Intermodal Freight Report

Intermodal Freight According to Michigan’s Freight Plan, freight is defined as any good, product, or raw material carried by a commercial means for transportation. The three modes of freight shipment occurring in Genesee County include aviation, rail, and truck. The Freight Facilities in Genesee County map to the right identifying the different types of roads that freight travels around the county as well as railroads and the airport. The chart below identifies the Top 5 freight commodities by value for Genesee County with transportation equipment manufacturing being the top freight commodity shipped.

A map of the major automotive production facilities in the region is also shown on the right. Genesee County has aligned its goals and strategies with the statewide Freight Plan, while focusing on major projects that can improve freight movement. The Michigan Freight Plan can be found at the following link: Michigan Freight Plan

2017 Top 5 Commodity Exports in Genesee County Rank 1 2 3 4 5

Commodity Transportation Equipment Manufacturing Machinery Manufacturing Electrical Equipment Plastics & Rubber Products All Others

Percent

Value (in Millions)

60.0%

$ 321.1

9.4%

$ 49.8

6.8%

$ 36.3

5.3%

$ 28.5

18.6%

$ 99.3

Data provided by Office of Trade and Economic Analysis and Michigan Economic Development Corporation

Aviation Bishop International Airport is a major freight hub for the region, carrying over 24 million pounds of air cargo in 2016, and is the third largest airport in Michigan. Bishop features an intermodal terminal which allows freight shipments to switch between modes. This is a common method of transport where cargo travels long distances by

air or rail and is then transferred onto trucks to reach its destination.

FedEx operates cargo services and a shipping center at the airport.

More in‐depth information regarding aviation and the airport facilities located in the county can be found in the Aviation Report.

Intermodal Freight Page 1

Rail is also an essential piece of our freight network, with four major railroad companies (CSX Transportation, Canadian National (CN), Huron & Eastern Railway, and Lake State Railway) operating on 86 miles of rail lines in the county. A map of railroads in Genesee County is shown on Page 1. The majority of rail traffic passes through Genesee County rather than stopping and unloading here. The busiest rail line is the Canadian National (CN) railway running west to east through the county. Its main line runs between Port Huron and South Bend via Flint, Durand, Lansing, and Battle Creek. This railway includes the St. Clair Tunnel, a train tunnel that allows for modern double stacked container rail cars to pass under the St. Clair River to and from Canada.

The map below is a 2014 Freight Rail Movement map for the State of Michigan. This map illustrates the significance of the flow of commodities by rail from Canada, through Genesee County, to the other states and to Mexico.

Michigan 2014 Freight Rail Movement

freight shipments across state lines and even internationally into Canada. Our location along these major routes means that not only do we have commercial traffic passing through, but we are also an ideally situated area for businesses that rely on freight shipments. This gives Genesee County an economic advantage over other areas located far from major truck routes. A map of truck routes in Genesee County is shown on page 1. The map to the right illustrates the volume of truck related freight in Michigan and surrounding states. This map shows major truck freight shipping volumes to and from Canada along I‐75 crossing the Mackinaw Bridge, to and from metro Detroit/Canada along I‐75, to and from Canada along I‐69 visa the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron, and to and from Lansing and other Michigan cities along I‐69. A full nationwide map of truck volumes on the highway system can be found in Appendix H.

The maps on page 3 illustrate volume of truck related freight in Genesee County in 2014 as well as the projected volumes in 2045 from the Genesee County’s Travel Demand Model. In 2017, the most recent year of data available, approximately 237,140,000 commercial vehicle miles travelled (CVMT) were driven in Genesee County, representing about 6% of all vehicle miles driven. This is up from the previous years (as shown in the chart on the right) as the economy continues to recover from the recession, however, truck related freight is not anticipated to have a significant amount of change in the future out to 2045.

Not surprisingly, with an increase in truck traffic comes concerns with safety. Along with the increase in CVMT in 2017, the number of truck/bus‐involved injuries was higher than in any other recent years, as shown below.

Commercial Truck/Bus Crashes:

Michigan Department of Transportation Freight Report 2014. A more detailed analysis can be found in Appendix D.

Truck Trucking is the most heavily used mode of freight shipment in the county. Genesee County lies at the intersection of several major highways including I‐75, I‐69 and US‐23, all of which are used for

2013

2017

348 Crashes

399 Crashes

68 Injuries 3 Fatalities

107 Injuries 5 Fatalities

2015 Average Daily Long‐Haul Truck Traffic on the National Highway System

The U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway Administration Freight Analysis Framework (FAF)

Commercial Vehicle Miles Travelled (in millions), 2012‐2017 240

230 CVMT in Millions

Rail

220

210

200

190 2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Intermodal Freight Page 2

Intermodal Freight Page 3

Performance Measures and Reliability of the Highway Network The Transportation Performance Management (TPM) Travel Time Reliability Rule required states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s) to establish targets for three system reliability performance measures as described below. System reliability is determined using vehicle probe data provided by the Federal Highway Administration. This vehicle speed data is called the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) and is available to MPO’s through the analytical software known as Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS). Please see the attached Travel Time Reliability Performance Management in Appendix A for further details.

1. Level of Travel Time Reliability of the Interstate: The percent of person‐miles traveled on the interstate system that are reliable. Reliability does not necessarily mean congestion. If the difference between normal travel time and travel time during congested periods is greater than 50%, then the segment is unreliable.

2. Level of Travel Time Reliability of the Non‐Interstate National Highway System (NHS): Percent of person‐miles traveled on the Non‐Interstate NHS that are reliable.

3. Freight Reliability Measure on the Interstate: The Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index calculates the difference between the 95th percentile longer travel time and the 50th percentile normal travel time. A TTTR below 1.50 is considered reliable.

RITIS Congestion Trend Map used to monitor system reliability.

In October 2018, the MPO agreed to support the statewide targets as shown above. As of early 2019, GCMPC remained on track to meet the 2‐year and 4‐year targets, and our system is relatively reliable as shown below. GCMPC uses freight and congestion as criteria to select projects through the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Staff will encourage partner agencies to look at potential freight components when completing any transportation projects, particularly on National Highway System routes. We will continue to

monitor NPMRDS data to ensure we are supporting the statewide goals for system reliability. The MDOT 2017 Freeway Congestion and

Reliability Report also shows that Genesee County and the MDOT Bay Region Freeways have relatively low congestion and are operating well. An excerpt showing a summary of MDOT Bay Region freeways is provided in Appendix G.

The Map on the following page illustrates 2015 peak period congestion on the United States National Highway System (NHS). Much of the congestion on the NHS outside of Genesee County is in major metropolitan areas such as Detroit and Chicago. While the Genesee County system is performing well, congested in other areas in Michigan and surrounding states may affect the volume of freight movement through Genesee County.

Intermodal Freight Page 4

Intermodal Freight Page 5

Identifying Freight Needs GCMPC has engaged various stakeholders throughout the development of this plan including the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), The Genesee County Chamber of Commerce, I‐69 International Trade Corridor, I‐69 Thumb Region, Local Road Agencies, and freight stakeholders (United Auto Workers Union (UAW), General Motors, waste hauling companies, shipping companies, Bishop International Airport, and manufacturers) through surveys, stakeholder interviews, focus group and listening session discussions, and meeting presentations. Additionally, staff has partnered with these stakeholders in the development of several substantial freight studies over the past decade to help better understand freight and freight needs in Genesee County and the surrounding region. These studies include The Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study (Appendix F), Freight Forecast Report for the I‐69 Thumb Region (Appendix C), and the Genesee County Freight Flow Report (Appendix B). The information gathered from the various forms of stakeholder engagement, the identified freight related plans, and plan datasets has helped to identify freight related issues and needs for this plan.

The Genesee County highway system is performing well in regards to truck freight movement, however, there are improvements that can be made. The Congestion Management Process (CMP) uses the Genesee County Travel Demand Model to identify current and future (2045) projected capacity deficiencies. The CMP also uses vehicle crash and incident data from state and national datasets to identify system deficiencies. Please refer to the Genesee County Congestion Management Process Report for more information on the CMP.

Maps showing 2014 and 2045 CMP Deficiencies can be found in Appendix E. The major deficiencies identified by the CMP related to truck freight movement through and within the county are at the I‐ 69/I‐75 interchange, the I‐69/I‐475 interchange, and the I‐75/US‐23 merge point (also identified as the I‐75/US‐23 Choke Point). These interchanges are critical to east/west and north/south movement of truck freight in the State of Michigan and are in need of replacement.

Beyond the condition of the infrastructure, a good portion of the associate bridges and ramps of these interchanges no longer meet the standards of a modern road and freight network creating maintenance and safety challenges and concerns.

Examples of recent projects to help improve the flow of traffic include Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and infrastructure upgrades.

ITS upgrades through the installation of dynamic messaging signs on I‐ 69, I‐75, and I‐475 near the respective interchanges provide timely information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, hazards, and potential detours. A truck heading north on I‐75 can be easily notified of a traffic incident ahead and utilize I‐475 as a detour. Another significant project was a roundabout installed at the I‐75/Bristol Road interchange. This project helped improve commercial traffic flow at the interchange, which is situated between Bishop International Airport and the GM Flint Assembly facilities. Stakeholders such as United Auto Workers (UAW) and General Motors (GM) were heavily involved in the planning of this project. In 2020, the Dort Highway Extension project will extend Dort Highway from I‐75 south to Baldwin Road. This project is a recommendation from the Freight and Connectivity Study to begin to improve connectivity in the area of the project.

In the near future MDOT will have to make substantial investments to the I‐69/I‐75 interchange, the I‐69/I‐475 interchange, and the I‐75/US‐ 23 merge in Genesee County to address condition and safety related deficiencies. These are the most critical truck freight related infrastructure in Genesee County. The current design of these interchanges may no longer address the transportation needs. These are major projects that will require detailed analysis of several replacement options to order to select the best fix for each interchange. MDOT has done some preliminary analysis on these interchanges, however, has not formally started the scoping and design process, and has not identified potential revenue sources for the projects.

Outside of Genesee County the continuing improvements to I‐75 in Metro Detroit will eventually help truck freight connectivity to and from Genesee County and Metro Detroit. A major freight movement bottleneck is the international border crossing to Canada in Port Huron. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics has ranked Port Huron number 12 in the Top 25 Congested Freight‐Significant Locations in the U.S. With a large amount of freight moving across the Canadian border, improvements to this border crossing will improve the I‐69 corridor as a viable truck freight option.

Bishop International Airport continues to make improvements to its facilities. Freight volumes have fluctuated in the past decade due to changes in the marketplace such as how goods are shipped by large companies such as Amazon. The airport has capacity to handle reasonable increases in freight shipments.

Most rail fright flows through Genesee County. Improvements to the international border crossing in Port Huron will improve the overall movement of rail freight throughout the region. Improvements to infrastructure in major connecting locations like Chicago (25% of all U.S. freight trains pass through Chicago) will also improve the overall movement of freight throughout the region. Safety at highway and train crossings is a major concern that is regularly monitored by both railroad companies and road agencies.

Implementation and Funding Some congestion issues may not have such a simple solution and require more in‐depth study to help better distribute funding across the county. For example, GCMPC completed the Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study to look at issues with connectivity and traffic flow between I‐475 and US‐23. The end result of this study was a recommendation for several interchange improvements and

Intermodal Freight Page 6

extensions to Dort Highway and I‐475. As a result, improvements to the I‐75/Holly Road interchange were completed in 2017, and the Dort Highway Extension has been programmed 2020 construction. This project proposes to extend Dort Highway from the current end point at I‐75, south to Baldwin Road. Full implementation of these improvements would reduce travel times for trucking, and the potential to attract new businesses that require a reliable transportation system.

Funding is available for projects that can improve freight movement, such as Michigan’s Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) program. The goal of the CMAQ program is to improve air quality through reduced congestion and vehicle emissions. Projects that reduce particulate matter (PM 2.5) receive priority funding. Some examples of eligible CMAQ projects include transit improvements, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Congestion Relief improvements such as signal optimization and intersection reconfiguration, Carpooling/Vanpooling programs, and alternative fueling projects. More information on the Michigan CMAQ program can be found here: https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7‐151‐ 9621_11041_60661‐‐‐,00.html

BUILD (Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development) Transportation Grant transportation grants are major investments in road, rail, transit, and port projects that are regionally significant. $1.5 Billion was appropriated by the USDOT for the 2018 BUILD grant. This is a highly competitive grant but is intended to fund larger projects such as an intermodal freight facility or major highway improvement.

Recommendations ‐ Continue to monitor freight movement to, from and through Genesee County, along with the capacity of our road network using the Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS).

‐ Monitor national trends such as economic conditions, gas prices, shifts between transportation modes and other potential impacts on freight traffic.

‐ Program projects that increase connectivity to freight networks, such as the Dort Highway Extension and other

projects identified in the Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study. Work with MDOT staff on high‐impact projects such as the I‐69/I‐75 interchange to ensure extensive public outreach is completed.

‐ Future investments into intermodal facilities, such as at Bishop

‐

International Airport, will help distribute freight traffic across all modes and will help attract future economic development.

Expand our list of freight stakeholders by reaching out to large manufacturing or transportation companies that do business in Genesee County. This may include specific freight related surveys or focus groups at key points in the development of the plan.

List of Appendices:

A. Travel Time Reliability Performance Management

B. Genesee County Freight Flow Report

C. Freight Forecast Report for the I‐69 Thumb Region

D. Michigan Freight Rail Movement

E. Capacity Deficiency Maps

F. Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study

G. 2017 Freeway Congestion & Reliability Report: Bay Region

H. Average Daily Long‐Haul Truck Traffic on the National Highway System: 2015

Intermodal Freight Page 7

APPENDIX A Travel Time Reliability Performance Management

JUNE 2018

TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

WHAT IS TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY? New federal rules require states to measure, monitor, and set goals based upon a composite index of travel time reliability metrics. Travel time reliability measures how consistent the travel time is from one point to another, from one day to the next. To determine reliability, data on travel time is examined to see how it varies over time. Travel time for each discrete segment of the National Highway System (NHS) is placed in order from the shortest time (fastest speed), which is the 1 st percentile speed, to the longest time (slowest speed), which is the 100th percentile speed. Three performance measures are examined to compare the ”normal” travel time, (which is defined as the 50th percentile travel time) on a segment, with either the 80th percentile or the 95th percentile travel time to determine the overall reliability. If the difference between the normal travel time and the longer travel time (80th or 95th percentile time) is greater than 50%, then the segment is unreliable.

To help understand this concept and how travel time reliability is applied, consider the following highly simplified hypothetical example. Suppose an individual person’s normal travel time from home to work is 20 minutes. The 80th percentile is defined as one out of every five days, or approximately once a work week. If in a typical week, it takes this individual 30 minutes or longer to travel to work (one or more times), then his/her route would be designated as unreliable.

Comparatively, the truck travel time measure uses the 95th percentile which is one out of every twenty days.

Travel Time Reliability is not the same as Congestion. Reliability is important, because travelers prefer a consistent travel time to their destination over whether or not the route is congested. If people understand that a route is congested, they can plan accordingly, but if a route is unreliable, they really have no understanding of how long it will take to get to their destination, which creates greater frustration. In addition, segments of roads can be both congested, and reliable (e.g., reliably congested), whereas others can be congested, but unreliable.

