Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Choices: The Case for WALLY Commuter Rail Last revised 11-12-12.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Choices: The Case for WALLY Commuter Rail Last revised 11-12-12."— Presentation transcript:

1 Choices: The Case for WALLY Commuter Rail Last revised

2 Why WALLY? US 23 Trends…

3 WALLY Commuter Rail Service Commuter coaches pushed-pulled by locomotives Comfortable car interiors Stations will typically include parking and / or connecting bus service

4 WALLY Commuter Rail Service Passenger service on an existing freight line Stations planned for Howell, Genoa Twp, Hamburg Twp, Whitmore Lake and Ann Arbor Initially 4 trains each direction per day Connecting buses in Ann Arbor will serve North Campus, Medical Center, and downtown Howell Station Genoa Twp Station Hamburg Ann Arbor Station Downtown (potential future station) Stadium (potential future station) Whitmore Lake Station Livingston County Washtenaw County

5 Benefits for Commuters Mobility option for non- drivers A comfortable, relaxing commute Safe and reliable in any weather Avoid parking hassles and costs, and the cost of gasoline

6 Benefits for the Region Property Values Property Values Property Values Property Values Jobs Investment Workforce Retention Energy Use Air Pollution 775 Construction 290 Permanent 5% - 20% or more 3000 tons / year of CO 2 Livable residential communities tied to strong urban centers 580,000 gallons of gasoline annually Public transportation infrastructure is a common variable in corporate site selection decisions…a prerequisite for European and Asian business leaders. Michael Finney, President and CEO, Ann Arbor SPARK

7 Efficient Use of Transportation Resources Compares favorably with other proposed projects – Capital investment = $2.09 / trip (over the twenty-year life of the assets) – Net operating expense = 63¢ / passenger-mile – Projected fare box recovery ratio = 30% Ease pressure for $500M widening of US-23 Reduce Ann Arbor parking construction costs Backbone for an area-wide transportation system Not either/or Balance, choice, flexibility

8 Status: Capital Improvements Rolling stock: railcars & locomotives Upgraded tracks Improved grade crossing safety Signal improvements Layover facilities Stations

9 Status: Railcar Rehabilitation Work is underway in Michigan– Great Lakes Central RR 23 Cars Undergoing Rehabilitation – 19 Cars Completed as of October, 2012 – 6 Cars Have passed low speed dynamic testing, and are scheduled for track speed testing between Pontiac and Jackson soon – Completion Expected February 2013 – WALLY Service to Use Up to 15 cars New fabric seats Windows – buffed out or replaced Wheelchair access Logos / Painting / Flooring Costs – Funding by MDOT Coordination with Detroit-to-Ann Arbor project

10 Status: Locomotive Lease Delivery Schedule Being Re-evaluated MDOT Funded Coordination with Detroit-to-Ann Arbor project

11 Status: Track, Grade Crossings Track and crossing improvements – Major Work, Summer 2010 – Rail, ballast and tie replacement and rehabilitation – MDOT funded Grading crossing protection – Design / scoping is underway – 34 public crossings – Funding being sought – Construction 2013?

12 Status: Signals Main line to run dark initially No conflicting movements Annpere crossing – Scope TBD – Meet with CSX Positive Train Control?

13 Status: Layover Facilities Overnight – Oak Grove Midday - Osmer Alternatives to Osmer – Barton Road – Michigan Stadium Osmer Construction Completed Layover Equipment Needed MDOT Funded

14 Status: Stations Preliminary cost estimates (2007) need update Station Design and Location Study starts soon Determine locations, detailed site and structure designs, environmental impacts, AARR issues Funding sources: Howell, Ann Arbor DDA, Washtenaw Co. FTA Section 5304 grant Transportation, Community and System Preservation (TCSP) Program Community Participation

15 Capital Improvements Summary Current capital cost estimate = $41.0 M Includes options – Continuously welded rail – Additional grade crossing protection Value of work completed = $6.1 M Remaining work, required = $18.9 M Remaining work, optional = $16.0 M All costs under review, update planned

16 Operating Plan 4 inbound movements during am peak Store 4 trains near downtown Ann Arbor Crews go off-duty until afternoon peak 4 outbound movements during pm peak

