Portfolio

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

sp

re

se

nta

tion M

ate

ria

ls

WritinG saMples

contents:

MeMo to Byron toWnship planninG coMMission assesinG cell phone toWer application coMpliance

existinG conditions chapter of 2014 cannon toWnship Master plan

transit deserts article (BsU)

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

sp

re

se

nta

tion M

ate

ria

ls

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

sp

re

se

nta

tion M

ate

ria

ls

TO: Byron Township Planning Commission FROM: Maxwell K. Dillivan DATE: October 7, 2014 (October 20 meeting) SUBJECT: Faulk and Foster Real Estate Inc. o/b/o Verizon Wireless- Special Land Use and Site Plan

Review Application An application has been submitted requesting approval of a Special Land Use (SLU) and site plan review for a 160’ wireless communications tower with 7’ lightning rod on approximately 9.5 acres of land (100’ x 100’ leased area). The property is located at 601 Gordon Industrial Court and is zoned Industrial (D-1). New wireless communications towers are classified as SLUs in all Township zoning districts. Section 9.5 Special Land Use Review The Planning Commission shall review the particular circumstances and facts applicable to each proposed special land use with respect to the following standards and requirements. If it is found that the proposed special land use meets all of the standards, it shall be approved. Based on our review of the application, the application generally meets all of the Special Land Use Standards outlined in Section 9.5. However, the project must meet all submittal requirements and specific standards outlined in Section 8.45, Wireless Communication Facilities. A. It will be in accordance with the general objectives, intent and purposes of this Ordinance. Meets standard. B. It will be in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Byron Township Community Master Plan. Meets standard. C. It will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of the area in which it is proposed. Generally meets standard. D. It will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future uses in the same general vicinity and in the community as a whole. Meets standard. E. It will be adequately served by essential infrastructure, such as highways, roads, storm water drainage, refuse disposal, water and sewage facilities. Meets standard. F. It will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for infrastructure and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Meets standard.

15 Ionia, SW, Ste. 450 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Tel. 616.336.7750 Fax.616.336.8478 www.LSLPlanning.com

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

sp

re

se

nta

tion M

ate

ria

ls

Byron Township Planning Commission 10/20/2014

G. It will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials and equipment, or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to persons, property or general welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, vibration, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Meets standard. H. It will ensure that the environment shall be preserved in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal and topographic modifications, which result in maximum harmony with adjacent areas. Meets standard. I. It will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the Zoning District. Meets standard. J. It shall conform with all specific requirements of Chapter 8, if any, applicable to the special use. Meets standard. Section 8.45 Use Requirements- Wireless Communication Facilities Wireless communication facilities and towers shall conform to Section 8.45 of the Zoning Ordinance. 8.45 D General requirements

1. Principal or accessory use. Antennas and towers may be considered either a principal or an accessory use. A different use of an existing structure on the same lot shall not preclude the installation of an antenna or tower on a lot. Meets standard.

2. Lot size. To determine whether the installation of a tower or antenna complies with zoning district regulations, including but not limited to setbacks, lot-coverage and other such requirements, the dimensions of the entire lot shall control, even though an antenna or tower may be located on a leased parcel or an easement. Meets standard.

3. Inventory of existing sites. An applicant shall provide the zoning administrator with an inventory of existing or approved towers, antennas or sites they control, located either in Byron Township, or within one mile of its borders. The information shall include the location, height and design of each tower. See below.

Exhibit B shows the location of existing towers within several miles of the subject site. While height and design information was not provided, the proposed tower significantly exceeds separation requirement, and this information is not needed for the purpose of the review

4. Aesthetics. Towers and antennas shall meet the following requirements:

a. Towers shall either have a galvanized steel finish, or subject to FAA requirements, be painted a neutral color. Meets standard. The tower is proposed to have a galvanized steel finish. b. The design of buildings and related support structures shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping to blend with either a natural setting or the character of surrounding development. While a chain link fence and landscaping may be appropriate in more rural settings, a brick or masonry enclosure around a tower and related ground equipment may be required in more developed locations of the Township. Generally meets standard.

