Regional 2040 Transportation Plan - First Draft by tricoplanning

REGIONAL

2040 TRANSPORTATION PLAN

T F

A R

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission CLINTON • EATON • INGHAM

MICHIGAN

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... II CHAPTER 1............................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction to this Plan Document ....................................................................................................................... 1 Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, a Metropolitan Planning Organization................................................ 1 Federal and State Transportation Policy ................................................................................................................ 4 State and Regional Planning .................................................................................................................................. 5 Sustainability and Transportation Planning ........................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2............................................................................................................................................... 9 Long Range Plan Development & Update Process.................................................................................................. 9 Public Involvement Process ................................................................................................................................... 9 Consultation Process ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Steps in Long Range Plan Development ............................................................................................................... 13 Perform a Needs Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 13 Establish a funding plan ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Goals & Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Applications of Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER 3............................................................................................................................................. 18 Overview of Existing Transportation Services ...................................................................................................... 18 Roadway Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 18 Public Transportation .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Taxi & Limousine Service ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Rail Service .......................................................................................................................................................... 25 Airports ............................................................................................................................................................... 26 Other Modes ....................................................................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 4............................................................................................................................................. 30 11-1

Socioeconomic Variables ..................................................................................................................................... 30 Alternate Land Use Scenarios .............................................................................................................................. 30 Countywide Population and Employment Control Totals ..................................................................................... 30 Base Year Control Totals ...................................................................................................................................... 31 Trend Countywide Forecasts ................................................................................................................................ 31 Wise Growth Countywide Forecasts .................................................................................................................... 32 Adopted Forecasts and Methodology .................................................................................................................. 36 Countywide to MCD Allocation ............................................................................................................................ 36 MCD to TAZ Allocation ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Other Socioeconomic Variables ........................................................................................................................... 43 Travel Demand Model Development ................................................................................................................... 44 Highway Network Development .......................................................................................................................... 44 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) ................................................................................................................................ 45 Socioeconomic Data Development ...................................................................................................................... 45 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................................... 46 Trip Distribution .................................................................................................................................................. 47 Time of Day Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 48 Mode Choice........................................................................................................................................................ 48 Vehicle Occupancy Factors................................................................................................................................... 49 Trip Assignment ................................................................................................................................................... 50 Model Calibration ................................................................................................................................................ 50 Screenline/Cutline Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 51 Deficiency Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 53 Travel Demand Model Inputs .............................................................................................................................. 54 Future Year Capacity Deficiencies ........................................................................................................................ 56 Revised Network Alternatives Analysis ................................................................................................................ 63 Transit Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................. 63 Model Highway Networks ................................................................................................................................... 67 Demand Reduction Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 72

11-2

Summary of Network Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 73 Network Alternate Analysis Results ..................................................................................................................... 75 Alternatives Analysis Results ............................................................................................................................... 82 Other System Deficiencies ................................................................................................................................... 83 Safety and Operational Deficiencies .................................................................................................................... 83 Pavement Deficiencies ......................................................................................................................................... 84 System Continuity Deficiencies ............................................................................................................................ 84 Economic Development/Access ........................................................................................................................... 85 Other Transportation System Considerations ...................................................................................................... 85 Intermodal Planning Issues in our region ............................................................................................................. 85 Public Transportation Element ............................................................................................................................ 90 Michigan/Grand River Transit/Transportation Study ........................................................................................... 91 Parking Element................................................................................................................................................... 94 Regional ITS Architecture and DeploymentPlan .................................................................................................... 94 Regional Non-Motorized System Plan .................................................................................................................. 95

CHAPTER 5.......................................................................................................................................... 101 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 101 Transportation Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................ 101 Cooperative Revenue Forecasting ...................................................................................................................... 101 Highway Funding Forecast—Federal .................................................................................................................. 102 Highway Funding Forecast—State Funding ........................................................................................................ 104 Highway Funding Forecast—Transportation Economic Development Fund ....................................................... 105 Highway Funding Forecast—Local Funding ........................................................................................................ 106 Discussion of Innovative Financing Strategies--Highway .................................................................................... 107 Highway Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................................................. 108 Highway Commitments and Projected Available Revenue ................................................................................. 109 Transit Financial Forecast—Federal ................................................................................................................... 110 Transit Financial Forecast—State ....................................................................................................................... 111