17 Project Operating Costs and Revenues (Millions) Overall cost = $7.1 M annually per R.L. Banks Fare revenue assumes 1300 riders per day CTF share assumes overall viability of the fund Wildcards: insurance, trackage rights Sources to close the gap: Federal grants; local sources; foundations

18 Marketing & Public Outreach Hamburg Rail Days MI Association of Rail Passengers UM SMART/ULI Conference AA Chamber Leadership Team Chilson Hills Green Expo CTN Interview Brighton Rotary LivCo Democrats Howell Rotary Livingston County Planning Commission Ann Arbor Township Board EMU Elderwise Council Superior Township Board Hamburg Township Board Michigan Municipal League St Joseph Mercy Health Systems Milan landowner/developer Ann Arbor Spark Menlo Associates Livingston County Economic Summit …and many more Invitations now being accepted!

19 Awareness of the WALLY Project Livingston CountyWashtenaw County Have you heard of the transportation project called WALLY, the commuter rail service proposed between Howell and Ann Arbor? SOURCE: Survey of 100 Washtenaw Co and 100 Livingston Co residents, conducted June, 2009 for AATA by Ilium of Bellevue, WA 63%50% AWAREAWARE

20 Support for the WALLY Project WALLY is a proposed passenger train service that would operate on existing railroad tracks between Howell and Ann Arbor. There would be stations located in Howell, Genoa Township, Hamburg, Whitmore Lake and Ann Arbor. Trains would operate during commute hours. Please tell me if you Strongly Approve, Approve, Disapprove or Strongly Disapprove of the development of this new service? SOURCE: Survey of 100 Washtenaw Co and 100 Livingston Co residents, conducted June, 2009 for AATA by Ilium of Bellevue, WA Livingston CountyWashtenaw County 80%75% APPROVEAPPROVE (43% STRONGLY APPROVE) (32% STRONGLY APPROVE)

21 Likely to Ride WALLY Imagine you worked or traveled regularly to Washtenaw County, how likely would you be to consider riding the WALLY service? SOURCE: Survey of 100 Livingston Co residents, conducted June, 2009 for AATA by Ilium of Bellevue, WA Livingston County 71% LIKELY (43% VERY LIKELY)

22 Opening Day Mainly dependent on funding – Stations – Ongoing operations Repeat: Dependent on funding

23 Predicted WALLY ridership is 1300 / day, mainly from Livingston County. Is it realistic to expect 13% of these trips to use WALLY?

24 Outlying NE Illinois Counties Rail Work Trips to Downtown Chicago McHenry Kane Lake Will DuPage County % of Work Trips by Commuter Rail McHenry66% Lake60% Kane61% DuPage69% Will55%

25 UM Employees Living Near a WALLY Station: Howell

26 UM Employees Living Near a WALLY Station: Genoa / Brighton

27 UM Employees Living Near a WALLY Station: Hamburg / Whitmore Lake

28 New Commuter Rail in the US 16 new starts since 1983 Average Length of Planning Period = 10.6 Years Forecast ridership versus actual – Equal or exceeds forecast = 4 – Short of forecast = 3 – Too soon to tell = 3 (less than 3 years in service) – No comparison available = 6 – Mainly 2010 data – to be updated soon

29 How does Wally forecast ridership compare to existing commuter rail operations? SOURCE: APTA 2009 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACT BOOK; 60th Edition; April, 2009

30 New Commuter Rail in the US



33 Learn More About WALLY Brochures / Project Maps Frequently Asked Questions

34 Get involved with WALLY Twitter: Facebook: Present the WALLY Road Show Traveling display Or contact Michael Benham: ,

35 Thanks!

36 Supplemental Slides

37 Job Creation Construction – 775 jobs – Car rehabilitation, ROW Improvements, Station & Parking Construction – A&E firms – Construction firms – Suppliers Permanent – 290 jobs – Rail operations – Rail maintenance – Suppliers GLCRR - Buy Michigan! Job Impacts of Spending on Public Transportation: An Update; Prepared for APTA by the Economic Development Research Group, Inc.; April 29, 2009 RETURN