2 | P a g e

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

s

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

s

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials


c. When an antenna is installed on a structure other than a tower, the antenna and electrical and mechanical equipment must be painted a neutral color and be compatible with the color of the supporting structure. Generally meets standard.

5. Lighting. Towers shall not be illuminated, unless required by the FAA or other applicable authority. If lights are required, then light levels, strobes, design, color, oscillation, etc. shall minimize disturbance to surrounding areas. Meets standard.

The tower shall only be illuminated if required by the FAA. 6. State or federal requirements.

a. Towers must meet or exceed the current requirements of the FAA, FCC or those of any agency with authority to regulate tower and antenna standards. If standards or regulations change, then within six months of their effective date, unless mandated differently by the controlling agency, tower and antenna owners governed by this section shall bring all facilities into compliance. Failure to bring all facilities into compliance shall constitute grounds for their removal, at the owner’s expense. Standard shall be met. b. Amateur radio antenna(s). Not applicable.

7. Building codes; safety standards. To ensure the structural integrity of a tower, the tower owner shall ensure it is maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable state or local building codes and the applicable standards for towers, published by the Electronic Industries Association, as amended. If, upon inspection, Byron Township concludes that a tower fails to comply with such codes and standards and constitutes a danger to persons or property, then upon notice being provided, the owner shall have 30 days to bring the tower into compliance with any such standards. Failure to bring a tower into compliance within the 30 days shall constitute grounds to remove the tower or antenna, at the owner’s expense. Standard shall be met. 8. Measurement. Setback and separation distances shall be measured and applied to tower and antenna facilities located in Byron Township irrespective of municipal and county jurisdictional boundaries. Meets standard. 9. Not essential services. Towers and antennas shall be regulated and permitted pursuant to this section and shall not be regulated or permitted as an essential service, or a public or private utility. Acknowledged. 10. Franchises. Owners and/or operators of towers or antennas shall certify that all franchises required by law to construct and/or operate a wireless communication system have been obtained. All required franchises shall be filed with the zoning administrator. Meets standard.

All necessary franchise documentation has been submitted (Exhibit C). 11. Public Notice. Any special use, variance, or appeal request of an approved use or special use shall require public notice to all abutting property owners and all property owners of properties that are located within the corresponding separation distance listed in Table 8-44, in addition to any notice otherwise required by the Zoning Ordinance. Township responsibility. 12. Signs. Signs are not allowed on an antenna or tower. Meets standard.

The fence on the compound surrounding the proposed equipment shelter will only contain signage as required by applicable FCC guidelines.

3 | P a g e

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

sp

re

se

nta

tion M

ate

ria

ls


13. Buildings and Support Equipment. Buildings and support equipment associated with antennas or towers shall comply with the requirements of Section 8.45.G. Meets standard. 14. Multiple Antenna/Tower Plan. Byron Township encourages the users of towers and antennas to submit a single application for multiple towers and/or antenna sites. Acknowledged. Section 8.45.G Towers- Information Required Section 8.45 G. requires additional information regarding wireless communication towers. The applicant provided the necessary information to review the application. Section 8.45.H Considerations In addition to the standards for approving special land uses, the Planning Commission shall consider the following during consideration of a telecommunications tower:

1. Height of the proposed tower;

The height of the proposed tower is 160’ with a 7’ lightning rod. The height of existing towers in the vicinity should be provided for comparison.

2. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries;

The tower is located in an industrial area of the township near the US-131/76th Street interchange. The nearest residential structures are more than 3,000’ away from the proposed location of the tower.

3. Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties;

Adjacent uses include light industrial, railroad tracks, storage, and warehousing with commercial uses along Clyde Park Ave. The general nature of the area is industrial.

4. Surrounding topography;

Surrounding topography is generally flat or gentle grades and land mixture of paved surfaces, limited tree coverage, and cleared brush.

5. Tree cover;

The tower site will be exposed to adjacent properties primarily to the north, east and west. A tree line screens views generally from the south. As the industrial area is mainly clear of tree cover, the tower will be visible from distances greater than locations with increased tree cover.