11-3

Transit Financial Forecastâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Local ....................................................................................................................... 112 Transit Capital and Operations .......................................................................................................................... 113 Transit Commitments and Projected Available Revenue ................................................................................... 114 MDOT Projected Available Revenue .................................................................................................................. 114 Analysis of Funding and Needs .......................................................................................................................... 115

CHAPTER 6.......................................................................................................................................... 117 The 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan of Projects ....................................................................................... 117 Capital Region Airport Authority Ten-Year Capital Improvement Program for the Capital Region International Airport and the Mason Jewett Airport ............................................................................................................... 140

CHAPTER 7.......................................................................................................................................... 142 Environmental Impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 142 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................................................ 142 Public Participation Summary: Engagement ...................................................................................................... 142 Environmental Mitigation .................................................................................................................................. 149 Air Quality Constraints and Conformity for Tri-County Region ........................................................................... 150 Lakes, Streams and Drains ................................................................................................................................. 152 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................................... 153 Flood Zones ....................................................................................................................................................... 154 Wellhead Protection .......................................................................................................................................... 154 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Sites .............................................................................................. 154 Woodlands ........................................................................................................................................................ 154 Agricultural Lands Preservation and Part 361 Lands .......................................................................................... 154 Parks and Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 155 Historic and/or Archeological Sites .................................................................................................................... 155 Cemeteries ........................................................................................................................................................ 155 Social, Cultural and Economic (SCE) Effects ........................................................................................................ 156 Demographic Analyses....................................................................................................................................... 156 Aethetics and Community Placemaking ............................................................................................................. 156 Safety and Emergency Response ....................................................................................................................... 156

11-4

Business, Employment, and Tax Base ................................................................................................................ 157 Mobility and Access ........................................................................................................................................... 157 Land Use and Relocation Effects ........................................................................................................................ 157 Endangered Species and Unique Habitat ........................................................................................................... 157 Greenways ......................................................................................................................................................... 158 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 158

CHAPTER 8.......................................................................................................................................... 164 Next Steps and Other Programs ......................................................................................................................... 164 Plan Implementation and Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 165

APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................ 166 Glossary of Terms .............................................................................................................................................. 166 List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... 179 Table of Tables................................................................................................................................................... 180 Table of Maps .................................................................................................................................................... 182 Table of Figures ................................................................................................................................................. 183

APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................................................ 184 Project Maps, see Chapter 6 .............................................................................................................................. 184

APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................................................ 192 APPENDIX D........................................................................................................................................ 193 APPENDIX E ........................................................................................................................................ 194 Data for Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................................. 194 Socioeconomic Variables Tables- ....................................................................................................................... 194 Deficiency Analysis- data for Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................... 205 Alternatives Analysis Line Graphs ................................................................................................................ 235

11-5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

“TRANSPORTATION IS THE CENTER OF OUR WORLD! IT IS THE GLUE OF OUR DAILY LIVES. WHEN IT GOES WELL, WE DON’T SEE IT. WHEN IT GOES WRONG, IT NEGATIVELY COLORS OUR DAY, MAKES US FEEL ANGRY AND IMPOTENT, CURTAILS OUR RESPONSIBILTIES.” - ROBIN CHASE

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to this Plan Document This document is the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan for Michigan’s Capital Region, the tri-county area that includes the City of Lansing and Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties. In Chapter 2, this document offers a brief overview of our region’s public involvement in transportation planning and summarizes our regionally agreed upon goals and objectives for regional transportation. In Chapter 3, it describes our region’s transportation assets. Chapter 4 discusses transportation modelling and analyses of the deficiencies in our region’s transportation network. In Chapter 5, we provide a Financial Plan for federally funded and regionally significant surface transportation programs in our region from 2014 through 2040. Chapter 6 offers lists of the federally funded transportation projects we anticipate completing in their region by 2040. This chapter does include the projects we have programmed to occur in the next three years, the short range plan or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Chapter 7 provides discussion and analyses of the potential impacts of our transportation projects on the environment, both human and natural. Chapter 8 offers a summary of the key points in this long range transportation plan. Chapter 8 also includes a discussion of next steps and implementation of the federally funded state and local roads programs. A glossary of terms and a list of the acronyms commonly used in transportation planning and throughout this document are provided in the Appendix.

