ReImagine Washtenaw Avenue

Corridor Transformation in

Washtenaw County

​

2023 MAP Student Conference

​

February 11, 2023

Nathan Voght, AICP, Washtenaw County

www.washtenawavenue.org

www.facebook.com/reimaginewashtenaw

@washtenawavenue

​

Washtenaw County

Corridor Location

What is ReImagine Washtenaw?

A multi-jurisdictional, cooperative initiative to TRANSFORM Washtenaw Avenue to a “Complete Street,” through land use changes, multi-modal improvements, efficient mass transit, and dense, mixed-use, transit-oriented development.

​

​

THINK ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN:

LAND USE TRANSPORTATION

​

ReImagine Washtenaw History

2008: Regional group formed to develop economic development strategies in response to Pfizer closing in Ann Arbor

2009: Washtenaw Avenue corridor redevelopment chosen using improved transit, multi-modal access, and place-making at high-density development nodes

2009: Washtenaw County chosen to provide project management, and Joint Technical Committee formed to guide project

2010-2014: Redevelopment Strategy developed and Corridor Improvement Study completed and adopted.

2014-2023: Sidewalk Infill construction, updated Zoning Codes to require zero lot line, denser buildings, AAATA plans for Express Bus Service, Bus Rapid Transit, first “Super Stop” design underway at County Service Center

​

​

What is ReImagine Washtenaw?

Existing Conditions

• MDOT-owned trunkline (no local control)
• 53% Commercial land use by land area
• 11% Commercial vacancy rate by storefront
• 100 Acres of redevelopable land
• 41% Impervious surface within ¼ mile on each side of corridor
• 1.4 Million transit riders in 2014 (700K in 2022)
• Average daily traffic (ADT) on WEST end in 2014 = 32,000 to 46,000 vehicles (includes the US-23 highway interchange)
• Average daily traffic (ADT) on EAST end in 2014 = 27,000 to 33,000 vehicles

• Assets:
• 700K annual transit riders in 2022, down from over 1 million from 2012 to 2019
• Significant increase from 2010
• High Housing Density
• Connects major county institutions/employers
• Redevelopment potential
• Existing Infrastructure
• Highway Access

​

• Challenges:
• Crosses four jurisdictions
• Traffic Congestion
• Excessive driveways
• Sidewalk gaps
• No bike lanes
• No “sense of place”
• Lack of pedestrian facilities (cross-walks)
• No dedicated funding

Why is change needed?

• Excessive traffic congestion, and failing intersections, with projections for increases in traffic
• Can’t “build” our way out of congestion (expanding roads creates self-induced demand and more congestion)
• Corridor not safe for bikers and pedestrians, AND drivers
• Redeveloping existing urban areas is Smart Growth and sustainable
• Providing an inclusive Complete Street has proven advantages
• To create a place that will attract people, not repulse them
• Missed opportunity with economic consequences to not take action to create a more inviting, usable, and safe corridor

Redevelopment Strategy

• “Nodes” of denser development
• Mixed-use corridor
• Transit-Oriented Development
• Walkable, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods

​

• “Complete Street” providing for all modes of transportation

​

• High quality public transportation

​

• Improved access and integration with adjacent neighborhoods

• Pulse high-density development within “Nodes” of transit-oriented development
• Auto-oriented land uses allowed in the “links,” in between
• Super Transit Stops, Mid-Block Crossings co-located within Nodes

Node vs. Link

Super Transit Stops

Super Transit Stops

Node vs. Link

• Pulse high-density development within “Nodes” of transit-oriented development
• Auto-oriented land uses allowed in the “links,” in between
• Super Transit Stops, Mid-Block Crossings co-located within Nodes

Node

Setting the Stage for Transformation LAND USE

• Dense neighborhoods at Nodes with ground floor services and placemaking elements.
• Neighborhood “feel” where walking is interesting and street theater and activated sidewalks creates a sense of place.
• You feel like you’re “somewhere”
• Buildings are built up to the street, and give a sense of enclosure to “hug” us.
• Updated Master Plans – Future Land Use Policy
• Updated Zoning Regulations – Development is required to be built to street, and denser
• Adoption of Design Guidelines – Walkable, attractive pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use neighborhoods. Design guidelines add the “icing” to the “cake.”