Example of Unreliable Corridor Day 1 – 50th Percentile (Average or Normal Travel Time)

Day 2 – 80th Percentile Longer Travel Time)

1

JUNE 2018

TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY MEASURES Federal regulations require states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to use three performance measures for assessing travel time reliability. Travel time data used to calculate each measure is purchased by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and made available for use by states and MPOs. The vehicle probe data set used for the federally required measures is called the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS). The data is processed through an analytical software tool known as Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS). The travel time reliability measures, as defined in the PM3 federal rule are: + + +

Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) on the Interstate: % of person-miles traveled on Interstate that are reliable LOTTR on the Non-Interstate NHS: % of person-miles traveled on the Non-Interstate NHS that are reliable Freight Reliability Measure on the Interstate: Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index

Performance Measure Description Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR)

Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR

• • • • • • •

2- and 4-Year Targets** Interstate and Non-Interstate NHS Four (4) Time Periods Fifteen (15) Minute Travel Intervals Longer Travel Time: 80th Percentile Normal Travel Time: 50th Percentile Threshold: Reliability is <1.50 • Factors Applied: Vehicle volumes (HPMS) and Vehicle Occupancy Factor (provided by FHWA)

• • • • • • •

2- and 4-Year Targets Interstate Five (5) Time Periods Fifteen (15) Minute Travel Intervals Longer Travel Time: 95th Percentile Normal Travel Time: 50th Percentile Threshold: None • Factors Applied: No additional factors are applied

** The Non-Interstate NHS Travel Time Reliability measure is being phased-in and does not require a 2-year target for the first performance period only.

Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) Example Segment: Longer Travel Time (80th) ÷ Normal Travel Time (50th) = # seconds ÷ # seconds = LOTTR Monday – Friday

6am - 10am

LOTTR = 44 sec ÷ 35 sec = 1.26

10am - 4pm LOTTR = 1.39 4pm – 8pm LOTTR = 1.54 Weekends 6am – 8pm LOTTR = 1.31 Reliability: LOTTR below 1.50 during ALL of the time periods Segment is NOT reliable Measure: Percent of person-miles traveled on the [Interstate/Non-Interstate NHS] that are reliable 1. Length x Volume (AADTx365) x Occupancy = person miles 2.  (Reliable Person-Miles)   (Total Person-Miles) = Reliability

Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR (This is an index, not a reliability threshold) Example Segment: Longer Travel Time (95th) ÷ Normal Travel Time (50th) = # seconds ÷ # seconds = TTTR Monday – Friday

6am - 10am

TTTR = 72 sec ÷ 50 sec = 1.44

Weekends Overnight

10am - 4pm 4pm – 8pm 6am – 8pm 8pm – 6am

TTTR = 1.39 TTTR = 1.49 TTTR = 1.31 TTTR = 1.20 1.49

Maximum TTTR Measure: Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index 1. Length x MaxTTTR = Length-weighted TTTR 2.  (All segment length weighted TTTR)   (All segment lengths)

2

JUNE 2018

TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY TARGETS AND METHODOLOGY PM3 Reliability Measures – Final State of Michigan Targets

Measure Interstate Travel Time Reliability Non-Interstate NHS Travel Time Reliability Freight Reliability

Baseline from Jan 2017 to May 2018 (Source: NPMRDS – RITIS) 2017 - 85.2% 2018 – 85.8% 2017 - 86.1% 2018 – 85.8% 2017 - 1.38 2018 – 1.49

Recommended 2-Year Target(s) CYE 12/31/2019 75%

Recommended 4-Year Target(s) CYE 12/31/2021 75%

--

70%

1.75

1.75

Baseline Data: 2017 and 2018 data shows that the Michigan’s interstate highways and non-interstate NHS highways have been between 85 and 86 percent reliable, meaning that greater than 85% of the person miles traveled on the NHS system are meeting the threshold, as defined in the federal rules (the ratio between the 50th percentile and the 80th percentile is below 1.5). For trucks, due to the higher threshold of comparing the 95th percentile to the 50th percentile, the overall truck travel time index on the interstates has remained near 1.5.

Target Methodology - Targets have been set conservatively for this first reporting cycle. There is only 17 months of data to establish a baseline, and month-to-month comparisons vary due to weather, construction, data coverage gaps and other factors. As more data is collected over the next 2 years, the detection of trends should become more observable and distinctive and MDOT will re-evaluate the targets for possible adjustments. In the interim, the trends and influencing factors reflect the best information available.

Application of these measures in MDOT’s prioritization process: These three measures are monitored and considered as factors in the overall decision making process for transportation investments in Michigan. MDOT is currently evaluating the types of projects and funding templates that will have an impact on travel time reliability, and have developed an initial list of project types to be considered; however, due to the lack of historical data, it is not possible to truly quantify the level of impacts for each of these project types at this time. The initial list of project types includes: capacity improvements or widenings, ITS and operational improvements, safety projects that improve operational flow, and road and bridge reconstruction and rehabilitation projects that improve segments from poor condition to good/fair condition.

3

JUNE 2018

REPORTING ON TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY The Transportation Performance Management (TPM) System Performance Rule designates recurring four-year performance periods for which two and four-year targets are required to be established for travel time reliability on the NHS for person miles and freight. There are three sets of targets: 1) percent of person miles traveled on the Interstate System that are reliable, 2) percent of person miles traveled on the Non-Interstate NHS that are reliable, and 3) truck travel time reliability index on the Interstate. The first performance period takes place from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2022, with state targets due on May 20, 2018. MDOT is required to submit biennial progress reports to FHWA. There are a total of three progress reports due for each performance period: +

Baseline Performance Report (due October 1, 2018)

+

Mid-Performance Period Progress Report (Oct. 1, 2020)

+

Full Performance Period Progress Report (Oct. 1, 2022)

FHWA will determine significant progress using the Mid and Full Performance Period Progress Reports. Significant progress is defined as achieving a condition that is equal to or better than the target, or better than the baseline condition. If significant progress is not achieved, MDOT must document how it plans to achieve it by the next reporting cycle.

MPO Coordination MPOs are required to establish four-year targets for these measures, and have two options for target selection: agree to plan and program projects that support state targets, or commit to their own targets for their Metropolitan Planning Area.

MPO targets are due on November 16, 2018, 180 days after state targets are established. MPO targets are not reported to FHWA, but must be reported to MDOT using mutually agreed upon method. MPOs will include targets in their Transportation Improvement Programs and Long-Range Transportation Plans, and explain how their projects and programs support either MDOTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s or the MPOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s targets.

4

APPENDIX B Genesee County Freight Flow Report

Genesee County Freight Flow Report, 2012 Prepared by

For

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

0

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce – Freight Flow Report 1. Introduction In Michigan, freight movement/logistics represents a multi-billion-dollar industry supporting in excess of 100,000 jobs. Freight movement/logistics is part of the existing and planned economies of all regions in the state. The Genesee County-centered region, including Shiawassee, Lapeer, and St. Clair counties, has adopted a logistics strategy with a new intermodal center at Bishop International Airport. Additional improvements are nearing completion on both sides of the border, in St. Clair County and in Sarnia, Ontario at the Blue Water Bridge. The region expects thousands of jobs to be retained or created by this strategy.

Figure 1.1: SE Michigan Extended Economic Region (EER)

Source: Southeast Michigan Council of Government (SEMCOG)

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

A number of other initiatives are underway or planned in the “Southeast Michigan Extended Economic Region” (EER) (Figure 1.1).

For example, the plan prepared by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments and the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, focuses on: 1) improving access to regional/mega-region distribution centers and intermodal rail, waterborne and air terminals; 2) improving U.S.Canada connectivity; and, 3) improving urban freight flows. The vision is to create, in the Southeast Michigan EER, North America’s most efficient and cost-effective first-tier multimodal transportation and logistics hub. To do so, according to the Detroit Regional Chamber “…The region must use future transportation investments to link massive but pragmatic and underutilized transportation and logistics resources into an integrated hub…to strengthen existing businesses and attract new ones.” These assets and initiatives will affect the success of freight and logistics in Genesee County.

This study is focused on Flint and Genesee County, which has the transportation infrastructure assets to potentially attract major truck-rail intermodal and distribution/logistics facilities. It is comprised of three elements. First, an evaluation of the Genesee County freight market – existing and forecasts; local economic trends and targeted growth opportunities; and, measures of competitiveness; second, an evaluation of infrastructure needs that affect the region’s ability to attract private-sector freight and logistics operations; and, third, findings and recommendations focused to assist the Flint and Genesee Chamber of Commerce to promote potential redevelopment sites.

1

2. Evaluation of the Genesee County Freight Flows 2.1 Introduction To understand the freight/logistics market in Genesee County, it is necessary to evaluate the countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s geographic context. Genesee County is about 55 miles northwest of Detroit and the U.S. border at Windsor, Ontario, Canada (Figure 2.1). The County has 425,790 people in 637 square miles of land area. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Detroit is the 10th largest by population among the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 179 regions. Genesee County is in the Detroit BEA. Figure 2.1: Genesee County Location and Geographic Context

Source: The Corradino Group

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Datasets The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has provided the Michigan-specific version of the Transearch Database from IHS Global Insight as the primary information source used to analyze current (2009) and future (2030) freight flows in Genesee County.

Freight Analysis Framework/Version 3 (FAF3) data were also used to create a comprehensive picture of freight movement among states and major metropolitan areas by all modes of transportation.

FAF3 provides estimates of tonnage and value, by commodity type, mode, origin, and destination for 2007, the most recent year, and forecasts through 2040. Also included are truck flows assigned to the highway network for 2007 and 2040.

2

The Genesee County Travel Demand Model (GCTDM) was also used in this project because it provides truck forecasts to 2030 and the most-detailed picture of freight movement in Genesee County.

2.2 Existing Freight Flow In 2009, Genesee County had a total of 7.4 million tons of inbound, outbound and internal freight flows with an estimated value of $10.1 billion (Table 2.1). The freight flows of interest in this study are inbound and outbound, which amount to 98% of total flow (7.2 million tons) with 99% of total value ($10.0 billion). The majority of Genesee Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regional flows are driven by inputs and outputs for industry and consumption, and generate demands for logistics facilities and re-delivery services. There is a small volume of internal-to-internal commodity flow within Genesee County, which comprises 2.0 percent by tonnage and 1.0 percent by value.

Table 2.1: Genesee County 2009 Total Freight Flow by Direction Freight Flow

by Direction Internal

Tonnage (thousand tons) 151

2.0%

Total Value (million $) 98

Tonnage Share

Value Share 1.0%

Inbound

4,649

62.9%

6,215

61.6%

Outbound

2,594

35.1%

3,784

37.5%

Total

7,394

100.0%

10,097

100.0%

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Genesee County freight is carried by multiple transportation modes: rail, truck, air, pipeline, and other modes (Figure 2.2). Trucks carry 97.5 percent of commodity volume (7.2 million tons) and 97.7 percent of commodity value ($9.9 billion). Pipeline and rail are the second and third largest movers of freight commodities within the Genesee County region. They handle 2.2 percent and 0.4 percent of total volume, respectively, and 0.4 percent and 1.4 percent of total value, respectively.

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Figure 2.2: Genesee County 2009 Freight Flow Share by Transportation Modes

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

3

The 2009 unit value of commodity ($/ton transported) by different modes is $7,086/ton for air, $7,569/ton for rail, $1,370/ton for truck, and about $300/ton or less for all other modes. The highvalued commodities shipped by truck are mainly comprised of transportation equipment moving from/to Mexico and Canada. Rail plays a limited role in regional logistics as it transports a very small portion of freight tonnage.

Figure 2.3 illustrates the top ten commodity groups and their market shares by tonnage and value according to 2009 Transearch data. When evaluating the Genesee County freight market by tonnage, the secondary-traffic products make up the largest commodity group (1.4 million tons and 18.8 percent share). These products are primarily comprised of deliveries of consumer goods from warehouses/distribution centers to stores, and commodities related to rail intermodal drayage and air. Nonmetallic ores and food products are the second (1.4 million tons and 18.2% share) and third largest (0.9 million tons and 11.7% share) commodity groups, representing primary inputs to industry and consumption, respectively. The rest of the top commodities include a wide variety of inputs to and outputs of industry (petroleum, farm products, clay, chemicals, crude petroleum, waste & scrap) and transportation equipment/parts. These top ten groups dominate the commodity volume (84.7% share of total) in Genesee County.

Figure 2.3: 2009 Top 10 Commodity Groups

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

From a monetary point of view, the largest commodity group is transportation equipment and parts ($2.1 billion and 20.3% share of total). Secondary-traffic products rank second in value ($1.8 billion and 17.4% share). The food products commodity group ($0.9 billion and 9.3% share) ranks third.

These three groups comprise almost half of the total value of the top ten commodity groups (Figure 2.3). The top ten make up about 81 percent of total commodity value in Genesee County.

Table 2.3 lists the 14 geographic areas which were determined by the Regional Chamber of Commerce to be important trade centers with Genesee County. Figures 2.4 and 2.5 and Table 2.4 also illustrate 2009 total freight flow distribution by tonnage and value, respectively.

4

Table 2.3: Geographic Areas for Genesee County Flow Distribution Geographic Area I-69 Corridor County Greater Detroit Michigan Ohio Indiana Illinois Ontario US East US Midwest US West US Gulf Canada Mexico

Description St. Clair, Lapeer & Shiawassee counties in Michigan, which are I-69 international trade corridor participating communities.

Greater Detroit region, including Detroit area in Michigan, Toledo in Ohio and Windsor in Canada Remainder of Michigan outside of the I-69 corridor and Greater Detroit Remainder of Ohio the I-69 corridor and Greater Detroit Indiana Illinois Ontario in Canada, excluding Windsor States in Eastern US States in Mid-western US States in Western US States surrounding Gulf of Mexico Remainder of Canada Mexico

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Figure 2.4: Genesee County 2009 Total Flow Distribution (by Tonnage)

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

5

Figure 2.5: Genesee County 2009 Total Flow Distribution (by Value)

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Domestic inbound and outbound freight flows within Michigan account for 56.5 percent of total flow measured by tons (specifically, 4.7% to I-69 corridor counties, 28.5% to Greater Detroit and 23.3% with other Michigan places). The next major volume lanes are Ohio (9.5%), U.S. Eastern states (6.5%), Indiana (5.8%) and Illinois (5.3%). The spatial distribution by commodity value is somewhat different. U.S. Eastern states become the most important partner exchanging with Genesee County in 2009 $2.3 billion in commodities (23% of total commodity value). Regions neighboring Genesee County also play important roles: Almost one quarter (24.2 percent) of total commodity value was exchanged within Michigan (specifically, 1.3% to I-69 corridor counties, 10.2% to Greater Detroit, and 12.7% to other Michigan places), although a significant drop is observed compared to the tonnage share. Ohio, Indiana and Illinois are still considerably large partners from a viewpoint of goods value. Genesee County internal flow, and international trade associated with Canada and Mexico make up a very small portion (less than 4%) of total flow.