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, a Metropolitan Planning Organization A Short History of Tri-County Regional Transportation Planning The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) had its origin in the Greater Lansing Chamber of Commerce’s Highway Committee. Coordination was a major issue for highway and road development in the greater Lansing area. In July 1956, the Boards of Supervisors of Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties each adopted a resolution forming the TCRPC under Public Act 281 of 1945, the Regional Planning Commission Act. Then in 1968, they expanded their membership to include the City of Lansing. The region identified a need to integrate transit into our transportation network plans, so in 1992 they expanded the TCRPC Board to include representatives of transit. They also established a voting seat for the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). Today, the TCRPC is a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the tri-county region and is directed by a 19 member board of elected and appointed officials, the “commissioners.” TCRPC first developed a regional comprehensive plan to guide and coordinate regional growth. A strong element in that plan was linking land use and transportation. In 1968, the TCRPC adopted “The House We Live In: A Comprehensive Growth Plan” as a guide for future regional growth. The region’s first transportation plan, the “Street and Highway Plan,” was completed in 1973 and updated in 1981. In 1973, the Governor designated TCRPC as the MPO responsible for fulfilling all federal transportation planning requirements in the Lansing-East Lansing Metropolitan Area and throughout Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties. A regional transit study was adopted by the TCRPC in 1978 as The Long Range Public Transportation Plan. Many transportation corridor and other technical studies were completed during this period to provide detailed analysis for the TIP needed for state and federal funding.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

The current policy structure for developing transportation plans for the capital region has been in place since January 1993 when TCRPC restructured to include transportation providers on the MPO policy board. Today, the three county road agencies, two transit authorities and the MDOT hold voting seats on the MPO policy level board. This structure conformed to the intent of federal law then. Now, the policy board structure that includes transit providers, meets requirements of recent federal transportation legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). In 2003, the region completed a four year project to compile and examine extensive data, collect input significant public participation, and conduct a multi-phased land use scenario analysis and regional visioning. The result, Regional Growth: Choices for our Future was a vision for growth and guiding principles for development that were formally adopted by 75 local jurisdictions. That regional planning framework formed the basis for future planning. The data set reasonable standards for our region’s population and employment allocations, modeling of scenarios, network alternatives, and for the adopted plan network alternatives and its transportation improvements. The Regional 2025 Transportation Plan was adopted in March 2003 to include this region’s agreed upon regional themes and principles. The principles of land use and development were all re-considered and subsequently readopted in both the Regional 2030 and Regional 2035 Transportation Plans (October 2005 and January 2010 respectively). The Wise Growth Land Use Scenario adopted in 2004, and displayed here, is reviewed and discussed regularly. It continues to serve as a basis and guide for our long range transportation plans.

Background of the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan The Regional 2040 Transportation Plan is a comprehensive set of strategies aimed at improving the livability, sustainability, prosperity, and diversity of the Lansing Tri-County Region of Mid-Michigan through investments in all modes of transportation and in close coordination with land use planning and economic development. In our region, we continue to strive for realistic and effective transportation plans that are integrated with other plans for our regional community.

Roadway Planning Roadways are the most visible and productive component of our national, state, and regional transportation infrastructure. The Greater Lansing Region benefits from easy access to a number of major U.S. Interstates and Michigan highways including I96 and I69, US-127, and I-496. I-69 is part of the international trade corridor connecting commerce to Canada. However, those facilities demand constant monitoring, maintenance, and management to ensure an acceptable level of service for a growing region.