6. Design of the tower, with a particular emphasis on design characteristics that can reduce or eliminate

visual impacts;

There are no special or unique design characteristics that reduce visual impact. The applicant has not addressed any measures to mitigate impacts and acknowledges the industrial nature of the area. Visual impact is less than if located in a commercial or rural area.

4 | P a g e

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

s

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

s

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials


7. Site access; and

The driveway currently servicing 601 Gordon Industrial Dr. will be extended to the north to serve as access to the tower site and ground facilities.

8. Other available and suitable existing towers, other structures, or alternate technologies that do not

require using towers or structures, as discussed in Section 8.45.G.1.k. See 8.45 I.

Section 8.45.I Availability of Suitable Existing Tower, other Structures, or Alternative Technology A new tower shall not be permitted unless the applicant can reasonably demonstrate to the Planning Commission that there are no existing towers, structures or alternative technologies available to provide the level of service anticipated by the proposed antenna. An applicant shall submit information requested by the Planning Commission indicating why suitable towers, structures or alternative technologies are not available to address potential short-comings. The applicant has stated there are capacity issues within Verizon’s network as an increase of usership particularly by motorists on US-131 and nearby commercial uses in the vicinity. Verizon antennas and equipment are already located on all nearby towers, and the applicant states that no other alternatives are available aside from a new tower. Section 8.45.J Setbacks The following setback requirements shall apply to all towers for which special land use approval is required. The Planning Commission may reduce setback requirements if it concludes that the goals of this section would be better served by such action: 1. A tower must be set back a from a lot line equal to at least 75 percent of its height. Meets standard. 2. Guys and accessory buildings must meet minimum setback requirements. Meets standard.

The required setback for a 160’ tower is 120’. Proposed tower setbacks from property lines are included in the following table. While setbacks have been provided to the tower, it should be noted that the propane tank, equipment shelter and tower are all within the 1,000 SF leased area. The actual setback for ancillary structures and equipment may vary slightly from the information presented. However, the tower complies with the 120’ property line setback and the ancillary structures and equipment comply with the D-1 setback requirements.

Required and Provided Setbacks Tower Accessory Building

Lot Line Required Provided Lot Line Required- D-1 Provided North 120’ 327’ Side 50’ 332’ (approx.) South 120’ 675’ (approx.) Side 50’ 650’ (approx.) East 120’ 170’ Front 60’ 165’ (approx.) West 120’ 150’ Rear 50’ 145’ (approx.)

5 | P a g e

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

sp

re

se

nta

tion M

ate

ria

ls


Section 8.45.K Separation Distances The following separation requirements shall apply to all towers and antennas for which special land use approval is required. The Planning Commission may reduce the separation requirements if it concludes that the goals of this section would be better served otherwise: 1. Separation from off-site uses/designated areas. Meets standard.

Required Tower Separation From Off-site Uses and Areas Off-site Use/Designated Area Separation Distance Provided Single-family or duplex residential units

200’ or 300% height of tower whichever is greater (480’ required)

3,000’ +

Vacant single-family or duplex residentially zoned land which is either platted or has preliminary subdivision plan approval which is not expired

200 feet or 300% height of tower whichever is greater (480’ required)

3,000’ +

Vacant unplatted residentially zoned lands


3,000’ +

Existing multi-family residential units greater than duplex units


None in vicinity

Non-residentially zoned lands or non-residential uses

None; only setbacks apply Setback requirements met

2. Separation distances between towers Tower separation shall be measured as the straight line distance between the base of an existing tower and the base of a proposed tower. Meets standard.

The proposed separation is greater than 7,500’, or 5 times greater than the township requirement.

Separation Distance Between Towers Proposed Tower Lattice, Guyed,

Monopole over 75’

Monopole less than 75 ft. tall

Proposed

Monopole 75 ft. tall or more (160’ proposed)

1,500’ 750’ 7,500’ +

Section 8.45.L Security fencing Fencing is required for security purposes: A tower shall be enclosed by a security fence that is at least six feet tall and which shall have an appropriate anti-climbing device. The Planning Commission may waive these requirements if the goals of this section would be better served otherwise. Meets standard.