6

Flow by Modes (1,000 tons) Geographic Area

Air

Pipeline

Rail

I-69 Corridor County 0.00 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.00 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 0.00 Greater Detroit 0.00 0.00 0.01 Inbound 0.00 0.00 0.01 Outbound 0.00 0.00 0.00 Michigan 0.14 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.11 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.03 0.00 0.00 Ohio 0.08 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.08 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 0.00 Indiana 1.39 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.63 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.76 0.00 0.00 Illinois 0.00 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.00 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ontario, Canada 0.00 0.00 0.84 Inbound 0.00 0.00 0.58 Outbound 0.00 0.00 0.26 US East 3.97 0.00 0.00 Inbound 3.24 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.73 0.00 0.00 US Midwest 0.06 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.06 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 0.00 US West 0.00 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.00 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 0.00 US Gulf 0.25 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.25 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 0.00 Canada 0.00 161.03 3.82 Inbound 0.00 161.03 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 3.82 Mexico 0.00 0.00 14.41 Inbound 0.00 0.00 11.87 Outbound 0.00 0.00 2.54 Total 5.89 161.03 19.08 Internal 0.00 0.00 0.00 Inbound 4.38 161.03 12.46 Outbound 1.52 0.00 6.62 Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Truck 350.93 210.68 140.24 2,108.97 1,298.80 810.17 1,725.52 1,194.10 531.42 703.36 494.70 208.66 424.61 340.40 84.21 389.72 233.57 156.14 179.90 86.01 93.89 479.65 275.62 204.03 348.71 162.60 186.11 178.38 70.08 108.29 135.09 78.61 56.49 18.02 17.35 0.66 11.77 5.81 5.96 7,205.67 151.04 4,468.33 2,586.29

Other Modes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.35 2.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.35 0.00 2.35 0.00

Total (1,000 tons) 350.93 210.68 140.24 2,108.98 1,298.81 810.17 1,725.65 1,194.21 531.45 703.44 494.78 208.66 426.00 341.03 84.97 389.72 233.57 156.15 183.09 88.94 94.15 483.62 278.86 204.76 348.76 162.66 186.11 178.38 70.08 108.29 135.35 78.86 56.49 182.87 178.38 4.48 26.19 17.68 8.51 7,394.02 151.04 4,648.55 2,594.43

Total (million $) 128.01 62.81 65.20 1,030.95 676.66 354.30 1,283.74 861.08 422.67 1,285.33 915.33 370.00 1,059.44 789.10 270.34 751.31 470.76 280.55 520.59 240.27 280.32 2,317.92 1,205.04 1,112.88 693.87 403.60 290.26 450.03 222.75 227.28 192.69 119.55 73.15 69.92 65.82 4.10 215.70 182.45 33.25 10,097.14 97.64 6,215.21 3,784.30

Share by Tonnage

Share by Value

4.7%

1.3%

28.5%

10.2%

23.3%

12.7%

9.5%

12.7%

5.8%

10.5%

5.3%

7.4%

2.5%

5.2%

6.5%

23.0%

4.7%

6.9%

2.4%

4.5%

1.8%

1.9%

2.5%

0.7%

0.4%

2.1%

100.0% 2.0% 62.9% 35.1%

100.0% 1.0% 61.6% 37.5%

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Table 2.4: Genesee County 2009 Freight Flow Distribution

7

For most geographic partners, Genesee County has a much higher inbound tonnage flow than outbound, except with Ontario, the U.S. Mid-western and Western states, which have slightly higher outbound flows. The dollar value of freight flows has a similar pattern: the inbound direction is dominant except for I-69 corridor counties, Ontario, and U.S. Western states.

Appendix A includes information illustrating detailed 2009 and 2030 commodity tonnage distribution between geographic areas by modes. Appendix B includes data illustrating 2009 and 2030 commodity value distribution among geographic areas by modes. Appendix C displays information showing 2009 and 2030 tonnage distribution by geographic area of the top five commodity groups (farm, nonmetallic ores, food, petroleum and secondary traffic). Appendix D includes tables and figures showing 2009 and 2030 value distribution of the top five commodity groups (food, machinery product, electrical products, transportation equipment and secondary traffic) by geographic area.

Among all commodities transported in, out and within Genesee County, a certain group of commodity products heavily rely on value-added services facilitated by supply chain and logistics organizations. These are classified as warehouse able goods requiring storage, process and/or redistribution; they typically have a relatively high unit value compared to raw materials. Table 2.5 defines warehouse-able commodity groups and lists the corresponding Standard Transportation Commodity Classification (STCC) codes:

STCC Code 35 36 37 38 39 41 43 44 45 46 47 49 50 28 29 32 40 42 48

Description Machinery Products Electrical products Transportation Equipments Instruments Misc. Manufacturing Products Misc. Freight Shipments Mail Freight Forwarder Traffic Shipper Associated Traffic Misc. Mixed Shipments Small Packed Freight Shipments Flammable Materials Secondary Traffic Products Chemical Products Petroleum Clay Waste and Scrap Materials Empty Equipments Waste Hazardous Materials

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Table 2.5: Warehouse able Commodities STCC Description Code 9 Fresh Fish 19 Ordnance 20 Food 21 Tobacco 22 Textile 23 Apparel Warehouse-able 25 Furniture Commodities 26 Pulp, Paper or Allied Products 27 Printed Products 30 Rubber or Plastic Products 31 Leather Products 33 Primary Metal Products 34 Fabricated Metal Products 1 Farm Products 8 Forest Products 10 Metallic Ores Other 11 Coal Commodities 13 Crude Petroleum 14 Nonmetallic Ores 24 Lumber Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

In 2009, Genesee Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s warehouse-able commodities accounted for 47.2 percent of total commodity tonnage and 85.1 percent of total commodity value.

8

2.3 Genesee County Future Freight Flow The 2030 freight data from Transearch estimates total freight volume at 10.5 million tons, with an estimated value of $17.0 billion. Compared to 2009, commodity flow will experience a 42 percent increase in tonnage and a 69 percent increase in value. The largest directional flow in 2030 is still inbound with estimated 6.0 million tons (57.6 % of total) and $10.3 billion in value (60.8% of total), although its share drops from 2009. The outgoing commodity flow is close to 4.3 million tons with a value of $6.6 billion. This represents an increasing share of volume (41% of total) and value (38.7% of total), compared to 2009. The internal-to-the-region freight flow in 2030 will still be a very small portion by both tonnage (0.16 million) and value ($0.09 billion) through 2030.

Figure 2.6 illustrates how mode shares will shift through 2030. Trucks continue to dominate the shipping modes in the Genesee County region, accounting for about 10.2 million tons and a value of $16.7 billion, increasing 41 percent and 69 percent, respectively, compared to 2009. Furthermore, trucking commodities expect to experience the fastest growth in value, indicating more high-value goods will be delivered on roads in the future. Pipeline and rail still rank second and third in handling future freight flow, but pale in comparison to the truck mode. Pipeline is forecast to move 0.28 million tons with a value of $0.06 billion; rail is projected to carry 0.03 million tons with value of $0.23 billion. Air freight is forecasted to drop on commodity tonnages by 2030 (from 5,900 thousand tons in 2009 to 5,000 thousand tons in 2030) but with a slight increase in value ($41.8 million in 2009 to $45.2 million in 2030).

Figures 2.7 and 2.8 also illustrate inbound and outbound freight flow demands at Genesee County in 2030 by tonnage and value, respectively. Table 2.6 summarizes 2030 freight flow distribution between Genesee County and other geographic areas.

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Commodity flows between Genesee County and other Michigan places (including I-69 corridor counties, Greater Detroit, and the remainder of Michigan) account for 51.8 percent of total tonnage.

The neighboring states, including Ohio, Indiana and Illinois share in 22.1 percent of the total tonnage, followed by relatively far-off geographies. When examining value, states in the Eastern U.S. continue to be the largest trade partners with Genesee County ($4.4 billion or 26% of the total value). The next largest single trade area is the remainder of Michigan (total $3.3 billion or 20% share). Trade in 2030 with Ohio ($2.0 billion or 12%), Indiana ($1.5 billion or 9%), Illinois ($1.3 billion or 7%), Midwestern states ($1.1 billion or 6%) and Western states ($1.5 billion or 9%) are forecast to total 43 percent of the value of trade with Genesee County. Trade value associated with Western states will experience growth in the next 20 years.

Figure 2.9 illustrates growth for the top 10 commodity clusters measured by tons. All ten groups show increasing trends, which result in a total 8.9 million tons in 2030 with an increasingly dominant market share of 85.1 percent, compared to 6.3 million tons or 84.7 percent in 2009. It also noted that the top three commodity groups (secondary-traffic related products, nonmetallic ores, and food products) are all expected to substantially increase. Forecasts show the currently leading commodities in Genesee County will continue over the long-term.

Among the highest value commodity groups, all but two (petroleum and printed products) will increase between 2009 and 2030 (Figure 2.10). This will lead to a higher market share of 84 percent ($14.3 billion) in 2030, compared to 80 percent ($8.2 billion) in 2009 in products shipped to/from Genesee County.

9

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Figure 2.6: 2009-2030 Freight Flow Change

10

Figure 2.7: Genesee County 2030 Freight Flow Distribution (by Tonnage)

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Figure 2.8: Genesee County 2030 Freight Flow Distribution (by Value)

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

11

Flow by Modes (1,000 tons) Geographic Area

Air

Pipeline

I-69 Corridor County 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 Greater Detroit 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 Michigan 0.17 0.00 Inbound 0.10 0.00 Outbound 0.06 0.00 Ohio 0.15 0.00 Inbound 0.15 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 Indiana 2.17 0.00 Inbound 0.94 0.00 Outbound 1.23 0.00 Illinois 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 Ontario, Canada 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 US East 2.05 0.00 Inbound 1.46 0.00 Outbound 0.59 0.00 US Midwest 0.10 0.00 Inbound 0.10 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 US West 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 US Gulf 0.37 0.00 Inbound 0.37 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 Canada 0.00 277.38 Inbound 0.00 277.38 Outbound 0.00 0.00 Mexico 0.00 0.00 Inbound 0.00 0.00 Outbound 0.00 0.00 Total 5.01 277.38 Internal 0.00 0.00 Inbound 3.13 277.38 Outbound 1.88 0.00 Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Rail

Truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.21 0.89 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.72 0.00 4.72 25.49 19.48 6.01 31.43 0.00 20.38 11.05

431.84 235.15 196.69 2,731.09 1,582.29 1,148.79 2,259.42 1,548.74 710.69 994.84 632.80 362.03 550.66 397.85 152.82 765.30 298.38 466.92 337.14 167.82 169.31 730.06 377.28 352.78 494.66 205.86 288.80 429.89 140.88 289.02 214.88 90.05 124.83 36.66 35.39 1.27 27.54 13.07 14.47 10,159.29 155.32 5,725.56 4,278.42

Other Modes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.24 3.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.24 0.00 3.24 0.00

Total (1,000 tons)

Total (million $)

Share by Tonnage

Share by Value

431.84 235.15 196.69 2,731.10 1,582.31 1,148.79 2,259.59 1,548.84 710.75 994.98 632.95 362.03 552.83 398.79 154.04 765.30 298.38 466.92 341.59 171.96 169.63 732.11 378.74 353.37 494.76 205.96 288.80 429.89 140.88 289.02 215.25 90.42 124.83 318.76 312.77 6.00 53.03 32.55 20.49 10,476.36 155.32 6,029.70 4,291.35

147.87 67.06 80.81 1,441.32 947.26 494.06 1,758.88 1,162.86 596.03 2,047.16 1,413.42 633.74 1,509.92 867.19 642.73 1,291.97 575.69 716.28 919.66 487.87 431.80 4,400.75 2,633.63 1,767.12 1,055.78 594.39 461.40 1,477.79 957.32 520.48 343.99 188.15 155.83 124.00 117.94 6.07 411.92 331.08 80.84 17,023.46 92.43 10,343.85 6,587.19

4.1%

0.9%

26.1%

8.5%

21.6%

10.3%

9.5%

12.0%

5.3%

8.9%

7.3%

7.6%

3.3%

5.4%

7.0%

25.9%

4.7%

6.2%

4.1%

8.7%

2.1%

2.0%

3.0%

0.7%

0.5%

2.4%

100.0% 1.5% 57.6% 41.0%

100.0% 0.5% 60.8% 38.7%

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Table 2.6: Genesee County 2030 Freight Flow Distribution

12

Figure 2.9: 2009-2030 Change of Top 10 Commodity Groups (by Tonnage)

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Figure 2.10: 2009-2030 Change of Top 10 Commodity Groups (by Value)

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

13

The study also examined the fastest-growing commodities by tonnage and value (Figures 2.11 and 2.12, respectively). The commodities with the fastest tonnage growth will grow from 73 percent to 155 percent through 2030, which are significantly faster rates than the average growth of total tonnage flow (42%) into and out of Genesee County. While most of these groups have small market shares, secondary traffic products and Waste & Scrap commodities represent about 1.8 million tons with 24 percent of total Genesee County trade in 2009 and will increase to 3.3 million tons or 32 percent of share in 2030. Among the ten commodity groups with the fastest growth in value, the top three are electrical products, miscellaneous freight and furniture, which dramatically increase by 248 percent, 170 percent, and 141 percent, respectively over the next 20 years (Figure 2.12). The other seven groups show a slower rate of increase, but all exceed 80 percent. These ten commodity groups represent about $3.5 billion with 35 percent of share in 2009 but $8.0 billion with 47 percent of share of Genesee County trade in 2030.

Figure: 2.11 Fastest Growing Commodity Group (By Tonnage) All Other Metallic Ores

Fish Leather Products

Machinery Products 2nd Traffic Products

In 2009, 1.8 million tons, 23.8% of total flow In 2030, 3.3 million tons, 31.9% of total flow

Instruments Electrical Product

Waste & Scrap Furniture

Misc. Freight 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

2009-2030 Tonnage Change%

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Figure: 2.12 Fastest Growing Commodity Group (By Value) All Other Leather Product Fresh Fish Machinery Product

Waste & Scrap

In 2009, $3,5 billion, 34.8% of total flow In 2030, $8,0 billion, 47.2% of total flow

Metallic Ores 2nd Traffic Product Instruments

Furniture Misc. Freight Electrical Prodcut 0%

50%

100%

150%

2009-2030 Value Change%

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

200%

250%

300%

14

3. Economic Forecasts 3.1 Economic Trends Attracting investment to the Flint & Genesee depends, to a significant degree, on the overall economic trends of the region. The I-69 corridor communities have undergone major shifts over the last decade, first with the decline of the auto industry and now its resurgence. Economic forecasts for Genesee County were obtained from the Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission’s (GCMPC) 2006 “Land Use & Scenario Planning Report”. GCMPC develops population and employment forecasts periodically and in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Transportation for the purpose of modeling and forecasting travel demand. GCMPC uses these forecasts to plan transportation infrastructure. The basis for the economic forecasts comes from three main sources; REMI, Woods and Poole, and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.   

REMI 2005 – Regional Economic Models, Incorporated (REMI®), is a private company that provides economic projections, models, and employment data forecasting to the State of Michigan.

Woods & Poole 2005 - Woods & Poole Economics, Incorporated, is an independent firm that specializes in long-term county-by-county economic and demographic projections.

BEA 2004 – Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce and provides regional economic information by industry.

The officially adopted forecast for the Genesee Region reflects an extension of trends which show a major shift from Manufacturing to Services.

3.2 Key Industries

     

Healthcare and Social Assistance; Transportation and Warehousing; Professional and Technical Services; Management of Companies; Manufacturing; and, Information.

As noted earlier, manufacturing is rebounding. A nearly equally-large and concentrated industry, health care, has been growing. Both have freight/logistics needs dependent on road, rail and air assets, which Genesee County has a leading edge.

3.3 Supply Chain Opportunities Michigan State University’s Broad College of Business recently completed an analysis of supply chain opportunities focused on Southeast Michigan. The study’s final report, (“Supply Chain Opportunity

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Supply chain and location characteristics of the economy in the broad Extended Economic Region of which Genesee County is a part, economic conditions and trends in Genesee County are all important considerations to be considered when developing a marketing strategy for Flint and Genesee sites. For example, in the recently-released report “Increasing Jobs and Prosperity in Southeast Michigan” (August 2010), six regional clusters are viewed as opportunities for growth:

15

Assessment: Economic Development for SE Michigan, Final Report,” May 31, 2010) emphasizes the region’s supply chain management capabilities and describes a potential Supply Chain Management (SCM) Strategy focused on attracting industries to a hub. The hub would be developed through a public-private partnership and facilitate rail-to-motor freight transport, air-to-motor freight and rail transport, and value-added services. According to the MSU analysis, the strategy should target industries that focus on:   

Heavy manufacturing attracted to the hub for resource efficiency and differentiation; Light manufacturing attracted to the hub for resource efficiency and differentiation; and, Warehouse and consumer-based industry attracted to hub market location for distribution and value-added services.