Transit Planning Public transportation in the United States is a crucial part of the solution to the nation's economic, energy, and environmental challenges – helping to bring a better quality of life. Statistics for our region demonstrate that fewer people are buying cars and in increasing numbers, people are using public transportation. Local communities are attempting to fund expanded public transit services. Every segment of American society – individuals, families, communities, and businesses – benefits from public transportation. Major initiatives are underway in Mid-Michigan to take advantage of those benefits.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Walking and bicycling are important non-motorized modes of travel in our region. Everyone is a pedestrian, and people make pedestrian trips on a daily basis for recreation, for health, and to get to and from work, school, or shopping. Walking and Bicycling provide great forms of exercise and in the Mid-Michigan area there is a growing movement to recognize and support bicycling as an inexpensive, quick and eco-friendly form of travel. Our region continues to work closely with the region’s bike/walk advocacy groups including Bike-Walk Lansing, the Non-Motorized Task Force, and a group of local residents who established a Bike Share program in Lansing. We work closely with the region’s Land Use Health Resource Team, a group of public health officials and land use planners concerned with sustainable, integrated planning. And, we coordinate our efforts with the interests and support of the State of Michigan and the Federal government to ensure that walking and bicycling are viable transportation options in our region.

Freight Movement Planning The Lansing Region, with its central Lower Peninsula location in Michigan, occupies a strategic location for freight movement around and through Michigan as well as on to international markets through Canada. Despite our location far from the Great Lakes, Mid-Michigan is at a nexus of major highways and rail routes. And, our Capital Region International Airport is a designated foreign trade zone and port of entry. These assets come with a share of challenges too. We need to address the interconnectivity, age, and quality of our transportation infrastructure in a holistic way that recognizes the needs of freight and commercial movements.

Land Use & Urban Design The tri-county region maintains a significant regional planning framework, Regional Growth: Choices for our Future which continues to guide planning and development decisions in our region since it was developed and adopted by 75 local jurisdictions here in 2004. In 2012, this region began to expand and continue that planning framework with the Mid-Michigan Program for Greater Sustainability (MMPGS). Our Wise Growth Scenario steers new development and redevelopment into the region’s existing urbanized area with growth planning and sustainable development policies.

Plan Area The geographic area in Mid-Michigan that includes Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties with the Cities of Lansing and East Lansing at the center, has always been the TCRPC transportation planning area. In February 1993, the TCRPC/MPO designated the entire three-county region as the Metropolitan Area Boundary (MAB) under federal requirements (see Map 1-2). The 2010 census expanded the urban boundary to include small portions of Shiawassee County along a strip of Woodbury Road in Woodhull Township, on the region’s northeast border. The Lansing MAB includes the 78 separate units of government within that boundary: 27 cities and villages, 48 townships and three counties. In 2013, in coordination with the state and federal agencies, the tri-county region’s MAB was reviewed and slightly adjusted to reflect population density changes identified in the 2010 Census. This designation is important in programming federal funds, coordinating planning and determining consistency with air quality rules. The region is 1,714.7 square miles in area, has a population of 464,036 (Census 2010), a median age of 34.4, an average household size of 2.4 and a median family income of $50,185 (American Community Survey of the US Census 5-Year estimates).

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 1-1 Urbanized Area Boundary

Federal and State Transportation Policy Coordination of the Michigan Capital Region Transportation Plan with MAP-21 This plan is being developed consistent with statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes as governed by Federal law (23 USC 134 and 135). Federal planning regulations are codified in 23 CFR 450. And, an important consideration in developing this regional transportation plan is compliance with the national goals set forth in MAP-21. The federal legislation was signed into law in 2012 and authorized and funds the federal surface transportation programs. Map 21 is significant in that it requires transportation plans, both long term and short term, to be developed with a performance based approach to support national goals. The legislation enables national goals in the areas of Safety, Infrastructure Condition, Congestion Reduction, System Reliability, Freight Movement, Economic Vitality, and Environmental Sustainability, and Reduced Project Delivery Delays.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is responsible for developing performance measures in consultation with the states. The legislation also requires states to develop performance targets with the MPOs and transit operators. Targets will be used to track progress towards attainment of critical performance outcomes for the MPO region, and MPO’s may adopt locally defined performance measures and targets. During our development of this long range plan, our federal and state DOT’s began developing performance measures and targets. However, they were not released in time for this Plan development process. Clearly it is important to address performance based planning and performance targets in transportation planning. This plan was prepared consistent with the regulations currently in effect, but with knowledge of proposed changes which are not yet finalized. The TCRPC has used a performance based approach to long term transportation planning since the 1990s. An overview of our measures and targets is included in this document. While they may vary some from the targets and measures being released now, we are fully committed to participating with our state and federal partners to establish targets. Since this plan, will be adopted before the rules and regulations regarding all performance measures are finalized by USDOT, and before targets are established by MDOT and local transit providers, there will likely need to be revisions to this plan to make it consistent with these new requirements when they are finalized. If the process results in changes required for this plan, we will incorporate them into our Long Range Plan by amendment.

