Choices: The Case for Choices: The Case for WALLY Commuter RailWALLY Commuter Rail

Last revised 11-12-12

Why WALLY? US 23 Trends…Why WALLY? US 23 Trends…

WALLY Commuter Rail ServiceWALLY Commuter Rail Service

Commuter coaches pushed-pulled by locomotives

Comfortable car interiors

Stations will typically include parking and / or connecting bus service

WALLY Commuter Rail ServiceWALLY 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 StationLivingston County

Washtenaw County

Benefits for CommutersBenefits 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

Benefits for the RegionBenefits for the Region

Property Property ValuesValues

JobsJobs

InvestmentInvestment

Workforce Workforce RetentionRetention

Energy UseEnergy Use Air Air PollutionPollution

775 Construction290 Permanent

5% - 20% or more

3000 tons / year of CO2

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

Efficient Use of Transportation ResourcesEfficient 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

Status: Capital ImprovementsStatus: Capital Improvements

• Rolling stock: railcars & locomotives• Upgraded tracks• Improved grade crossing safety• Signal improvements• Layover facilities• Stations

Status: Railcar RehabilitationStatus: 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

Status: Locomotive LeaseStatus: Locomotive Lease

• Delivery Schedule Being Re-evaluated• MDOT Funded• Coordination with Detroit-to-Ann Arbor project

Status: Track, Grade CrossingsStatus: 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?

Status: SignalsStatus: Signals

• Main line to run “dark” initially

• No conflicting movements

• Annpere crossing– Scope TBD– Meet with CSX

• Positive Train Control?

Status: Layover FacilitiesStatus: Layover Facilities

• Overnight – Oak Grove• Midday - Osmer• Alternatives to Osmer

– Barton Road– Michigan Stadium

• Osmer Construction Completed• Layover Equipment Needed• MDOT Funded

Status: StationsStatus: 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

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

Operating PlanOperating 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

Project Operating Costs and RevenuesProject Operating Costs and Revenues(Millions)(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

Marketing & Public OutreachMarketing & 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!

Awareness of the WALLY ProjectAwareness of the WALLY Project

Livingston County Washtenaw 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%63% 50%50%AWAREAWARE AWAREAWARE

Support for the WALLY ProjectSupport for the WALLY ProjectWALLY 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 County Washtenaw County

80%80% 75%75%APPROVEAPPROVE APPROVEAPPROVE

(43% (43% STRONGLYSTRONGLY APPROVE) APPROVE) (32% (32% STRONGLYSTRONGLY APPROVE) APPROVE)

Likely to Ride WALLYLikely 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%71%LIKELYLIKELY

(43% (43% VERY VERY LIKELY)LIKELY)

Opening DayOpening Day

• Mainly dependent on funding– Stations– Ongoing operations

• Repeat: Dependent on funding

Predicted WALLY ridership is 1300 / day, mainly from Livingston

County.

Is it realistic to expect 13% of these trips to use

WALLY?

Outlying NE Illinois Counties Rail Work Trips to Downtown Chicago

McHenry

Kane

Lake

Will

DuPage

County % of Work Trips by Commuter Rail

McHenry 66%

Lake 60%

Kane 61%

DuPage 69%

Will 55%

UM Employees Living Near a WALLY Station: Howell

UM Employees Living Near a WALLY Station: Genoa / Brighton

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

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

How does Wally forecast ridership compare to How does Wally forecast ridership compare to existing commuter rail operations?existing commuter rail operations?

SOURCE: APTA 2009 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACT BOOK; 60th Edition; April, 2009

New Commuter Rail in the US

New Commuter Rail in the US

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

New Mexico Rail Runner

Express

Metro Rail/Red Line

TRI-Rail Northstar Music City Star

WES (Westside

Express Service)

FrontRunner Altamont Commuter

Express (ACE Rail)

WALLY

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rsCommuter Rail Start-up Costs per Mile of Initial Service

Learn More About WALLYLearn More About WALLY

• Brochures / Project Maps

• Frequently Asked Questions

• http://www.wallyrail.org

Get involved with WALLYGet involved with WALLY

• Twitter: http://twitter.com/WALLYRail

• Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WALLYRail

• Email: WALLY@TheRide.org

• Present the “WALLY Road Show”

• Traveling display

• Or contact Michael Benham: 734-973-1851,

mbenham@TheRide.org

Thanks!

Supplemental Slides

Job CreationJob 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

Impact on Property ValuesImpact on Property Values● A study of “gentrification” in Chicago, which looked at the value of residential propertyserved by either CTA (Heavy Rail) or Metra (commuter rail), states that “evidence is foundthat properties closest to transit stations increased in value much more than those fartheraway, especially in the period 1985-1991. Properties adjacent to transit stations had a 20%higher increase in value compared to those located a half-mile away . . .”46

● A look at the impact of San Francisco’s BART Heavy Rail system on residential propertyvalues found that “the average Alameda County home is worth about $3,700 less for eachmile 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 linereviewed the impacts of rail transit to property values in suburban Portland . . . Portland’sexperience is generally consistent with the results of the studies in other areas. Within the 2years after the 1986 beginning of the operation of the rail line, residential properties in theEast Burnside area within 500 meters of the transit were, on average, 10.6% greater in valuethan homes outside 500 meters.”48

● A study of properties served by Dallas’s new DART Light Rail system found that “Thelargest increase in residential property values was seen at the VA Hospital station, wherevalues rose 65 percent.”49

● In Massachusetts, “An analysis of the data shows that the median price of single-familyhomes 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 increasesin 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 haveaccess 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 2003

20%

$3,200

10.6%

65%

Doubled

5% - 10%

RETURN

Transit Impact on Property Values Transit Impact on Property Values (cont’d)(cont’d)

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 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 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

$4000

25%, 32%

RETURN

WALLY Planning OrganizationRoles 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

Stimulus for Economic DevelopmentStimulus for Economic Development

RETURN