MSU also developed a list of target industries:



SE Michigan Target industries: transportation & logistics, alternative energy, aerospace, medical devices, homeland security and defense, advanced manufacturing.

Statewide target industries: alternative energy, automotive engineering, life sciences, homeland security and defense, advanced manufacturing, film industry.

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce



16

3.4 Economic Characteristics and Impacts Offering incentives and other promotions to attract key industries should depend on the ability of a target industry to impact the regional economy. Figure 3.4 illustrates the multiplier for each of seven target industries. The multiplier indicates how much economic activity is generated by output in a particular industry. For example, Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336) has a fairly high economic multiplier of 2.9. This means that producing $1.00 of output in the sector will generate $2.90 of activity throughout the economy. By comparison, an average, or typical, industry has a multiplier of only about 2.0.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Outlook for Key Industries Table 3.4 illustrates characteristics of the seven key industries. Employment in the four manufacturing industries and Wholesale Trade (NAICS 42) declined over the last decade nationally; the decline in the local region was greater than the U.S. average. Employment in Health Care (NAICS 62) and Accommodation and Food Service (NAICS 72) grew, but somewhat slower than the national average.

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Figure 3.4: Economic Multiplier

17

Table 3.4: Regional Economic Trends for Key Industries Selected Industry Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336) Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333) Plastics and Rubber Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 326) Fabricated Metal Products Manufacturing (NAICS 332) Wholesale Trade (NAICS 42) Health Care (NAICS 62) Accommodation and Food Services (NAICS 72) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns

Employment Regional Trend vs. US Trend Declining Worse Declining Worse Declining Worse Declining Worse Declining Worse Increasing Worse Increasing Worse

Wages Regional Trend vs. US Trend Stable Worse Increasing Worse Increasing Same Increasing Worse Increasing Worse Increasing Same Increasing Same

Workers per Establishment Declining Declining Declining Declining Stable Stable Stable

120 28 51 19 14 21 18

Wages grew in nearly every industry in the Southeast Michigan EER, although somewhat less than the U.S. average. Wages remained steady in the Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336) sector in the EER, while they grew nationally. Although wage trends in Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336) and Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333) were slower than the U.S. average, wages remained higher than the U.S. national average.

The region must focus on the transportation needs of industries that are the most likely to retain jobs and attract new employment. The seven target industries included in the SEMCOG study are highly concentrated, have a large employment base, and/or are expected to grow within the region over the next 20 to 30 years (Table 3.5). The industry profiles indicate that transportation plays a universal, albeit small, role in the overall cost in these industries – a theme echoed in the 2011 SEMCOG survey of businesses (Table 3.6). To attract and retain these businesses, transportation policy should focus on maintaining and operating current facilities efficiently as an expected condition of the regional business environment.

Table 3.5: Characteristics of Selected Industries

Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336) Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333) Plastics and Rubber Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 326) Fabricated Metal Products Manufacturing (NAICS 332) Wholesale Trade (NAICS 42) Health Care (NAICS 62) Accommodation and Food Services (NAICS 72) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Occupational Employment Statistics

High Concentration

Large Employment

     

    

Growing

Shipping

      

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Selected Industry

18

Table 3.6: Regional Economic Trends for Key Industries Selected Industry Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336) Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333) Plastics and Rubber Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 326) Fabricated Metal Products Manufacturing (NAICS 332) Wholesale Trade (NAICS 42) Health Care (NAICS 62) Accommodation and Food Services (NAICS 72)

Reason for Location in Region Near customers and assembly plants, workforce availability, tax incentives, property features Major highways, airport Near clients and population centers, business opportunities Near customers and service centers Airport, US-Canada border, distribution area, water port access Not covered in survey Not covered in survey

Source: SEMCOG Freight Industry Survey (included Genesee County)

The industrial profiles indicate that one-third to one-half of all freight movement for the regional manufacturing industries occurs within 50 miles of the manufacturing site. This suggests that local road improvements addressing last-mile, local connections to freeways, may be as critical to shipments as major freeway projects. As noted earlier, survey respondents cited several, more-local problems, which impinge on freight movement for that particular business. Addressing these, by completing smaller projects, can have significant positive effects over time. Genesee Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s forecast suggests that employment will decline more slowly in Wholesale Trade than in Manufacturing. Wholesale Trade has a reliance on trucking similar to Manufacturing. However, wholesale firms tend to use their own trucks and require direct access to the Canadian border and regional distribution centers. To support these industries, infrastructure facilities need to address specific Wholesale Trade sites. In addition, Wholesale Trade relies on package shipment to a greater extent than other industries, so airport access is an important factor.

In general, investments in logistics facilities and other transportation infrastructure should support economic development efforts. Coordination among the Flint and Genesee Chamber of Commerce, local and statewide political leadership, local transportation planning agencies, and potential employers, must be highly focused and provide a measurable return on investment.

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Health Care plus the Accommodation and Food Services industries have their own specialized supply-chain needs and are much less reliant on transportation. As a result, the specific transportation needs of these industries should be kept in focus through regular contact.

19

4. Genesee County Market Potential for Logistics As discussed in Section 2, commodity movement via trucks accounts for the nearly all freight flow occurring in Genesee County. Therefore, an evaluation of the potential market surrounding Genesee County must focus on truck transport.

For evaluation purposes, a set of truck travel time buffers with maximum of 5-hour and one-hour increments have been established using the FAF3 network with Genesee County as the geographic center. The travel time buffers were determined based on congested truck travel speed to represent realistic traffic conditions (Figure 4.1).

The travel time buffers range from a 1-hour band, which covers Genesee’s neighbor counties and the northern portion of Greater Detroit, to a 5-hour band, which extends to northern Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, northeastern Illinois (primarily the Chicago area), western New York, and western as well as southern Ontario, Canada. When comparing surrounding logistics hubs, Detroit and Toledo are within 1-2 hour and 2-3 hour travel time buffers, respectively, of Genesee County. Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toronto require 3-4 hour truck trips to Genesee. Chicago and Columbus are located in the 4-5 hour by truck buffer area. . It takes more than five hours to truck commodities between Genesee County and other regional hubs, such as Cincinnati and Indianapolis.

Table 4.1 also lists population in the buffer areas. Genesee County is within a 5-hour truck driving time to a market with a total population of 31.9 million in 2010 and 35.1 million in 2030, about 9 percent more in 20 years. The U.S. portion of the market area makes up about 80 percent of the total.

Table 4.1: Area and Population of Genesee County Travel Time Buffers (1) 2010 Population (million) Buffer Area Time Buffer 2 (mile ) U.S. Canada Total ≤ 1 hour 5,265 2.5 0.0 2.5 ≤ 2 hours 20,874 7.2 0.3 7.5 ≤ 3 hours 45,843 10.1 0.8 10.9 ≤ 4 hours 71,471 13.8 6.2 20.0 ≤ 5 hours 108,037 25.3 6.6 31.9

(2)

2030 Population (million) U.S. Canada Total 3.0 0.0 3.0 7.8 0.4 8.2 11.2 0.9 12.1 15.0 7.6 22.6 27.0 8.0 35.1

Source: Freight Analysis Framework version 3 (FAF3) highway network; 2010 US Census; and, 2011 Canada Census

There are many logistics hubs in the U.S. Midwest. They all potentially compete with Genesee County and take a share of the freight market. The market sizes and trucking commodity activities have been evaluated for these competing locations to measure the relative competitiveness of Genesee County as a supply hub location. Figure 4.2 illustrates the 5-hour truck travel time areas covered by Genesee County and Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis and Toledo. As before, the 5-hour truck travel time areas are created based on FAF3 congested travel speed, so they represent markets that can be accessed in real-world conditions. Table 4.2 compares population market sizes and truck activities between Genesee County and these selected U.S. Midwest logistics hubs.

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

(1) Data is from 2010 US census and 2011 Canada Census. Canada portion only includes major cities.

(2) Projection is derived from US and Canada census data. Canada portion only includes major cities.

20

21

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Source: Freight Analysis Framework version 3 (FAF3) highway network. ; 2010 US Census ;and, 2011 Canada Census

Figure 4.1: Truck Travel Time Buffers of Genesee County

Figure 4.2: 5-Hour Truck Travel Time Area Comparison

Source: Freight Analysis Framework version 3 (FAF3) highway network; 2010 US Census; and, 2011 Canada Census .

Table 4.2: Population within 5-Hour Truck Travel Time of Genesee County and Competitive Cities Buffer Area (1,000 sq. miles)

(1)

(2)

2010 Population (million)

2030 Population (million)

U.S.

U.S.

Canada

Total

Canada

Total

Genesee County

108.0

25.3

6.6

31.9

27.0

8.0

35.1

Buffalo

128.2

21.8

6.9

28.7

22.3

8.4

30.7

Chicago

137.8

31.9

0.2

32.1

34.6

0.3

34.8

Cincinnati

130.7

24.2

0.0

24.2

26.0

0.0

26.0

Cleveland

125.3

28.9

5.5

34.4

30.3

6.7

37.0

Columbus

128.5

29.7

0.3

30.1

31.5

0.4

31.8

Indianapolis

161.1

35.0

0.0

35.0

38.4

0.0

38.4

Toledo

130.0

37.4

6.3

43.7

39.9

7.7

47.5

(1) Data is from 2010 US census and 2011 Canada Census. Canada portion only includes major cities.

(2) Projection is derived from US and Canada census data. Canada portion only includes major cities.

Source: Freight Analysis Framework version 3 (FAF3) highway network; 2010 US Census; and, 2011 Canada Census .

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Center Locations

22

When comparing hub areas, Toledo has the largest population coverage (43.7 million in 2010 and 47.5 million in 2030) while its land area (130.0 thousand mile2) ranks fourth among eight because surrounding Midwest and southern Ontario population centers can be reached by driving fewer than five hours. Indianapolis and Cleveland rank second and third in terms of total population covered. The market of Indianapolis (35.0 million in 2010) is only of U.S. population, while Clevelandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population buffer area (34.4 million in 2010) is comprised of 5.5 million Canadian people. A total of 32.1 million people can be reached within a 5-hour truck drive of Chicago. Chicago is the favored choice of serving Midwestern and Western areas. Genesee County has moderate total population coverage (31.9 million in 2010 and 35.1 million in 2030) with the second largest Canadian market (6.6 million in 2010 and 8.0 million in 2030). It is likely to be a balanced hub for serving the Midwest, the Great Lakes and Canada. Buffalo, Cincinnati and Columbus have relatively low total population coverage. However, Buffalo is able to cover most of southern Ontario, which provides it the largest Canadian market size (6.9 million in 2010 and 8.4 million in 2030).

As mentioned, a large portion of Genesee County commodity flows actually stay within the State of Michigan (56.5% of total tonnage and 24.2% of total value). Further evaluation of Genesee County as the place to effectively serve the entire state of Michigan, shows promise. Figure 4.3 illustrates the current population center of Michigan is located in Shiawassee County, just a few miles from western Genesee County. With the added advantages of excellent and uncongested east-west and north-south major highway access, Genesee County is an ideal location to serve the entire population of the state of Michigan. Accessibility analysis shows tremendous potential for Genesee County centered logistics facilities that would serve the Michigan market.

Source: The Corradino Group

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Figure 4.3: 2010 Population Center of Michigan

23

5. Infrastructure Assessment This report section will quantify the advantages and disadvantages of the Flint and Genesee in terms of transportation connectivity, system performance, and access. Also included is a discussion on important projects in the wider economic region that will benefit the freight handled in Genesee County.

5.1 Connectivity Flint and Genesee have excellent connectivity to the interstates network. There is direct access to the rail network with CSX and CN serving the area. Roadway access to air cargo facilities (Bishop, Detroit, and Aerotropolis) is very good. Overall highway conditions are fair to good today. Genesee County’s location along or very near along I-475, I-69, I-75, and US 23 provides outstanding accessibility to all of parts of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Genesee County’s proximity to the Blue Water Bridge is another advantage. Genesee County’s accessibility to other Great Lakes Region locations is within reasonable:        

Midland/Bay City/Saginaw (40 miles) Midland/Bay City/Saginaw (40 miles) Capital City/Lansing (50 miles) Detroit (60 miles) Toledo (110 miles) Cleveland (223 miles) Chicago (273 miles) Toronto (248 miles)

5.2 System Performance Measures

Table 5.1 Daily Genesee County Highway Network Statistics Infrastructure Measures 2005 2035 Total VMT 12,218,122 15,301,883 Truck VMT 694,934 781,374 Total Delay (hour) 4,813 9,756 Truck Delay (hour) 243 515 Total VMT/per capita 27.26 32.63 Truck VMT/per capita 1.55 1.67 Avg. Travel Delay (min) 0.64 1.25 Avg. Truck Delay (min) 0.03 0.07 Source: Genesee County Travel Demand Model. ATRI truck data

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Travel demand forecasts by GCMPC for the region also show positive indications for attracting logistics providers. The model is sensitive to land use changes, household/employment locations and growth. Forecasts show steady increases in truck travel. The average truck delay is currently insignificant, and projections to 2035 show continuation of these good conditions (Table 5.1). This is an important selling point for Flint and Genesee County.

24

5.3 Regional Infrastructure The 2011 SEMCOG Freight Analysis survey included several questions about freight flows, current bottlenecks, and future deficiencies.

The economic transition occurring in the Southeast Michigan EER continues to challenge governments responsible for maintaining transportation infrastructure. Government funding is significantly less than in the past. Governor Snyder’s proposal to generate annually $1.2 billion in additional funding to fix the state's crumbling roads by hiking motor vehicle registration fees and changing the 19-cents-per-gallon gas tax to a percentage tax based on the wholesale rate that can grow with inflation and rising oil prices. This is a primary area in which to partner with Chambers, governments and, even the private sector. Among the freight movement/logistics-supporting projects planned or underway of significant importance to Genesee County are:    

Expanding Blue Water Bridge plaza; Improving I-75 in Oakland County leading to Genesee County; Building an I-475/I-75 connector with associated improvements to the area at Genesys Hospital System; and, Improving the Port of Detroit.

5.4 Summary of Infrastructure Strengths and Weaknesses

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Genesee County has the ability to export and import from locations near and far. Bishop International Airport has the runways for large cargo planes to utilize this fastest growing airport in the Midwest. The CSX and Canadian National railways intersect here and provide access from Nova Scotia. The I-75, I-69 and US-23 freeways run through Flint-Genesee County and connect Mexico to Canada.

25

6. Findings and Recommendations/Next Steps Genesee County has great potential to capture its fair share of the Midwest logistics market. Freight logistics/movement represents a multi-billion-dollar industry supporting in excess of 100,000 jobs in Michigan. The Genesee County-centered region, including Shiawassee, Lapeer, and St. Clair counties, has invested in a logistics strategy with a new intermodal center at Bishop International Airport. The region’s great asset is its location in the center of Michigan’s population with superior accessibility to millions of people. As such, Genesee County is an ideal logistics/distribution center location.

This study provides information to support the region‘s efforts to strengthen its role in the freight movement/logistics and potentially attract new development to Flint and Genesee County. Major findings are: 

Freight Flow - Forecasts show significant growth in the freight flows to and from Genesee County. Nonetheless, forecasts show some declines in economic sectors that are the major freight users. The economic effects of the last recession continue to have an effect.



Infrastructure Strengths – Flint and Genesee have direct access to the CSX rail network, with linkages to the CN system as well. There is good roadway access to air cargo facilities (Bishop, Detroit Metro/Aerotropolis). Genesee County’s geographic situation along I-69, I75, US 23 provides outstanding accessibility. Genesee County’s proximity to the Blue Water Bridge, with significant investments to expand the US plaza, is an asset.