​

​

​

Vision for Building Form

• Declining shopping center

• Reduced building setbacks and parking requirements
• Infill development brings buildings to street

• Mixed-use buildings
• Increased height and density
• Increased pedestrian amenities

Setting the Stage for Transformation - TRANSPORTATION

• Create a “Complete Street” to reasonable accommodate all modes (Vehicles, Bikes, and Pedestrians)
• Enhance Public Transit
• Public Transit trips must be competitive with vehicle trips and a rational choice for commuters
• Increase trip frequency (AAATA moving towards 5 min frequency)
• Comfortable/safe transit stations (Heated shelters, landscaping, lighting, signage, public art)
• Bus Rapid Transit (Level boarding, pre-pay, dedicated lanes)
• Safe access to Transit Stops – Full sidewalks and Mid-Block Crossings
• Queue jump lanes with Transit Signal Priority
• Ultimately moving more “people” down the corridor per hour

​

​

Barnflakes.com

Public Transit Super Stop

Queue Jump Lanes

Townships’ Proposed Cross-Section

2014 Corridor Improvement Study

Altago.com

Challenges -

Transportation Standards

• A Complete Street is intended to “reasonably” accommodate all modes of transportation. How do you measure what is reasonable, when the only recognized metrics are expressed in vehicle delay? How can we integrate other metrics for a “good” street?
• Transportation standards should reflect the best practice when feasible.
• Despite lack of transportation funding, significant new transportation spending still being directed towards sprawl. More investment is needed in existing urban areas where significantly more value can be created for communities, through increased property values, access for multiple modes (and therefore, improved equity), place-making, and quality of life.

​

Challenges -

Technical and Economic

• Limited existing right-of-way means acquisition is necessary to provide for future bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. Impacts to adjacent property, cost, and time required to receive necessary ROW (when voluntarily acquired) are challenges.
• Conversion of auto-oriented corridor to more walkable and attractive. Difficult to change existing land use patterns, especially that “first-in” project.
• Lack of adequate funding for road improvements that don’t directly impact safety or increase capacity. In other words, more transportation funds are needed to improve corridors that represent real transportation and economic development potential, which will contribute to community character, multi-modal and walkable design, and add real economic and quality of life value.
• Development financial feasibility of Mixed-Use buildings not possible with high construction costs and expected rents

​

​

Summary

• A comprehensive approach is required for corridor redevelopment
• Land use (Master Plan, zoning, and good place-making design)
• Transportation/Transit Improvements (comfortable transit stops, increased frequency, with Express and Bus Rapid Transit)
• Congestion mitigation (Transportation Demand Management)
• Road design standards that do not adequately consider Level of Service for other modes of transportation (walkers and bikers) will remain a challenge for place-making and Complete Streets initiatives. Standards should place pedestrian safety equal to vehicular access.
• Transportation investment should be directed towards existing urbanized areas, where more economic, social, and equity value can be created through increased access for all users.
• Corridor planning is complicated due to numerous local units involved, road owned by state transportation agency, and disparate economic conditions. County government is appropriate for project management.
• Will remote work make transformation to a more livable corridor more possible?

​

​

​

www.WashtenawAvenue.org

Nathan Voght, AICP

voghtn@washtenaw.org

734-660-1061

​

Additional Information

2014 Corridor Improvement Study

Ann Arbor Proposed Cross-Section

2014 Corridor Improvement Study

City of Ypsilanti Proposed Cross-Section

2014 Corridor Improvement Study

Mid-Block Crossings

2014 Corridor Improvement Study

Golfside/Washtenaw Charrette

• Three-day design process
• Short term and long term build-out scenarios developed
• New form-based zoning and Design Guidelines applied to redevelopment scenarios
• Target Market Analysis done to determine residential absorption rate over 5 years (1,000 units)
• Parking requirements determined, based on desired densities (when does a deck become necessary?)
• Other recommendations for coordinated redevelopment strategies

First “Real World” Example:

Arbor Hills Shopping Center

Arbor Hills Shopping Center

Arbor Hills Shopping Center

Arbor Hills Shopping Center

Arbor Hills Shopping Center