6 | P a g e

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

s

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

s

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials


A six-foot fence with barbed wire along the top edge is proposed. While prohibited in several districts, barbed wire fencing is permitted in the D-1 district (and R-A & D-2).

Section 8.45.M Landscaping The following requirements shall govern landscaping for a tower requiring special land use approval. The Planning Commission may waive these requirements if the goals of this section would be better served otherwise. Meets standard. a. Tower base facilities shall be landscaped with a buffer that effectively screens views from any nearby residential uses. A landscaped buffer shall be at least ten feet wide and be located at the outside the perimeter of the base compound. Meets standard. b. Where the visual impact of a tower would be minimal, the landscaping requirements may be reduced or waived. Not applicable. c. Existing trees and natural landforms shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. In certain cases existing trees that surround a tower base may provide a sufficient buffer. Not applicable.

The applicant has provided a landscaping plan consistent with buffer type 2 but without canopy trees. This is consistent with the previous Special Land Use approval for the Verizon Tower on Wilson Avenue. Eight (8) evergreen trees and 64 shrubs are proposed to buffer the visual impact of the equipment on the site.

Section 8.45.N Buildings or other Equipment Storage Equipment cabinets or structures used in association with an antenna shall comply with the minimum setback and height requirements of the zoning district and all applicable building codes. Views of structures or cabinets shall be screened from all residential properties, which abut or are directly across the street. The screen shall consist either of a solid fence or masonry wall, six feet tall; or an evergreen screen, planted at a height of at least five feet and achieving an ultimate height of eight feet. Meets standard.

Eight (8) evergreen trees and 64 shrubs are proposed to buffer the visual impact of the equipment on the site.

Recommendation Site plan review elements were mainly covered by Section 8.45 and the Special Land Use review. We recommend approval of the Special Land Use and site plan with the condition that the fire department reviews and approves the plans prior to construction.

7 | P a g e

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

sp

re

se

nta

tion M

ate

ria

ls

Cannon Township Snapshot Report 5

Existing Conditions Report

Housing

Housing Stock Coinciding with the Township’s period of highest growth, the majority of homes in Cannon Township were constructed during the 1980’s and 1990’s during which nearly one-half (49% or 2,349 units) were constructed. Figure 6 shows the number of housing units constructed by decade in Cannon Township.

Prior to 1940, the Township was primarily rural and scattered farmsteads and smaller country homes were the norm. With its combination of attractive vistas, inviting lakes, proximity to Grand Rapids and high-quality schools, greater numbers of people sought the rural lifestyle that the Township offered. Cannon Township’s housing growth reached its peak in the 1990’s where almost a third of the Township’s total housing stock was built. The trend continued into the early 2000’s but tapered quickly as the recessionary period began.

Ironically, the rural charm that lured many new residents to the community is altered to a degree with each ensuing wave of housing construction. As land once dedicated to agriculture and open space is converted to subdivisions, businesses or institutions a piece of the Township’s rural atmosphere is eroded.

Occupancy Of Cannon Township’s 4,791 housing units, only 277 (approximately 6%) are vacant according to the 2010 US Census. These figures are comparable to Ada Township which has a vacancy rate just over 5% and Grand Rapids Township with a vacancy rate around 5% as well. Figure 7 compares the Township’s occupied and vacant housing units to similar Kent County communities, most of which exhibit vacancy rates of between 3-7%, indicating a stable, healthy housing market. Cannon Township’s vacancy rate actually decreased from the 2000 Census figure, despite the recession of the past decade and its widespread affects on the housing market nationally.