Infrastructure Weaknesses – Portions of major highway are in need of improvement due to wear. Congested conditions are prevalent on I-75 in Oakland County leading into Genesee County, however flows within and through Genesee County are generally unhindered.

6.1 Incentives



Location-Based Tax Savings Programs:  PA 198 Industrial Property Tax Abatement – Provides 50% industrial property tax abatement on new investment for both real and personal property for up to 12 years.

This abatement can be granted by local municipalities or Next Michigan Development Corporation.  PA 328 Personal Property Tax Relief in Distressed Communities -- Allows distressed communities to abate 100% of the personal property taxes on new machinery and equipment. Genesee County municipalities eligible to participate include the Cities of Flint, Burton, and Mt. Morris, the Townships of Genesee, Montrose and Mt. Morris. This abatement can be granted by local municipalities or Next Michigan Development Corporation.



MEDC and State Tax Savings Programs:

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

The Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce’s Economic Development team coordinates with local entities to negotiate project incentives on a case by case scenario. Available incentives include:

26

 Michigan businesses, economic developers and communities now have new tools to spur investment, fuel job growth and support community revitalization. The MEDC and State of Michigan provides significant value to businesses looking to expand or locate their business here, including:  $175 Million annually in business attraction and economic gardening programs and business assistance through MEDC;  $100 million available for attraction and economic gardening  $25 million available for business acceleration  $25 million available to support the film and digital media industry  $25 million available to support the Pure Michigan promotion program •

The Michigan Business Development Program is a new incentive program available to eligible businesses that create qualified new jobs and/or make qualified new investment in Michigan.

•

The Michigan Community Revitalization Program is a new incentive program designed to promote community revitalization that will accelerate private investment in areas of historical declining values.

•

A Simplified and Competitive Business Tax Structure will tax C-Corporations at 6% on federal taxable income apportioned to Michigan.

•

Pure Michigan Business Connect, a $3 billion public-private initiative strengthens Michigan’s economic gardening philosophy through an alliance of the Michigan Economic Development.



The following recommendations are made for advancing potential development of Flint and Genesee sites. These recommendations, where applicable, should be broadly communicated using, among other products, the video prepared for this project. Media, such as and should be used extensively to reach the interested market.



Retain and Attract Jobs  Communicate the economic benefits of redevelopment in terms of the expected jobs, personal income, and Gross Regional Product (GRP).  Make the return-on-investment business case, and measure results.  Prepare competitive grant applications for discretionary state and federal funds.  Identify the best additional projects from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.



Projects  Focus on infrastructure repair/maintenance.  Coordinate with CSX and Canadian National Railway to improve intermodal freight at the site and in the region.

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

6.2 Recommendations

27

 Encourage capacity improvements to I-75 and U.S. 23.  Provide support to connect I-475 to U.S. 23 to relieve congestion on I-75 and U.S. 23 and unlock the potential in the Genesys Medical Center.  Support improving the US plaza at the Blue Water Bridge All of these measures can be addressed by backing, in a visible way, Governor Snyder’s priority to increase transportation funding. 

Planning  Further strengthen, with funding and staffing, the I-69 Corridor logistics strategy  Develop investment policies and performance measures.

Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce

Another item, which will require collaboration with the regional legislative delegation, and the constituencies they represent, is to amend the state’s Aerotropolis legislation to allow these designated zones to become “turbo-charged” tax-increment districts. In this case, a portion of the economic return from the redevelopment in terms of property, income and sales taxes, is provided to the administrator of the site to maintain and improve the site’s physical facilities, access to it, communications, staffing and the like, consistent with an state-approved master plan. This is a “turbo charged” approach because it is not limited to property taxes, as most tax-increment districts are. It also includes capturing a piece of the income and sales taxes generated by a site’s activities.

A law that supports this type situation exists and is included in Appendix E.

28

APPENDIX C Freight Forecast Report For the I‐69 Thumb Region

Freight Forecast Report For the I-69 Thumb Region: Genesee, Huron, Lapeer, St. Clair, Sanilac, Shiawassee, and Tuscola Counties November 2014

I-69 Thumb Region Partnership – Freight Forecast Report 1. Introduction In Michigan, freight movement/logistics represents a multi-billion-dollar industry supporting in excess of 100,000 jobs. Freight movement/logistics is part of the existing and planned economies of all regions in the state. The 7-County I-69 Thumb Region, including Genesee, Huron, Lapeer, St. Clair, Sanilac, Shiawassee, and Tuscola Counties, has adopted a logistics strategy with a new air freight intermodal center at Bishop International Airport. Additional improvements have been made on both sides of the border, in St. Clair County and in Sarnia, Ontario at the Blue Water Bridge. The region expects thousands of jobs to be retained or created by this strategy.

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

A number of other initiatives are underway or planned in the “Southeast Michigan Extended Economic Region” (EER), which includes the greater Detroit metro area, and extends into Windsor, Toledo, and 5 of the 7 I-69 Thumb Region counties. For example, the plan prepared by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments and the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, focuses on: 1) improving access to regional/mega-region distribution centers and intermodal rail, waterborne and air terminals; 2) improving U.S.-Canada connectivity; and, 3) improving urban freight flows. The vision is to create, in the Southeast Michigan EER, North America’s most efficient and cost-effective firsttier multimodal transportation and logistics hub.

To do so, according to the Detroit Regional Chamber “…The region must use future transportation investments to link massive but pragmatic and underutilized transportation and logistics resources into an integrated hub…to strengthen existing businesses and attract new ones.” These assets and initiatives will affect the success of freight and logistics in the Thumb Region.

This study is focused on the 7-County I-69 Thumb Region, including Genesee, Huron, Lapeer, St. Clair, Sanilac, Shiawassee, and Tuscola Counties which have potential sites for redevelopment as major truck-rail intermodal and distribution/logistics facilities.

1

2. Evaluation of the Regional Freight Flows 2.1 Introduction To understand the freight/logistics market in this 7-County I-69 Thumb region, it is necessary to evaluate the region’s geographic context. St. Clair County is situated at the border with Canada, and is about 50 miles northeast of downtown Detroit. Near the center of the region, Genesee County is about 55 miles northwest of Detroit and the U.S. border at Windsor, Ontario, Canada (Figure 2.1). The 7-County I-69 Thumb Region has 879,758 people in 5,133 square miles of land area. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Detroit’s BEA Region (includes the Thumb Region counties) is the 10th largest by population among the nation’s 179 regions.

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Figure 2.1: 7-County Region Location and Geographic Context

Source: The Corradino Group

Datasets The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has provided the Michigan-specific version of the Transearch Database from IHS Global Insight as the primary information source used to analyze current (2009) and future (2030) freight flows in the I-69 Thumb Region.

Freight Analysis Framework/Version 3 (FAF3) data were also used to create a comprehensive picture of freight movement among states and major metropolitan areas by all modes of transportation. FAF3 provides estimates of tonnage and value, by commodity type, mode, origin, and destination for 2007,

2

the most recent year, and forecasts through 2040. Also included are truck flows assigned to the highway network for 2007 and 2040.

2.2 Existing Freight Flow In 2009, the 7-County I-69 Thumb Region had a total of 53.1 million tons of inbound, outbound and internal freight flows with an estimated value of $29.6 billion (Table 2.1). The freight flows of interest in this study are inbound and outbound, which amount to 91% of total flow (48.3 million tons) with 94% of total value ($27.8 billion). The majority of the Thumb Regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regional flows are driven by inputs and outputs for industry and consumption, and generate demands for logistics facilities and redelivery services. There is a small volume of internal-to-internal commodity flow within the Thumb Region, which comprises 9.0 percent by tonnage and 6.0 percent by value.

Freight Flow by Direction

Region

Tonnage (thousand tons)

Total Value (million $)

Internal

4,843

1,794

Inbound

24,710

15,095

Outbound

23,560

12,742

Region Total

53,113

29,631

Internal

143,348

69,333

Inbound

118,534

167,956

Outbound

106,821

131,637

368,702

By Tonnage

368,926

By Value

Region's Pct. Of Michigan Total

14.4%

8.0%

Region's Pct. Of Michigan's Exports

22.1%

9.7%

Michigan's Export to Import Ratio

90.1%

78.4%

Region's Export to Import Ratio

95.3%

84.4%

7-County Thumb Region

All Michigan Counties

Statewide Total

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Table 2.1: The 7-County I-69 Thumb Region 2009 Total Freight Flow by Direction

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

The 7-County I-69 Thumb Regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s freight is carried by multiple transportation modes: air, pipeline, rail, truck, water, and other modes (Figure 2.2). Trucks carry 59.8 percent of commodity volume (31.7 million tons) and 89.9 percent of commodity value ($26.6 billion). Water is the second largest mover of freight commodities for the Thumb Region. It handles 35.9 percent of total volume, while 3.3 percent of total value.

3

Figure 2.2: 2009 Freight Flow Share by Transportation Modes The 7-County I-69 Thumb Region

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

All Michigan

2009 Flow Share By Modes

100%

80%

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

60% 40% 20% 0% Air

Cargo Value

Pipeline Rail

Truck

Cargo Tons

Water

Other

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

4

Figure 2.3 illustrates the top ten commodity groups and their market shares by tonnage and value according to 2009 Transearch data. When evaluating the 7-County I-69 Thumb Region freight market by tonnage, coal makes up the largest commodity group (14.8 million tons and 27.9 percent share).

Nonmetallic ores and farm products are the second (9.6 million tons and 18.1% share) and third largest (8.9 million tons and 16.8% share) commodity groups. The top three representing primary inputs to industry and consumption. The rest of the top commodities include a wide variety of inputs to and outputs of industry (petroleum, crude petroleum, food, 2nd traffic product, chemicals, clay, and primary metal). These top ten groups dominate the commodity volume (93% share of total) in the Thumb Region.

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Figure 2.3: 2009 Top 10 Commodity Groups

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

From a monetary point of view, the largest commodity group is transportation equipment and parts ($4.6 billion and 15.6% share of total). Farm products rank second in value ($4.2 billion and 14.2% share). The secondary traffic commodity group, defined as freight flows to and from distribution centers or through intermodal facilities, ($2.7 billion and 9.1% share) ranks third. These three groups comprise almost half of the total value of the top ten commodity groups (Figure 2.3). The top ten make up about 79 percent of total commodity value in the 7-County I-69 Thumb Region.

5

Figure 2.4 lists the 13 geographic areas which were determined by the Regional Chamber of Commerce to be important trade centers with the 7-County I-69 Thumb Region. Figures 2.5 and 2.6 and Table 2.2 also illustrate 2009 total freight flow distribution by tonnage and value, respectively.

Figure 2.4: Geographic Areas used for Flow Distribution Analysis

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Figure 2.5: Thumb Region 2009 Total Flow Distribution (by Tonnage) Mexico Canada US Gulf US West US Midwest

Internal

US East

Inbound

Ontario, Canada

Outbound

Illinois Indiana Ohio Michigan Greater Detroit Genesee Region Thumb Region 0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

(Thousand Tons)

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

6

Figure 2.6: Thumb Region 2009 Total Flow Distribution (by Value) Mexico Canada US Gulf US West US Midwest

Internal

US East

Inbound

Ontario, Canada

Outbound

Illinois Indiana Ohio Michigan Greater Detroit Genesee Region Thumb Region 0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000 (Million $)

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Domestic inbound and outbound freight flows within Michigan account for 34.7 percent of total flow measured by tons (specifically, 18.9% to Greater Detroit and 15.8% with other Michigan places). The next major volume lanes are Ontario, Canada (18.8%), U.S. Midwest states (15.9%), other Canadian places (4.7%) and Ohio (4.2%). The spatial distribution by commodity value is somewhat different.

U.S. Eastern states become the most important partner exchanging with the 7-County I-69 Thumb Region in 2009 $4.8 billion in commodities (16.2% of total commodity value). Regions neighboring the 7-County I-69 Thumb Region also play important roles: 29.3 percent of total commodity value was exchanged within Michigan (specifically, 6.1% within the 7-County I-69 Thumb Region, 10.9% to Greater Detroit, and 12.3% to other Michigan places), although a noticeable drop is observed compared to the tonnage share. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Ontario, US Midwest states are considerably large partners from a viewpoint of goods value. The 7-County I-69 Thumb Region has a certain amount of internal commodity flows accounting for 9.1% of total tonnage and 6.1% of total value. The international trade associated with Mexico makes up a larger portion in value (5.8% of total flow) than in volume (0.6% of total flow).

7

2009 Freight Flows by Modes (1,000 tons) Geographic Area

Greater Detroit Inbound Outbound

Air

Pipeline

Rail

Truck

Water

Other Modes

Total (1,000 tons)

Total (million $)

Share by Tonnage

Share by Value

18.9%

10.9%

15.8%

12.3%

4.2%

12.0%

2.3%

8.7%

3.1%

5.8%

18.8%

7.3%

2.6%

16.2%

15.9%

6.4%

2.5%

4.1%

1.4%

2.0%

4.7%

2.7%

0.6%

5.8%

100.0%

100.0%

0.06

0.00

0.01

9,617.48

404.36

0.00

10,021.91

3,229.85

0.03

0.00

0.01

4,694.13

302.02

0.00

4,996.19

1,672.60

0.02

0.00

0.00

4,923.35

102.34

0.00

5,025.72

1,557.25

0.14

0.00

0.00

6,422.32

1,985.97

0.00

8,408.43

3,652.33

Inbound

0.11

0.00

0.00

3,435.43

1,976.02

0.00

5,411.55

2,023.07

Outbound

0.03

0.00

0.00

2,986.89

9.95

0.00

2,996.87

1,629.26

0.08

0.00

0.00

2,163.87

70.81

0.00

2,234.76

3,541.67

Inbound

0.08

0.00

0.00

1,217.33

70.81

0.00

1,288.23

1,914.99

Outbound

0.00

0.00

0.00

946.53

0.00

0.00

946.53

1,626.68

Michigan

Ohio

Indiana

1.39

0.00

0.00

1,224.24

3.70

0.00

1,229.33

2,563.94

Inbound

0.63

0.00

0.00

804.86

3.70

0.00

809.20

1,462.68

Outbound

0.76

0.00

0.00

419.38

0.00

0.00

420.13

1,101.27

Illinois

0.00

0.00

0.00

790.80

863.11

0.00

1,653.91

1,719.30

Inbound

0.00

0.00

0.00

365.50

863.11

0.00

1,228.61

898.31

Outbound

0.00

0.00

0.00

425.30

0.00

0.00

425.30

820.99

3.05

349.31

117.71

733.11

8,730.16

49.96

9,983.30

2,153.48

0.14

0.00

8.62

167.60

275.67

26.44

478.48

499.59

Ontario, Canada Inbound Outbound US East Inbound Outbound

2.90

349.31

109.09

565.51

8,454.48

23.52

9,504.83

1,653.89

3.97

0.00

0.00

1,335.46

44.72

0.00

1,384.15

4,792.56

3.24

0.00

0.00

673.70

0.00

0.00

676.94

2,495.48

0.73

0.00

0.00

661.76

44.72

0.00

707.21

2,297.07

0.06

0.00

0.00

1,517.70

6,942.67

0.00

8,460.43

1,887.71

Inbound

0.06

0.00

0.00

1,095.19

6,936.34

0.00

8,031.59

1,328.25

Outbound

0.00

0.00

0.00

422.51

6.33

0.00

428.84

559.46

0.00

0.00

0.00

1,343.92

0.00

0.00

1,343.92

1,214.43

Inbound

0.00

0.00

0.00

537.11

0.00

0.00

537.11

632.38

Outbound

0.00

0.00

0.00

806.81

0.00

0.00

806.81

582.04

US Midwest

US West

US Gulf

0.25

0.00

0.00

749.78

0.00

0.00

750.04

582.45

Inbound

0.25

0.00

0.00

198.84

0.00

0.00

199.10

318.39

Outbound

0.00

0.00

0.00

550.94

0.00

0.00

550.94

264.06

5.75

568.86

1,024.62

863.45

6.60

0.49

2,469.77

785.95

0.00

556.76

280.23

30.32

0.98

0.00

868.29

456.66

Canada Inbound Outbound Mexico Inbound Outbound Total

5.75

12.10

744.39

833.13

5.62

0.49

1,601.49

329.29

0.00

0.00

186.45

143.56

0.00

0.01

330.01

1,713.47

0.00

0.00

87.65

96.63

0.00

0.00

184.28

1,392.30

0.00

0.00

98.80

46.93

0.00

0.01

145.73

321.18

14.74

918.18

1,328.79

31,748.87

19,052.10

50.46

53,113.13

29,630.71

Internal

0.00

0.00

0.00

4,843.18

0.00

0.00

4,843.18

1,793.57

9.1%

6.1%

Inbound

4.55

556.76

376.50

13,316.65

10,428.65

26.44

24,709.55

15,094.70

46.5%

50.9%

Outbound

10.19

361.42

952.28

13,589.04

8,623.44

24.02

23,560.40

12,742.44

44.4%

43.0%

8

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Table 2.2: The 7-County I-69 Thumb Region 2009 Freight Flow Distribution

Overall, the 7-County I-69 Thumb Region has a fairly balanced inbound and outbound tonnage flow except the U.S. Mid-western with dominated inbound flows and Canada (including Ontario) with dominated outbound flow. The dollar value of freight flows has a similar pattern.

