportation

Center

• Potential for new downtown stop at Campus Martius
• Paired stations at Grand Circus Park
• Facilitates off-board payment at all new stations along southern

alignment, if so desired.

Modified LPA

Costs/Considerations

• Deviation from current Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
• Only allows for a near side stop at Cass and Temple (without acquisition
• f existing structures) for northbound service
• Requires verification that traffic can cross streetcar tracks on Woodward

at Baltimore

Section 106

Overview

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 USC

470f), implementing regulations 36 CFR 800

• Process includes:
• Determine federal undertaking
• Coordinate with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
• Identify consulting parties
• Define Area of Potential Effects (APE)
• Identify historic properties in APE
• Properties listed in or eligible for National Register of Historic

Places

• Assess effects to historic properties
• Resolve adverse effects

Section 106

Consultation

• Consulting parties are groups with a demonstrated interest in

historic properties within project area

• Invited consulting parties have opportunity to comment on

project

• Public involvement component often undertaken at same time as

NEPA

Section 106

Area of Potential Effects (APE)

• Area within which a project may affect historic properties
• Consider direct (i.e. demolition) and indirect (i.e. visual, noise)

effects to historic properties

• APE is dynamic, not static, and evolves as project evolves
• Woodward LRT and Streetcar projects included roadway, all

adjacent properties, and select expanded areas for ancillary facilities and viewshed considerations

• Propose smaller APE for Woodward BRT project

Section 106

APE – Woodward LRT Project

Section 106

APE – Silver Line BRT Project

Section 106

Identification of Historic Properties Historic properties are those listed in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These properties must meet one or more of the NRHP criteria and retain integrity.

National Register Criteria Aspects of Integrity Criterion A – associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history 1. Location 2. Setting 3. Design 4. Workmanship 5. Materials 6. Feeling 7. Association Criterion B – associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C – embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction Criterion D – have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history

Section 106

Identification of Historic Properties

• Most recent NRHP listings will be consulted
• Prior documentation of the corridor will be consulted
• Potential properties to be evaluated
• Woodward Avenue, 8 Mile Road to Pontiac
• Brush Park Historic District (locally designated)
• Downtown Ferndale at 9 Mile Road
• National Shrine of the Little Flower at 12 Mile Road

Section 106

Identification of Historic Properties

• Prior Documentation of Woodward Avenue
• Prior Section 106 documentation from Woodward Avenue LRT

(2010-2011) and Streetcar (2012) projects will be referenced, as appropriate, to identify previously evaluated historic properties in Woodward Avenue BRT APE

• Prior projects identified properties 40 years or older
• All previously identified properties in BRT APE will be

photographed to document current state

• No reevaluation of NRHP eligibility, unless required by SHPO

Section 106

Identification of Historic Properties

• Prior Documentation of Woodward Avenue
• Woodward Avenue LRT Project
• 287 properties identified and evaluated in APE
• 114 NRHP-listed and eligible historic properties identified
• 63 NRHP-listed historic properties, including 3 National Historic

Landmarks

• 2 historic properties pending NRHP listing
• 49 historic properties determined NRHP-eligible
• Woodward Avenue Streetcar Project
• 58 NRHP-listed and eligible historic properties previously identified for

LRT project

• 38 new properties identified and evaluated in APE
• 1 new NRHP-listed historic property identified and 5 historic properties

determined NRHP-eligible

Section 106

Assessing Effects to Historic Properties

• Apply Criteria of Adverse Effect (36 CFR 800.5)
• Adverse Effect: when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any
• f a historic property’s characteristics that qualify it for inclusion in the

National Register in a manner that diminishes its integrity

• No Effect, No Adverse Effect, Adverse Effect
• Assessment of effects include individual historic property assessments

and overall project determination of effect

Section 106

Resolving Effects to Historic Properties

• Adverse effects to historic properties must be resolved through

avoidance, minimization, or mitigation

• Additional consultation with the SHPO and consulting parties

required

• Adverse effects also require coordination with the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation

• Memorandum of Agreement documents resolution of adverse

effects and describes mitigation measures

Traffic Analysis

• Downtown Detroit
• LPA as is
• Modified LPA
• All-Woodward Option
• Royal Oak
• Pontiac Loop
• BRT Alignment Changes
• Bi-directional BRT

transitions within Detroit

• Median-center versus

Median-edge

Public Involvement

• Two series of meetings – January and March/April, 2016
• Four meetings in each series
• January – Preliminary Impacts and Analyses
• March/April – Findings and Mitigation Measures

Project Schedule

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH WEEK 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public Involvement Series #1 Public Involvement Series #2 Online Engagement TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic Analysis Traffic Analysis Report SECTION 106 Section 106 Analysis Section 106 Report CE DOCUMENTATION Draft CE Report Final CE Report

Questions?