Not surprisingly, the dominant form of housing is owner-occupied single family. Of the 4,514 occupied housing units within the Township, 94% are owner-occupied whereas the remaining 6% (263 units) are renter-occupied. Most of these renter-occupied units are found in the Lake Bella Vista area. While a plethora of owner-occupied housing may seem to indicate a strong housing market, it also limits housing choice in the community. This is illustrated in the age profile (Figure 4) which shows a low percentage of residents in their 20s and early 30s, as well as a growing proportion of empty nesters and retirement

Year Number PercentBuilt 1939 or earlier 305 6.4%Built 1940 to 1949 45 0.9%Built 1950 to 1959 270 5.6%Built 1960 to 1969 407 8.5%Built 1970 to 1979 577 12.0%Built 1980 to 1989 876 18.3%Built 1990 to 1999 1,473 30.7%Built 2000 to 2005 593 12.4%Built 2005 to 2011 245 5.1%Total Housing Units 4,791 100.0%

Figure 6: Year Housing Built

Source: 2007-2011 American Community Survey

Figure 7: Housing Vacancy Rate

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

s

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

s

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials

6 Cannon Township Snapshot Report

aged persons. The conclusion to be drawn is that young families may be excluded from the housing market, while older residents may have to leave the community when their large single family home no longer suits their lifestyle. Compared to neighboring communities in Kent County, Ada Township, Grand Rapids Township, and Algoma Township all exhibit high rates of owner-occupied units ranging between 90-95%. The City of Rockford resembles the State of Michigan and Kent County which are similar having just over 70% of housing units as owner-occupied and just under 30% categorized as renter-occupied.

Household Type

As shown in Figure 9, both family and non-family households increased numerically between 2000 and 2010. However, the proportion of non-family households increased by 5% of the total households in the Township. By 2010, non-family households comprised nearly 20% (one-fifth) of all households in the Township compared to less than 15% just 10 years earlier. Ada Township, by contrast, increased in the number and percentage of family households by jumping from 2,804 family households (86%) in 2000 to 3,667 (89%) in 2010. Algoma and Grand Rapids townships also increased in number and percentage of family households while Rockford, in similar fashion to Cannon Township, increased in total number of family households from 1,255 family households in 2000 to 1,523 in 2010, but decreased in percentage of family households from 72% in 2000 to 69% in 2010. This is especially interesting when compared with the county and state figures which were essentially unchanged between the two years but each having much lower rates of family households than Cannon Township and its neighboring communities. This shift may be attributable to the increase of empty-

nesters and families who choose to not have children or are waiting longer to have children.

Figure 10 compares average household size and average family size for 2000 and 2010. Both average household size and average family size have decreased between 2000 and 2010. In Cannon Township, as well as Kent

Number Percent Number PercentCannon Township 4,251 94% 263 6%Ada Twp. 4,079 94% 244 6%Algoma Twp. 3,227 95% 177 5%Gr. Rapids Twp. 5,220 89% 669 11%Rockford city 1,521 71% 608 29%Kent County 161,662 71% 66,036 29%Michigan 2,780,213 73% 1,038,718 27%

Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey Estimates

Owner-Occupied Renter-OccupiedCommunity

Figure 8: Owner- vs. Renter-Occupied Housing

Figure 10: Average Household & Family Size

Source: US Census Bureau

Figure 9: Household Types

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

sp

re

se

nta

tion M

ate

ria

ls

Cannon Township Snapshot Report 7

Existing Conditions Report

County and the State of Michigan, family and household sizes decreased between the two censuses indicating that the traditional family structure is becoming less common as the predominant household formation. Ada, Algoma, and Grand Rapids Townships all exhibit similar characteristics with relatively high average family sizes in 2010 (3.28, 3.17, and 3.24, respectively), but experienced a decrease between 3-5% since 2000. Ada Township is the lone exception to the observed trends where both average family size and average household size increased between 2000 and 2010. Household types and sizes have influence over what types of housing units are constructed. This trend, experienced in communities nation-wide, is indicative of changing family and social structures. Because of this, demands for various types of housing (i.e., single-family, condominium, duplex, apartments) may shift in the coming years.

Housing Value The median housing value for Cannon Township in 2000 was at $185,000. By 2010, that number had increased by 26.4% to $233,900. By comparison, this figure still remains one of the highest among all jurisdictions in the county exceeded only by Ada Township ($263,600) and Cascade Township ($243,400). Cannon Township’s increase was similar to the trend exhibited across the county where Kent County’s median housing value jumped around 28% between 2000 and 2010. The State of Michigan also enjoyed a 24.7% increase in median housing value during this timespan.