Among all commodities transported in, out and within the region, a certain group of commodity products heavily rely on added-value services facilitated by logistics. These are classified as “warehouse-able” requiring storage, process and/or re-distribution; they typically have a relatively high unit value compared to raw materials. Table 2.4 defines warehouse-able commodity groups and lists the corresponding Standard Transportation Commodity Classification (STCC) codes:

STCC Code 35 36 37 38 39 41 43 44 45 46 47 49 50 28 29 32 40 42 48

Description Machinery Products Electrical products Transportation Equipment Instruments Misc. Manufacturing Products Misc. Freight Shipments Mail Freight Forwarder Traffic Shipper Associated Traffic Misc. Mixed Shipments Small Packed Freight Shipments Flammable Materials Secondary Traffic Products Chemical Products Petroleum Clay Waste and Scrap Materials Empty Equipment Waste Hazardous Materials I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Table 2.4: Warehouse-able Commodities STCC Description Code 9 Fresh Fish 19 Ordnance 20 Food 21 Tobacco 22 Textile 23 Apparel Warehouse-able 25 Furniture Commodities 26 Pulp, Paper or Allied Products 27 Printed Products 30 Rubber or Plastic Products 31 Leather Products 33 Primary Metal Products 34 Fabricated Metal Products 1 Farm Products 8 Forest Products 10 Metallic Ores Other 11 Coal Commodities 13 Crude Petroleum 14 Nonmetallic Ores 24 Lumber Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

In 2009, the Thumb Region’s warehouse-able commodities accounted for 15.5 percent of total commodity tonnage and 67.0 percent of total commodity value.

2.3 Regional Future Freight Flow The 2030 freight data from Transearch estimates total freight volume at 71.7 million tons, with an estimated value of $48.2 billion. Compared to 2009, commodity flow will experience a 35 percent increase in tonnage and a 63 percent increase in value. Similar with 2009, the 2030 inbound and outbound flows are still fairly balanced. The internal-to-the-region freight flow in 2030 will still be a small portion by both tonnage (5.7 million) and value ($1.8 billion) through 2030.

Figure 2.7 illustrates how mode shares will shift through 2030. Trucks continue to dominate the shipping modes in the 7-County I-69 Thumb Region, accounting for about 42.1 million tons and a value of $43.0 billion, increasing 33 percent and 61 percent, respectively, compared to 2009. Water still

9

ranks second in handling future freight in volume (25.4 million tons), but third in handling value of commodity ($1.4 billion). Rail ranks the third in moving future tonnage of commodities (2.5 million tons), but second in moving values of commodities ($2.9 billion) which pale in comparison to the truck mode. Pipeline is forecast to move 1.6 million tons with a value of $0.3 billion. Air freight is forecasted to have a smallest share by tonnages and value in 2030 (0.026 million tons and $0.57 billion), however, it grows fastest in moving values of commodities among all modes.

Figures 2.8 and 2.9 also illustrate inbound and outbound freight flow demands for the 7-County I-69 Thumb Region in 2030 by tonnage and value, respectively. Table 2.7 summarizes 2030 freight flow distribution between the Thumb Region and other geographic areas.

Commodity flows between the I-69 Thumb Region and other Michigan places (including Greater Detroit and the remainder of Michigan) account for 33.1 percent of total tonnage. Canada (including Ontario) and US Mid-west states respectively share 27.3% and 14.1% of total tonnage, followed by other geographies. When examining value, states in the Eastern U.S. continue to be the largest trade partners with the I-69 Thumb Region ($9.4 billion or 19.5% of the total value). The next largest single trade areas are Ohio ($5.2 billion or 10.8%), other places of Michigan ($4.9 billion or 10.1%) and Great Detroit ($4.4 billion or 9.2%). Trade in 2030 with Indiana, Illinois, Midwestern states, Western states and Gulf States are forecast to total 27.5 percent of the value of trade with the I-69 Thumb Region.

Trade value associated with Western states will experience growth in the next 20 years.

Figure 2.10 illustrates growth for the top 10 commodity clusters measured by tons. Except farm products with slightly decrease (1% drop), all groups show increasing trends, which result in a total 65.5 million tons in 2030 with an increasingly dominant market share of 91.4 percent, compared to 49.4 million tons or 93 percent in 2009. It also noted that the top two commodity groups (coal and nonmetallic ores) are both expected to substantially increase. Forecasts show the currently leading commodities in the I-69 Thumb Region will continue over the long-term.

It should be noted that, contrary to the Transearch forecasts, changes are occurring that will affect two of the top 10 commodities; farm products and coal. Farm products are expected to increase due to local shifts in farming practices (improved yields, new crops, etc.) and possibly from long term warming trends associated with global climate change. Additionally, on-going changes in electrical power generation, whereby the system is undergoing a conversion to natural gas (along with new pipeline infrastructure) from coal, is expected to greatly reduce the flow of coal to the Thumb Region by 2030.

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Among the highest value commodity groups, all will increase between 2009 and 2030 (Figure 2.11).

This will lead to a higher market share of 81 percent ($38.9 billion) in 2030, compared to 79 percent ($23.2 billion) in 2009 in products shipped to/from the I-69 Thumb Region.

10

Figure 2.7.1: The 7-County I-69 Thumb Region 2009-2030 Freight Flow Change by Tonnage

7-County Region

2009-2030 Flow Change (By Tonnage)

Statewide

450,000 2009 (total 368.7 million tons)

400,000

2030 (total 552.2 million tons) 350,000

+ 50% Thousand Tons

300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000

+ 72%

50,000 0

+ 95%

+ 86% Air

Pipeline

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Rail

+ 53% Truck

Water

Other

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

+ 39% 100,000

11

Figure 2.7.2: The 7-County I-69 Thumb Region 2009-2030 Freight Flow Change by Value

7-County Region

Statewide

2009-2030 Flow Change (By Value) 600,000

2009 (total $368.9 billion) 2030 (total $654.2 billion)

500,000

+ 78% Million $

400,000

300,000

100,000 + 77% + 141%

+ 59%

+ 46%

+ 68%

Water

Other

0 Air

Pipeline

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Rail

Truck

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

200,000

12

Figure 2.8: 7-County Region 2030 Freight Flow Distribution (by Tonnage) Mexico Canada US Gulf US West US Midwest

Internal

US East

Inbound

Ontario, Canada

Outbound

Illinois Indiana Ohio Michigan Greater Detroit Thumb Region Genesee Region 0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

(Thousand Tons) 20,000

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Figure 2.9: 7-County Region 2030 Freight Flow Distribution (by Value)

Mexico Canada

US West US Midwest

Internal

US East

Inbound

Ontario, Canada

Outbound

Illinois

Indiana Ohio Michigan Greater Detroit Thumb Region Genesee Region 0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

(Million $)

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

US Gulf

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

13

Table 2.5: The 7-County I-69 Thumb Region 2030 Freight Flow Distribution 2030 Freight Flows by Modes (1,000 tons)

Greater Detroit

Air

Pipeline

Rail

Truck

Water

Other Modes

Total (1,000 tons)

Total (million $)

0.10

0.00

0.01

12,671.23

494.21

0.00

13,165.54

4,429.31

Inbound

0.06

0.00

0.01

6,379.46

344.16

0.00

6,723.70

2,328.00

Outbound

0.04

0.00

0.00

6,291.76

150.04

0.00

6,441.84

2,101.30

0.17

0.00

0.00

8,175.24

2,392.70

0.00

10,568.11

4,883.67

Inbound

0.10

0.00

0.00

4,464.40

2,384.98

0.00

6,849.47

2,809.91

Outbound

0.06

0.00

0.00

3,710.84

7.73

0.00

3,718.63

2,073.75

Michigan

Ohio

0.15

0.00

0.00

2,857.41

84.81

0.00

2,942.37

5,193.01

Inbound

0.15

0.00

0.00

1,558.84

84.81

0.00

1,643.81

2,875.20

Outbound

0.00

0.00

0.00

1,298.56

0.00

0.00

1,298.56

2,317.81

Indiana

2.17

0.00

0.00

1,642.52

4.43

0.00

1,649.11

3,862.83

Inbound

0.94

0.00

0.00

1,005.40

4.43

0.00

1,010.77

1,927.73

Outbound

1.23

0.00

0.00

637.12

0.00

0.00

638.35

1,935.09

0.00

0.00

0.00

1,356.83

1,102.30

0.00

2,459.13

2,881.36

0.00

0.00

0.00

508.26

1,102.30

0.00

1,610.56

1,366.15

Illinois Inbound Outbound

0.00

0.00

0.00

848.57

0.00

0.00

848.57

1,515.21

Ontario, Canada

7.31

590.89

195.51

1,461.41

12,776.83

68.77

15,100.73

4,106.73

Inbound

0.35

0.00

16.73

337.78

375.36

37.11

767.33

1,049.47

Outbound

6.96

590.89

178.78

1,123.63

12,401.47

31.66

14,333.39

3,057.25

2.05

0.00

0.00

2,003.32

36.73

0.00

2,042.11

9,427.31

Inbound

1.46

0.00

0.00

1,002.73

0.00

0.00

1,004.19

5,779.11

Outbound

0.59

0.00

0.00

1,000.60

36.73

0.00

1,037.92

3,648.20

0.10

0.00

0.00

1,620.66

8,520.91

0.00

10,141.67

2,601.17

Inbound

0.10

0.00

0.00

1,036.15

8,515.92

0.00

9,552.17

1,761.08

Outbound

0.00

0.00

0.00

584.51

4.99

0.00

589.50

840.09

US East

US Midwest

US West

0.00

0.00

0.00

1,800.56

0.00

0.00

1,800.56

2,992.92

Inbound

0.00

0.00

0.00

590.96

0.00

0.00

590.96

1,902.49

Outbound

0.00

0.00

0.00

1,209.59

0.00

0.00

1,209.59

1,090.43

0.37

0.00

0.00

1,037.37

0.00

0.00

1,037.75

934.05

0.37

0.00

0.00

257.58

0.00

0.00

257.95

519.84

US Gulf Inbound Outbound

0.00

0.00

0.00

779.80

0.00

0.00

779.80

414.21

13.79

978.48

1,964.96

1,458.98

11.98

0.99

4,429.19

1,783.24

Inbound

0.00

958.01

671.64

59.09

2.95

0.00

1,691.68

1,023.93

Outbound

13.79

20.47

1,293.32

1,399.90

9.04

0.99

2,737.50

759.31

0.00

0.00

360.29

295.58

0.00

0.01

655.88

3,345.61

Inbound

0.00

0.00

148.13

184.00

0.00

0.00

332.13

2,588.32

Outbound

0.00

0.00

212.16

111.58

0.00

0.01

323.75

757.29

26.20

1,569.37

2,520.78

42,105.91

25,424.91

69.77

71,716.94

48,247.12

Canada

Mexico

Total

Share by Tonnage

Share by Value

18.4%

9.2%

14.7%

10.1%

4.1%

10.8%

2.3%

8.0%

3.4%

6.0%

21.1%

8.5%

2.8%

19.5%

14.1%

5.4%

2.5%

6.2%

1.4%

1.9%

6.2%

3.7%

0.9%

6.9%

100.0%

100.0%

Internal

0.00

0.00

0.00

5,724.82

0.00

0.00

5,724.82

1,805.92

8.0%

3.7%

Inbound

3.53

958.01

836.51

17,384.66

12,814.91

37.11

32,034.73

25,931.24

44.7%

53.7%

Outbound

22.67

611.36

1,684.27

18,996.44

12,610.00

32.66

33,957.40

20,509.95

47.3%

42.5%

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Geographic Area

14

Figure 2.10: The 7-County I-69 Thumb Region 2009-2030 Change of Top 10 Commodity Groups (by Tonnage)

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Figure 2.11: The 7-County I-69 Thumb Region 2009-2030 Change of Top 10 Commodity Groups (by Value)

15

The study also examined the fastest-growing commodities by tonnage and value (Figures 2.12 and 2.13, respectively). The commodities with the fastest tonnage growth will grow from 95 percent to 146 percent through 2030, which are significantly faster rates than the average growth of total tonnage flow (35%) into and out of the 7-County I-69 Thumb Region. Most of these groups have small market shares (see Tables 2.6 and 2.7 for tonnage and value), so we remind the reader that this ranking is based only on the rate of growth, and several of the fastest growing commodities are of minor importance. Among the ten commodity groups with the fastest growth in value, the electrical products dramatically increase by 272 percent over the next 20 years (Figure 2.13). The other nine groups show a slower rate of increase, but all exceed 95 percent. These ten commodity groups represent about $6.8 billion with 23 percent of share in 2009 but $16.7 billion with 35 percent of share of the 7-County I-69 Thumb Region trade in 2030.

Figure: 2.12 Fastest Growing Commodity Groups 2009-2030 (By Tonnage)

Statewide

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

7-County Region

16 Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

Figure: 2.13 Fastest Growing Commodity Groups 2009-2030 (By Value)

7-County Region

Source: IHS Global Insight, Transearch 2009-2030

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Statewide

17

Table 2.6: Tonnages of the Region’s Fastest Growing Commodities

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Table 2.7: Value of the Region’s Fastest Growing Commodities

18

2.4 Regional Breakout by County The 2030 freight data from Transearch estimates total freight volume at 71.7 million tons, with an estimated value of $48.2 billion. Compared to 2009, commodity flow will experience a 35 percent increase in tonnage and a 63 percent increase in value. When viewed by individual counties, it is clear that St. Clair County makes up the majority of the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s freight tonnage, due to the movement of bulk commodities via Great Lakes shipping. Genesee and St. Clair Counties make up the majority of freight for the region when measured by value.