38 Impact on Property Values A study of gentrification in Chicago, which looked at the value of residential property served by either CTA (Heavy Rail) or Metra (commuter rail), states that evidence is found that properties closest to transit stations increased in value much more than those farther away, especially in the period Properties adjacent to transit stations had a 20% higher increase in value compared to those located a half-mile away A look at the impact of San Franciscos BART Heavy Rail system on residential property values found that the average Alameda County home is worth about $3,700 less for each mile distant from a BART station. The average Contra Coast County home is worth about $3,200 less for each mile distant from a BART station. 47 A 1993 study of the Eastside Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) light rail transit line reviewed the impacts of rail transit to property values in suburban Portland... Portlands experience is generally consistent with the results of the studies in other areas. Within the 2 years after the 1986 beginning of the operation of the rail line, residential properties in the East Burnside area within 500 meters of the transit were, on average, 10.6% greater in value than homes outside 500 meters. 48 A study of properties served by Dallass new DART Light Rail system found that The largest increase in residential property values was seen at the VA Hospital station, where values rose 65 percent. 49 In Massachusetts, An analysis of the data shows that the median price of single-family homes nearly doubled in 19 communities after they gained MBTA [commuter rail] service. Brockton, for example, which got three commuter rail stops, had one of the biggest increases in median family-home price: from $71,503 in 1995 to $194,000 in 2002 – up 171 percent. 50 According to the Los Angeles Times, In less than a decade, you could see 5% to 10% premiums, said Larry Kosmont, a Los Angeles-based real estate consultant. If you have access to transportation, it is considered a benefit. 51 SOURCE: How Transit Benefits People Who Do Not Ride It: A Conservative Inquiry; Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind; The Free Congress Foundation; October % $3, % 65% Doubled 5% - 10% RETURN

39 Transit Impact on Property Values (contd) A statistical study of residential property values in Buffalo, NY, examined how values varied for properties within one-half mile of light rail transit stations. It found that every foot closer to a light rail station increased average property values by $2.31 (using geographical straight-line distance) and $0.99 (using network distance). Consequently, a home located within one-quarter of a mile radius of a light rail station can earn a premium of $1300-$3000 (Hess, 2007). Studies over two decades show average housing value premiums associated with being near a station (usually expressed as being within 14 to 12 mile of a station) are 6.4% in Philadelphia, 6.7% in Boston, 10.6% in Portland, 17% in San Diego, 20% in Chicago, 24% in Dallas, and 45% in Santa Clara County (Cervero et al, 2004). A study of experiences in the San Francisco Bay Area study found that for every meter closer a single-family home was to a BART station, its sales price increased by $2.29, all else being equal. Alameda County homes near BART stations sold, on average, for 39% more than otherwise comparable ones 20 miles from the nearest station (Cervero et al, 2004). A detailed study conducted by researchers at the University of Toronto in 2000 indicated that proximity to a subway station in Toronto generated approximately $4,000 in additional residential property value for a home with a value of $225,000. (Canadian Transit Association, 2003) A study of the DART system compared differences in land values of comparable retail and office properties near and not near light trail stations. The average change in land values from 1997 to 2001 for retail and residential properties near DART stops was 25% and 32%, respectively; for control parcels, the average changes were 12% and 20% (Weinstein and Clower, 2003). SOURCE: Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment; Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Project J-11, Task 7; by Economic Development Research Group and Cambridge Systematics; October 2009 $2.31 per foot 6.4% to 45% $2.29 per meter $ %, 32% RETURN

40 WALLY Planning Organization Roles and Responsibilities WALLY Executive Committee WALLY Coalition Steering Committee Stations & Community Development Subcommittee Marketing & PR Subcommittee Infrastructure &Operations Subcommittee Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Facilitates Coalition activities Working with MDOT staff, provides technical support and tools to the Coalition, its Steering Committee and its Subcommittees, and to the Executive Committee Creates and executes the WALLY Business Plan, in cooperation w/ MDOT and local communities. Supports funding efforts and governance initiatives as directed by the Executive Committee Governance Planning Financial Planning Government Relations Issue Resolution WALLY Coalition Station design standards Station site evaluation Station operating agreements Transit Oriented Development Reviews marketing and PR materials and programs Public education events and presentation Determine ROW improvement needs Schedules Fare Collection Rolling stock Guides activities of the Coalition Subcommittees Organizes Coalition Meetings Co-chairs and AATA are official spokespersons Additional ad hoc subcommittees to be created as needed Guides and informs creation of the WALLY Business Plan Mobilizes public support

41 Stimulus for Economic Development RETURN

Download ppt "Choices: The Case for WALLY Commuter Rail Last revised 11-12-12."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google