Figure 11: Median Housing Value

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

s

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

s

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials

Transit Deserts: The Gap between Demand and Supply

Junfeng Jiao and Maxwell DillivanJournal of Public Transportation, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2013

AbstractThe term “transit desert” is a new concept which looks at the gap between level of transit service (supply) and needs of a particular population (demand). These populations are often referred to as “transit depen-dent,” people that are too young, too old, too poor, or physically unable to drive. “Transit Deserts” in this case are defined as areas which lack adequate public transit service given areas containing populations who are deemed transit dependent. This study aims to analyze and establish a clear method for calcu-lating and quantifying gaps between transit demand and supply using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The study looks at four major U.S. cities: Charlotte, North Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; and Portland, Oregon. Transit deserts often occur in neighborhoods surrounding historic down-towns; however, excepts occur in very isolated rural areas.

IntroductionThe concept of “transit deserts” introduced in this study is similar to the increasingly popular concept of “food deserts” (Clark et al. 2002; Whelan et al. 2002; Wrigley 1993; Wrigley et al. 2002; Jiao et al. 2012). Enormous attention has been paid to improving food systems and food environments through planning efforts in order to achieve equitable access to high-quality, affordable food for everyone. Food desert analyses identify geographic locations where concentrations of people who lack access to healthy food exist in the urban landscape. Similar analysis can be applied to mass transportation systems as well. While access to healthy, affordable foods has been compromised due to suburban sprawl (Morland et al. 2002; Jiao et al. 2012), choice of modes of transportation have as well. Taking the concepts of food deserts and applying it to public transportation enables spatial patterns to emerge regarding service provision and service need. Locations of vulnerable populations can be determined and analyzed. There has been almost no research done using this approach to evaluating transit sys-tems based on gaps between demand and supply in a spatial context.

Transit deserts are generally defined as areas containing a large constituent of transit-dependent pop-ulations with limited automobile access where the level of mass transit service (supply) do not ad-equately service these populations (demand). Areas of high concentrations of people who rely on public transportation for daily activities are in the greatest need of the provision of transit services. Transit dependent populations typically those who are too young, too old, too poor, and physically handicapped and unable to drive (Grengs 2001). “Transit Deserts” in this case are defined as areas which lack adequate public transit service given areas containing populations who are deemed “tran-sit dependent.” Various indicators such as age, income, and access to a private vehicle are used to determine dependency. Since transit dependent populations are comprised of individuals who rely on transit systems for access and mobility, this population will benefit most from investments made in high-quality, reliable, and frequent transit service (CATA 2011). Currently, there is a significant portion of mass transit riders who are completely dependent upon the various forms of urban mass transpor-tation in a time when dependency is likely to increase with car-ownership rates slowing and world-wide oil reserves dwindling.

Literature ReviewPublic transportation is vital to the health of cities. The Supreme Court has recognized the right to travel as one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and is a hallmark of full membership of American society (Sanchez and Brenman 2008). The early challenges

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

sp

re

se

nta

tion M

ate

ria

ls

to racial discrimination and segregation attacked discriminatory practices that limited access to mo-bility of minorities; today, this segregation of society still exists and is manifested through access of modes of transit. Sanchez and Brenman in their 2008 book titled The Right to Transportation identify several aspects of an equitable transportation system such as ensuring opportunities for meaningful public involvement in the transportation planning process, distributing the benefits and burdens from transportation projects equally across all income levels and communities, providing high quality ser-vices—emphasizing access to economic opportunity and basic mobility—to all communities with an emphasis on transit dependent populations, and finally to equally prioritize efforts to both revitalize poor and minority communities and to expand transportation infrastructure. These facets to equitable transportation systems are critical in the foundation of a true pluralistic society which affords access and opportunities for all.