Table 2.8: The 7-County I-69 Thumb Region 2009-2030 Forecast by Tonnage and Value

County Genesee Huron Lapeer Sanilac Shiawassee St. Clair Tuscola Total Statewide

2009 Tonnage (thousand tons)

2030 Tonnage (thousand tons)

7,103 4,924 2,357 2,859 2,173 30,251 3,446 53,113 368,702

10,049 5,299 3,898 3,404 3,258 41,948 3,861 71,717 552,192

Tonnage Change% 41.47% 7.60% 65.43% 19.07% 49.91% 38.67% 12.04% 35.03% 49.77%

2009 Value (million $)

2030 Value (million $)

9,915 3,664 2,305 1,773 1,381 8,504 2,090 29,631 368,926

16,811 4,664 4,464 2,222 2,057 15,390 2,640 48,247 654,182

Value Change% 69.54% 27.30% 93.67% 25.35% 48.98% 80.98% 26.32% 62.83% 77.32%

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Lapeer County has a small share of the regional freight movement, but has the fastest growth rate and is gaining market share. St. Clair and Genesee counties have freight movement growth rates higher than the region as a whole.

19

Figure: 2.14 County Freight Growth 2009-2030 by Tonnage 2009 Tonnage

2030 Tonnage

50,000

Thousand Tons

40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

Figure: 2.15 County Freight Growth 2009-2030 by Value 2009 Value

2030 Value

20,000

12,000 8,000

4,000 0

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Million $

16,000

20

Over 90% of the 7-County region’s freight is moved via trucking or via water. When viewed at the county-level, the majority (about 60%) of freight moved by trucking is based in Genesee and St. Clair Counties. The two counties dominate the region’s trucking activity because both are located on major interstate corridors. Genesee County is located at the junction of I-75 and I-69, each of which provides excellent high-speed access to Midwest and Canadian markets. Likewise, St. Clair County is located at the junction of I-94 and I-69 and has the added advantage of having a border crossing to Ontario. As shown in previous tables, the water mode is also of key importance to the region. St. Clair County, the only county in the region with direct access to the Great Lakes, makes up all of the waterborne freight activity. Rail freight activity is small compared to truck and water modes, and is only occurring in Huron (82% of region’s rail tonnage), Genesee, and Lapeer Counties. All regional air freight activity is confined to Bishop Airport in Genesee County.

Table 2.9: The 7-County Region Shipments via Truck

County Genesee Huron Lapeer Sanilac Shiawassee St. Clair Tuscola Total

2009 Tonnage by Truck (thousand tons) 7,206 4,889 2,415 2,954 2,220 10,692 3,547 33,923

Truck Tonnage Share 21.2% 14.4% 7.1% 8.7% 6.5% 31.5% 10.5% 100.0%

2009 Value by Truck (million $) 9,869 3,323 2,304 1,754 1,357 6,479 2,091 27,177

Truck Value Share 36.3% 12.2% 8.5% 6.5% 5.0% 23.8% 7.7% 100.0%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Tonnage by Truck

Value by Truck

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Figure: 2.16 The 7-County Region Shipments via Truck

21

Table 2.10: The 7-County Region Shipments via Water

County Genesee Huron Lapeer Sanilac Shiawassee St. Clair Tuscola Total

2009 Tonnage by Water (thousand tons) 0 99 0 0 0 18,953 0 19,052

Water Tonnage Share 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.5% 0.0% 100.0%

2009 Value by Water (million $) 0 3 0 0 0 988 0 991

Water Value Share 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.7% 0.0% 100.0%

Figure: 2.17 The 7-County Region Shipments via Water

100% 80% 60% 40%

0%

Tonnage by Water

Value by Water

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

20%

22

Table 2.11: The 7-County Region Shipments via Rail Mode

County Genesee Huron Lapeer Sanilac Shiawassee St. Clair Tuscola Total

2009 Tonnage (thousand tons) 19 107 3 0 0 0 0 129

Tonnage Share 14.8% 82.9% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2009 Value (million $) 144 396 34 0 0 0 0 575

Value Share 25.1% 69.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Figure: 2.18 The 7-County Region Shipments via Rail Mode

23

Table 2.12 The 7-County Region Shipments via Air Freight

County Genesee Huron Lapeer Sanilac Shiawassee St. Clair Tuscola Total

2009 Tonnage (thousand tons) 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Tonnage Share 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2009 Value (million $) 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 42

Value Share 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Figure: 2.19 The 7-County Region Shipments via Air Freight

24

3. Regional Market Potential for Logistics As discussed in Section 2, commodity movement via trucks accounts for the nearly all freight flow occurring in the region. Therefore, an evaluation of the potential market for logistics focused development must focus on truck transport.

For evaluation purposes, a set of truck travel time buffers with maximum of 5-hour and one-hour increments have been established using the FAF3 network with the 7 County Region as the geographic center. The travel time buffers were determined based on congested truck travel speed to represent realistic traffic conditions (Figure 3.1).

Table 3.1: Area and Population of Within Travel Time Buffers

Genesee County (Interchange of I-75 and I-69 at Flint)

St. Clair County (I-69 Border Crossing at Port Huron)

Northern Thumb Counties (Intersection of M-53 and M-46 near Marlette)

Buffer Area (mile2)

2010 Population(1) (million) U.S.

Canada

2030 Population(2) (million)

Total

U.S.

Canada

Total

≤ 1 hour

5,265

2.5

0.0

2.5

3.0

0.0

3.0

≤ 2 hours

20,874

7.2

0.3

7.5

7.8

0.4

8.2

≤ 3 hours

45,843

10.1

0.8

10.9

11.2

0.9

12.1

≤ 4 hours

71,471

13.8

6.2

20.0

15.0

7.6

22.6

≤ 5 hours

108,037

25.3

6.6

31.9

27.0

8.0

35.1

Buffer Area (mile2)

2010 Population(1) (million)

2030 Population(2) (million)

Time Buffer

U.S.

Canada

Total

U.S.

Canada

Total

≤ 1 hour

5,439

1.3

0.4

1.6

1.5

0.4

2.0

≤ 2 hours

19,959

5.4

0.8

6.2

5.7

0.9

6.7

≤ 3 hours

46,212

8.3

6.2

14.6

9.0

7.6

16.6

≤ 4 hours

88,740

13.7

6.5

20.2

14.7

7.9

22.6

≤ 5 hours

147,001

20.8

6.7

27.6

22.4

8.2

30.6

Time Buffer

Buffer Area (mile2)

2010 Population(1) (million)

2030 Population(2) (million)

U.S.

Canada

Total

U.S.

Canada

Total

≤ 1 hour

4,474

0.6

0.0

0.6

0.7

0.0

0.7

≤ 2 hours

16,718

4.1

0.6

4.7

4.7

0.7

5.4

≤ 3 hours

38,903

7.6

0.8

8.4

8.3

0.9

9.2

≤ 4 hours

73,732

10.7

6.2

16.9

11.8

7.6

19.4

≤ 5 hours

121,023

16.3

6.6

22.9

17.5

8.0

25.5

(1) Data is from 2010 US census and 2011 Canada Census. Canada portion only includes major cities.

(2) Projection is derived from US and Canada census data. Canada portion only includes major cities.

The travel time buffers range from a 1-hour band, which covers neighboring counties and the northern portion of Greater Detroit, to a 5-hour band, which extends to northern Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, northeastern Illinois (primarily the Chicago area), western New York, and western as well as southern Ontario, Canada. When comparing surrounding logistics hubs, Detroit and Toledo are within 1-2 hour and 2-3 hour travel time buffers, respectively, of the region. Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toronto require 3-4 hour truck trips to the region. Chicago and Columbus are located in the 4-5 hour by truck buffer

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Time Buffer

25

area. It takes more than five hours to truck commodities between the local region and other regional hubs, such as Cincinnati and Indianapolis.

Table 3.1 also lists population in the buffer areas. The 7 County economic region is within a 5-hour truck driving time to a market with a total population of 31.9 million in 2010 and 35.1 million in 2030, about 9 percent more in 20 years. The U.S. portion of the market area makes up about 80 percent of the total.

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

There are many logistics hubs in the U.S. Midwest. They all potentially compete with the local region and take a share of the freight market. The market sizes and trucking commodity activities have been evaluated for these competing locations to measure the relative competitiveness of counties within the local region as supply hub locations. Figure 3.2 illustrates the 5-hour truck travel time areas covered by the local region and competing regions such as Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis and Toledo. As before, the 5-hour truck travel time areas are created based on FAF3 congested travel speed, so they represent markets that can be accessed in real-world conditions. Table 3.2 compares population market sizes and truck activities between these selected U.S. Midwest logistics hubs.

26

27

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Figure 3.1.1: Flint Truck Travel Time Buffers

28

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Figure 3.1.2: Port Huron Truck Travel Time Buffers

29

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Figure 3.1.3: Marlette Truck Travel Time Buffers

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Figure 3.2: 5-Hour Truck Travel Time Area Comparison

30

Table 3.2: Population within 5-Hour Truck Travel Time 2010 Population(1) (million)

2030 Population(2) (million)

(1,000 sq. miles)

U.S.

Canada

Total

U.S.

Canada

Total

7 County Region

108.0

25.3

6.6

31.9

27.0

8.0

35.1

Buffalo

128.2

21.8

6.9

28.7

22.3

8.4

30.7

Chicago

137.8

31.9

0.2

32.1

34.6

0.3

34.8

Cincinnati

130.7

24.2

0.0

24.2

26.0

0.0

26.0

Cleveland

125.3

28.9

5.5

34.4

30.3

6.7

37.0

Columbus

128.5

29.7

0.3

30.1

31.5

0.4

31.8

Indianapolis

161.1

35.0

0.0

35.0

38.4

0.0

38.4

Toledo

130.0

37.4

6.3

43.7

39.9

7.7

47.5

Center Locations

Buffer

Area

When comparing hub areas, Toledo has the largest population coverage (43.7 million in 2010 and 47.5 million in 2030) while its land area (130.0 thousand mile2) ranks fourth among eight because surrounding Midwest and southern Ontario population centers can be reached by driving fewer than five hours. Indianapolis and Cleveland rank second and third in terms of total population covered. The market of Indianapolis (35.0 million in 2010) is only of U.S. population, while Clevelandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population buffer area (34.4 million in 2010) is comprised of 5.5 million Canadian people. A total of 32.1 million people can be reached within a 5-hour truck drive of Chicago. Chicago is the favored choice of serving Midwestern and Western areas. The local region has moderate total population coverage (31.9 million in 2010 and 35.1 million in 2030) with the second largest Canadian market (6.6 million in 2010 and 8.0 million in 2030). It is likely to be a balanced hub for serving the Midwest, the Great Lakes and Canada.

Buffalo, Cincinnati and Columbus have relatively low total population coverage. However, Buffalo is able to cover most of southern Ontario, which provides it the largest Canadian market size (6.9 million in 2010 and 8.4 million in 2030).

As mentioned, a large portion of local regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commodity flows actually stay within the State of Michigan (34.7% of total tonnage and 23.2% of total value). Further evaluation of the region as the place to effectively serve the entire state of Michigan, shows promise. Figure 3.3 illustrates the current population center of Michigan is located in Shiawassee County. With the added advantages of excellent and uncongested east-west and north-south major highway access, the 7 County East Central Michigan region is an ideal location to serve the entire population of the state of Michigan.

Accessibility analysis shows tremendous potential for logistics facilities that would serve the Michigan market.

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

(1) Data is from 2010 US census and 2011 Canada Census. Canada portion only includes major cities.

(2) Projection is derived from US and Canada census data. Canada portion only includes major cities.

31

Figure 3.3: 2010 Population Center of Michigan

Prepared by the Corradino Group www.corradino.com

The Corradino Group bases its practices on an in-depth understanding of the professional disciplines associated with community and infrastructure development. Based on this foundation, each member of the firm makes a singular commitment toward understanding, analyzing, and solving the challenges that municipalities, agencies, and private sector clients face every day.

Corradino has provided services in more than 40 states around the country and currently maintains seven offices throughout the Midwest and southeastern United States. The firm has approximately 135 employees.

Corradino offers a full range of services which include: Program Management Engineering Design Environmental Services Planning Public-Private Partnerships Construction Engineering & Inspection Airport Planning & Engineering Public Engagement

I-69 Thumb Region: Freight Forecast Report

Established in 1970, The Corradino Group focuses on professionalism, responsiveness, and commitment. Every engineering, planning, infrastructure, and environmental project is approached with services to fit the clients' individual needs. Corradino is proud of its reputation as a "can-do" organization that provides clients with quality products on time and within budget.

www.corradino.com

32

APPENDIX D Michigan Freight Rail Movement

APPENDIX E Capacity Deficiency Maps

2014 CMP Deficiencies

15

Shiawassee14 15

North

58 - 100 (1)

142 - 150 (1) 157 - 185 (6)

Oak

Vassar

Henderson Gale

Oak

Vassar

10

Lippincott

Atlas

Bristol

State

Term

Atherton

Atherton

Perry

Vis ta

Irish

157 27

Green

SI 42

75 /D

Kipp

Ray

ixie

Ray

Main

Ho lly

D E F

Bottlenecks on NHS RITIS using NPMRDS/INRIX travel time data Top 25 Locations

Top 25 Crash Intersections MSP data 2013 - 2017 Crash Density

Washbur n

Vassar

Gale

McCandlish

Washburn

Hegel

Henderson

14

Coolidge

Washburn

Genesee

Vassar

5

Hill

Coolidge

Holly

Embury

3 17

Lippincott

Maple

Be lla

1

Washburn

Belsay

Center

Howe

10

I 69

Washburn

e/W Stat

Henderson

Court

h Reid Churc Bush

180

Washburn

Gale

Irish Covert

Vassar

Western

Averill

9/Be lsay

Davison

Flint

Davison

22

Porter

Reid

Washburn

Oak Gale

Vassar

Genesee

Center

Branch

Webster

Dort

Henderson

Gale Vassar

Belsay Dauner

Incidents on NHS RITIS using FHWA NPMRDS/INRIX and other datasets 10 - 50 (43)

Judd

McWain

15

West Adelaide Leroy East

SU S2 3

Linden

Owen

15 11

Eddy Lake

Long Lake

12

Hogan

Seymour

Lovejoy

Rolston

Silver Lake

Carpenter

2014 Capacity Deficiencies

Poplar

Bridge

Bird Lovejoy

ke

Duffield

Sheridan

Lillie

r La

James P Cole

Grand Traverse

16

23

Herrington

Silv e

ad Bro

Carpenter

Lapeer

41

11

Ray

Ray

N US

Rolston

Rolston

EI6

N I 475 S I 475

Cook

17

Lahring

Carpenter

Potter

E I 69/C enter

18 8

30

Jennings Jennings

Sha rp

23 Thompson

Coldwater

Perry

11

Jennings

Hogan Hogan

Morrish

Elm

Smith

Ray

Leith

Lippincott

183 38

Torrey

Jennings

Sharp

Beers

Seymour

Van Vleet

Lewis

Saginaw

Selby Industrial

Bou leva rd

Dupont

Van Slyke

Nichols

Nichols

Cook

Stanley

Belsay

Walter

Washington

Detroit

Linden

Dye

Elms Morrish

9

Reid

Ray

44

Mount Morris

Richfield

ort

Frances

te Sta

Ray

Franklin

Jennings

S I 75/S I 475

Mill

Seymour

Van Vleet

Hemphill

Baldwin

W al k er

E I 69/D

Oakley

26

38 22 185 Hill 12

Grand Blanc

Duffield

Sheridan

27 10

39

Maple

Maple

Reid

Cook

h 9t

ford Clif

6

Broadway

g

25 175 32

38

11

r erbe

Hill

ger len Bal 25 33

th 12 25

Carpenter

13

Wilson

Stanley

Robert T Longway ley ar s Ke

nd 1st 2 5th

m Ham

182

ley Brad

Miller/E I 69

39

20

Wood

3rd

24

ller Mi

Hamilto n

8th

Sun set

2 23

7

Bristol

39

44 16

in

Leith

9

E I 69

4 12

Coldwater

t Eas

Van Vleet

Flus hing

6 /I 75

Nichols

Ma ck

SI

Duffield

W elc h

Calkins

Bristol

La ns ing

Pasadena

Lennon

Stewart

Fleming

Morrish

Terrace McKinley

Ri ve r

Corunna

W I 69

37

son Ma

Calkins

Pierson

ai n M

Stanley

21

Austin

Home

19

McKinley

Beecher

S I 75

Coutant

12

20

Main

Frances

Mount Morris

15

M L King

Potter

Nichols

Carpenter

Main

Pierson

58

I

S io/ Cl

5 47

N I 75

Carpenter

Deland

Carpenter

Webster

Coldwater

Center

Neff Neff

Nichols

Duffield

37

Coldwater

Lake

Wilson

Frances

Frances

Clio

Frances

Mount Morris

Stanley

Bray

Mill

Jennings

Dodge

Fenton

Frances

Lake

Vienna

Dodge

Dodge

Lake

Willard

Neff

Tu sco la

Farrand

Lewis

Webster

12 45

Morrish

Saginaw

State

Wilson

Lake

Benson

Vienna

Farrand

Willard

Vassar

Tu sco la

Lake

Marshall

Nichols

Farrand

Sheridan

Willard

Clio

Marshall

Duffield

Lake

Willard 13

Vassar

Willard

McKinley

Nichols

Willard

Detroit Or en

Willard

2045 CMP Deficiencies

Jennings

Sha rp

Linden

Owen

15

14 15

North

58 - 100 (1)