Urban planners are asked to promote equity and invoke fairness, and justice for all populations (Deakin 1996). Oftentimes, this involves the endeavor of allocating public goods and services to those in the greatest need which are usually low-income, disadvantaged populations. To better allocating the pub-lic goods, equity and advocacy planning theory emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. This theory argues that planners should represent and advocate for the interests of poor and minority groups and aim to ameliorate social ills which plague urban populations (Paul Davidoff 1965; Garcia-Zamor 2009). Public transit service as one important general public goods has drawn lots of attentions during this move-ment (Krumholz 1982). Transit dependent populations mark a notable group of people who are often excluded from access to employment opportunities, access to retail options, and overall participation in society. However, many public transportation agencies have neglected transit dependent popu-lations (Garrett and Taylor 1999). Garrett and Taylor (1999) argue that superior political power from suburban communities has created tension among transit planners in regard to meeting demands for low-income, inner-city residents who need transit and meeting the demands for more dispersed, wealthier suburban communities. Today, transit riders on average are much poorer than the general population with a disproportionate amount of elderly and physically handicapped riders. However, transit subsidies have mostly been concentrated on serving lower-density, higher income areas only improving transit access for suburban residents failing to respond to the needs of residents who rely on the service. ObjectiveThis study aims to create a clear, concise method for calculating and quantifying the supply of trans-portation service that can be utilized for any location. Results from this study can be used in part to evaluate a transportation system as a whole. Ideally, this will lead to more efficient and effective allocation of resources allowing the greatest output (i.e. ridership, social justice) given input (i.e. trans-portation subsidies/funding).This study aims to analyze and quantify gaps between transit demand and supply using GIS in four major U.S. cities. The study will create a graphic representation of portions of these cities where there is either an excess of service given the demand of the residents in that particular area or where the supply of transit service is not meeting the demands of the residents in the area. Thus, this will shed light on the bigger issue of appropriation of resources.

Conclusions and LimitationsThis research is important for two primary reasons. First, the study aims to illustrate and turn the focus to neighborhoods in major cities whose transit needs are not being meet. This is useful in terms of public transit planning where new routes and stops should be located as well as how much service certain areas should receive. Transit dependent populations mark an increasingly important demo-graphic of people who are often marginalized from society and excluded from access to employment, retail, and overall participation in society. Roseland (2005) opined that “social equity demands that we

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Wr

itin

g Sa

mp

leS

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

s

Ma

ps &

Gr

ap

hic

s

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials

balance the needs of the biosphere with the needs of the vast majority of the human population, the World’s poor.” From this perspective, social equity is understood as an effort to address the injuries and injustices meted out to those excluded from a protected class. These injuries and injustices manifest themselves in a variety of ways, resulting in traumatic experiences for the physical landscape as well as the human encounter where the fundamental rights of citizens are compromised (Garcia-Zamor 2009).

Secondly, this study approaches a transportation problem with a new paradigm and establishes a method for quantifying and calculating locations with inadequate transit service give a population’s needs. Relatively no literature was found on this topic which makes this study an important stepping stone to refine and evaluate public transportation service. In an era with dwindling budgets for pub-lic agencies, efficiency and effectiveness are paramount. Public dollars need to be spent as sensibly as possible. This study allows more sensible solutions to be determined and adds to the discourse of transportation planning methods.

There are few limitations in this research. First, it should be recognized that any method to evaluate transit dependent populations in a difficult one. The method chosen for this study was one which was most pragmatic and sensible. Because of this, the study cannot correlate exactly why high levels of transit dependency occur in certain areas. This study also met limitations when trying to calculate cer-tain criteria for transit supply. Census data for vehicles available is not publicly available by the block group geography and had to be adjusted from the census tract level.

Wr

itinG s

aM

ple

sm

ap

S & g

ra

ph

icS

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials

Maps & Graphics

contents:

roBinson toWnship M-231 sUBarea stUdy Maps

cannon toWnship 2014 Master plan Maps

rapid streetcar feasiBility stUdy Maps

rta liGht rail stUdy Map

Byron toWnship ZoninG Map

ZoninG ordinance illUstrations

WoodWard ave. Brt renderinGs

iMlay city sketchUp Model

transit deserts analysis Maps (BsU)

Wr

iting S

am

ple

SM

ap

s & G

ra

ph

ics

pr

eS

en

tatio

n ma

ter

ialS

Wr

itinG s

aM

ple

sm

ap

S & g

ra

ph

icS

pr

es

en

tatio

n Ma

ter

ials