142 - 150 (1) 157 - 185 (6)

Oak

Washburn

Gale

Irish

Henderson Lippincott

Genesee Old Genesee

Vassar

Atlas

Bristol

Vassar

Maple

Genesee

Perry

Coolidge

14

Coolidge

Ho lly

Washburn

5

Hill

1

SI 42

75 /D

Kipp

Ray

ixie

Ray

D E F

Bottlenecks on NHS RITIS using NPMRDS/INRIX travel time data Top 25 Locations

Top 25 Crash Intersections MSP data 2013 - 2017 Crash Density

Washburn

Irish

157 27

Green

Washbur n

Gale

McCandlish

Henderson

Hegel

3 17

Vassar

Embury

Washburn

Atherton

State

Atherton

Lippincott

Henderson

Oak

10

Washburn

10

Lapeer

Howe

Belsay

Court

Davison

Flint

Davison

Gale

Vassar

Covert

Center

Averill

h Reid Churc Bush

180

Washburn

Oak Gale

Vassar Vassar

Branch

22

Porter

Henderson

Gale Vassar

Vassar

Genesee

Center

Webster

Franklin

James P Cole

S I 475 Main

Incidents on NHS RITIS using FHWA NPMRDS/INRIX and other datasets 10 - 50 (43)

Center

Belsay Lewis

Selby Industrial

Dauner

Eddy Lake

12 14

15

West Adelaide Leroy East

15 11

Hogan

Seymour

Lovejoy

Silver Lake

Poplar

Bridge

Bird ke

Duffield

Sheridan

Lovejoy

ad Bro

Reid

Carpenter

2045 Capacity Deficiencies

3 S US 2

Lillie

r La

Judd

McWain

Jennings

Hogan Hogan

16

23

Herrington

Silv e

Carpenter

9/Be lsay

11

Ray

Ray

Rolston

EI6

41

8 18

30

Torrey

Jennings

Beers

11

N US

Rolston

Carpenter

Potter

E I 69/C enter

Lippincott

183 38

17

Lahring

Coldwater

Perry

Cook

23

Stanley

Stanley

Belsay

Walter

Saginaw

Detroit Or en

12

Jennings

Sharp

Van Vleet

Seymour

Morrish

Thompson

Rolston

44

ort

Frances

te Sta

Smith

Ray

Leith

N I 475

Linden

Nichols

Nichols

Cook

Baldwin

Ray

39

Oakley

25

38 22 185

Grand Blanc

Elm

26

Reid

Duffield

Sheridan

h 12t

27 10

E I 69/D

Wilson

Mount Morris

Richfield

Robert T Longway

Maple

Maple

Hill

W al k er

od wo en Gl

9

Broadway

ley ar s Ke

nd 1st 2 5th

Hemphill

6

38

11

8th

Main

Frances

Holly

175 32

25

13

Grand Traverse

142 25 33

Wood

Fenton

Morrish

7

Miller/E I 69

39

182

ller Mi

Reid

Ray

Washington

Detroit 20

Hamilto n

3rd

24

2 23

Austin

Van Slyke

44 16

in

Sun set

Ballenger

Elms

4 12

Bristol

39

Dupont

Flus hing

16

North

Jennings

Mill

Ma ck

21

Coldwater

Bou leva rd

S I 75

Terrace McKinley Seymour

Van Vleet Van Vleet

Nichols Duffield

W elc h

ai n M

Stanley

t Eas

E I 69

Stewart

ley Brad

La ns ing

Pasadena

Lennon

Bristol W I 69

37

Calkins

Corunna

Carpenter

Home

Ri ve r

Lake

Wilson

Mount Morris

20

son Ma

Calkins

Pierson

Lake

Frances

Frances

12

15

19

McKinley

Beecher

I

M L King

Potter

Nichols

Coutant

Main

Pierson

58

Carpenter

S io/ Cl

5 47

N I 75

Carpenter

Deland

Carpenter

Webster

Coldwater

Dye

Duffield

Coldwater

Cook

Bray

Neff

37

Stanley

Hill

Benson

Nichols

Neff

Clio

Frances

Willard

Neff

Tu sco la

Mill

Dodge

t Dor

Frances

Lake

Vienna

Dodge

Dodge

Mount Morris

Jennings

Wilson

Lewis

Webster

McKinley

Morrish

Saginaw

State 12 45

Lake

Farrand

Fleming

Vienna

Farrand

Willard

Vassar

Lake

Marshall

Farrand

Sheridan

Willard

Clio

Duffield

Lake

Willard 13

Tu sco la

Marshall

Nichols

Willard

Western

Willard

Willard

APPENDIX F Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study

SUMMARY

Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study

Prepared for:

Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission Prepared by:

The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. In association with:

Rowe Professional Services Company Cambridge Systematics February 2011

Final Report

Summary Introduction The concept of a Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study has evolved from the continuing thrust of the Partners for Progress Program to meet the challenges of economic revitalization. This study is timely, given the recent completion of the Genesee County Regional Transportation Plan and the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Added to that are the position of the region as the hub of three interstates, an international airport, and a variety of rail lines with an abundance of development/redevelopment opportunities. But, there are a number of connectivity problems that can cause frequent travel delays, confusion for vacationers, and other general economic impacts that lessen the attractiveness of the region.

The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) has recently been updated to serve as a blueprint for the development of land and transportation infrastructure that can attract to and keep businesses and residents in the county. Managing and maintaining the current infrastructure is high on the priority list, while adding lanes of highway is recognized as a challenge.

Nonetheless, an inventory of knowledgeable people in the public and private sectors indicates very few question a core objective of the Freight and Connectivity Study, i.e. to connect I-475 to U.S. 23.

To do so, a broad range of alternatives were evaluated. The planning process engaged the citizens who expressed their views of the relative importance of the critical issues by which the performance of the alternatives was measured. Such a technique has provided an opportunity for the community to help establish the basis of the choice of a preferred alternative if it is to go beyond doing nothing to address the I-475 to U.S. 23 connectivity issue.

Schedule and Public Involvement This study was guided by a Project Steering Committee, the members are listed on page 8. The Steering Committee met in advance of each round of public meetings and five other times during the year-long study. Each report developed for the project was delivered to the Steering Committee prior to each of its meetings at which the report contents were discussed in detail.

The community was also involved at key milestones, as discussed next and illustrated on the schedule.

Page S - 1

CORRADINO

Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study

CORRADINO

Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study Final Report

Evaluation Factors Each member of the Steering Committee attending the January meeting and those attending the public meetings on January 19th, 20th, and 21st was invited to indicate his/her personal preference (weight) for the importance of each evaluation factor by ranking and rating them. The evaluations of the Steering Committee, the participants at three public meetings, and the consultant established the importance of these factors. Each of these three independent weightings was used in the evaluation of the alternatives so it is clear how the public, the Steering Committee and the consultant staff view their performance.

Page S - 2

Evaluation Factor Weighting

Final Report

Alternatives Consistent with this information and a series of traffic analyses, alternatives were developed. It should be noted in developing the alternatives, it was important to focus on the projection in the LRTP that the employment gain in all of Genesee County over the next 25+ years is 24,000 jobs. It was also noted that a medical campus is planned at and around the Genesys Regional Medical Center. By 2020, the number of jobs at this location is forecast at 6,000+. The jobs throughout the region that support the direct employment at the campus are projected to be 15,000. So, serving the proposed medical campus through improvements that result from this study has significant jobs potential.

Concept of Medical Campus

A dozen alternatives were developed. Except for Alternative 5, all include proposed connection of I-475 to U.S. 23. All include a number of local road improvements. Some include widening of U.S. 23 and/or M-15.

Makeup of Alternatives Alternative

Connector

U.S. 23

M-15

Local

1 1A 1B 2 3 3A 3B 3C 3D 4 4A 5

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No No No

No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Page S - 3

CORRADINO

Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study

Final Report

Evaluation of Alternatives The alternatives were evaluated using the factors shown on page 3. The results indicated that Alternatives 3, 3A and 3B were the best performers. Through collaboration with the project's Steering Committee, the Preferred Alternative was developed and is shown below. Extending Dort Highway over I-75 south to Baldwin Road and improving the Holly Road interchange with I-75 are part of the connector system. Documentation of this work and supporting data can be found in the report entitled â&#x20AC;&#x153;Evaluation of Alternativesâ&#x20AC;? located on the Web site (www.geneseeconnect.org).

Preferred Alternative

Page S - 4

CORRADINO

Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study

Final Report

Localized Road Improvements

Localized Improvements in the Preferred Alternative

Eight localized improvements of the Preferred Alternative are shown on the right.

Plan Implementation All projects have been proposed for implementation to address the practical availability of funding reflecting the pace of the recovery from the “Great Recession.” Construction of the first projects is proposed to begin in 2015; design and environmental clearance must precede construction.

The extension of Dort Highway over I-75 to Baldwin Road is contemplated to begin in 2015.

This will support the medical campus plan from the outset. The property on which the Dort extension is to be built may be dedicated at no cost by the Genesys Health System.

To add further support to the proposed medical campus development, Baldwin Road would be widened from the Dort Highway extension to Holly Road. Baldwin would become a boulevard. The concept in this study is for a “wide” boulevard with a right-of-way of 180 feet which can handle turns by the largest trucks. A narrow boulevard with a 120-foot right-of-way is an option to consider as the study's recommendations are implemented. Another project to support medical campus development is improving the Holly Road/I-75 interchange to eliminate congestion caused by turning vehicles that cannot be accommodated by the interchange's current configuration.

Concept of Baldwin Boulevard

Page S - 5

CORRADINO

Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study

Final Report Staging of Connector and Related Improvements Assuming the medical campus gets off to a successful start, then Baldwin Road would be improved to a boulevard from the Dort Extension to the east. A new interchange would be built to connect Baldwin to U.S. 23. This connection is expected to be made in the 2020 to 2024 timeframe. By completing this much of the Preferred Plan, the most cost-effective core element of any alternative analyzed in this study would be in place.

Because future funding for transportation is expected to be limited for some time, the section of the U.S. 23-to-I-475 connector from Baldwin Road to Cook Road is proposed to occur in the 2025-2029 timeframe. The last section of the connector, from Cook Road to I-475, including a significantly modified interchange, would then follow in the period between 2030 and 2035. Without doubt, additional analyses, including updates, of the Genesee County Long Range Transportation Plan will be completed before the Connector begins to reconfirm its need. Likewise the need to widen U.S. 23 and M-15 should be re-examined.

Costs, Funding and Proposed Implementation The overall cost of the Preferred Alternative (in 2010 dollars) is $272.5 million (refer to Table 7-1).

(Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix D.) The cost by phase is:

Phase A/2015 through 2019 Phase B/2020 through 2024 Phase C/2025 through 2029 Phase D/2030 and beyond Total

$61.5 million $37.0 million $68.0 million $106.0 million $272.5 million

The localized improvements are projected to cost $27.5 million (refer to Table 7-1).

The Dort Highway extension is expected to cost $24 million, if land for it is not provided, cost-free,

by Genesys. Widening Baldwin from the Dort Highway extension to Holly Road is estimated to cost $9 million. The Holly Road/I-75 interchange is projected to cost $13 million. The cost of the Baldwin Boulevard and interchange with U.S. 23 is estimated at $29 million. The connector from Baldwin to I-475 would cost $170 million. It is noteworthy that widening Baldwin Road and improvements to the Holly Road/I-75 interchange are already part of the county’s Long Range Transportation Plan. (So are the Bristol Road (EB)/I-75 (NB) interchange and the M-21/I-75 interchange improvements). Therefore, the cost of these improvements ($64 million calculated for this study) is not an addition to the commitments already made and approved by local and federal authorities. Possible funding sources are:

Private sources (railroads, investors in proposed medical campus) Genesee County Road Commission

Page S - 6

CORRADINO

Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study

CORRADINO

Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study Final Report

Federal Highway Administration Michigan Department of Transportation Michigan Economic Development Corporation City of Flint Townships

Efforts will be made to secure the needed financial resources from these and other sources as they may develop.

Other Steps It is important to recognize that steps should be taken to ensure land use and zoning decisions in proximity to the I-475-to-U.S. 23 connector maintain the quality of life of the area. Currently, much of the vacant property along the proposed path of the connector is in agricultural use. To ensure this property is not permitted to be used in manners that would block the connector physically or financially, proper land use/zoning controls are needed.

The character along Baldwin Road should be protected by maintaining the large-lot residential pattern while being cognizant of the nearby development of the medical campus.

Current Conditions

Possible Baldwin Road Area Land Use Trends in the Future

Conclusion

Page S - 7

The results of the Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study complement the work documented in the Long Range Transportation Plan and the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. The Genesys Health System was part of the community leadership that produced all three projects. Now, Genesys has proposed developing a medical campus at and around its regional medical center. This proposal has significant merit. It is forecast that by 2020 this project would create more than 6,000 jobs directly on site and another 15,000 support jobs throughout the region, mostly in Genesee County. The medical campus is in the study “subarea” served by the proposed I-475-to-U.S. 23 connector, which has elements to tie into the medical campus area. Additionally, construction of this study's recommendations is expected to create 600 to 700 jobs each year for as many as 15 years. And, this doesn't include the construction jobs associated with the medical campus.

Final Report As noted earlier, construction of the Freight and Connectivity Study recommendations are projected to begin in 2015 (advance environmental and design work would precede this) recognizing that the funding sources to embark on the program at the federal, state and local levels will not be adequate until the current recession is over. The staging of all projects in the plan covers 20 years.

But, the work beyond the first phase (2015 to 2019) will depend on the medical campus demonstrating that its full potential will be met.

Page S - 8

CORRADINO

Genesee County Freight and Connectivity Study

APPENDIX G 2017 Freeway Congestion & Reliability Report: Bay Region

EXCERPT COPIED FROM THE IDENTIFIED MDOT REPORT FOR USE IN THE GENESEE COUNTY CMP

EXCERPT COPIED FROM THE IDENTIFIED MDOT REPORT FOR USE IN THE GENESEE COUNTY CMP

APPENDIX H Average Daily Long‐Haul Truck Traffic on the National Highway System: 2015