Planning Factors This Regional 2040 Transportation Plan considers the following planning factors in accord with MAP-21.  Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency.  Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.  Increase security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.  Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight.  Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns.  Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight.  Promote efficient system management and operations.  Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

State and Regional Planning How this Plan relates to the State Long Range Plan and other adopted plans The current multi-modal State Long Range Plan (SLRP) provides a framework for investment in Michigan’s transportation system. It emphasizes that investment in the transportation system must not only preserve it, but make sure it operates efficiently, effectively and safely. MDOT recognizes effective transportation planning requires a partnership of federal, state, regional and local governments working together. This plan, like MDOT’S, also relies on partnerships between governments at all levels and the private sector to achieve the plan’s goals. Decisions made at the regional and local level concerning land use and development have a major impact on our transportation system.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

The contents of this plan were developed with the participation and counsel of the planners at the regional offices of the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), the Federal Transit Authority (FTA), as well as the staff at the MDOT. Our regional long range plans for investment in our transportation network are, like the state of Michigan, focused on preservation and operation of the existing network. As our region, along with the rest of the state, continues to climb out of a long and deep economic recession, we focus on directing our limited local funds toward leveraging state and federal funds. For this document, our long range planning horizon of 2040 is in keeping with federal requirements. The specificity of our project plans for the state trunklines through our region is limited to the State of Michigan’s planning horizon. Similarly, the details of regional transit plans are tied to the FTA and MDOT plans.

Sustainability and Transportation Planning The Planning Process and Organization TCRPC and MDOT executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) defining roles of the state, MPO’s and federal funding agencies in completing federally required transportation planning and programming responsibilities. This planning process OU called for establishing local and statewide transportation goals and objectives, developing statewide revenue assessments, identifying evaluation tools for needs assessment, identifying project categories and a program structure which prioritizes project categories based on local revenue forecasts developed cooperatively by the state, MPO and local public transit agencies. A flow diagram of this planning process is shown in the following figure. The area’s three public transit providers are also formally committed the same planning process. The MOU was jointly adopted and most recently renewed in 2014. TCRPC developed this Regional 2040 Transportation Plan in cooperation with and the support of transportation providers, planners and local officials as well as residents, businesses and community and neighborhood groups region-wide. TCRPC’s advisory committee structure includes the Capital Area Regional Transportation Study (CARTS) Technical Advisory Committee, some work groups focused on specific plan elements, and the Transportation Review Committee (TRC) of the Commissioners, and the full Commission. A Model Calibration Steering Committee of state, federal, and local technical experts provided guidance and oversight over the transportation modeling done for this Plan.

Goals and Objectives of this Plan The goals and objectives in this plan reflect a substantial and long term public input and consensus building process which reflects current community attitudes. Our region’s goals and objectives for this 2040 plan were developed and approved through public input and public meetings during over the past year. They are specified in Chapter 2. They were based upon the goals and objectives of our regional planning framework had been adopted into our 2025 and 2035 Long Range Transportation Plans. The region’s adopted regional land use policy map is shown in our growth policy map. The map and its associated 29 growth planning principles, land use goals, and objectives are found in the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” summary Report at www.mitcrpc.org. It is our formally adopted regional planning vision and framework.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Figure 1-1 MPO Forum Transportation Plan Development Process

Source: Michiganâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s FY 2014-2017 State Transportation Improvement Program, Appendix

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 1-2 Metropolitan Area Boundary: TCRPC Regional 2040 Transportation Plan Area (Tri-County Region and Portion of Shiawassee Co.)

Map 1-3 Adopted Regional Land Use Policy Map

Figure 1-2 TCRPC Coordination of Commission, Committees and Task Forces

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

“STATES GET TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE; THAT CREATES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUTS PEOPLE BACK TO WORK AND, MOST IMPORTANT, ENHANCES SAFETY AND IMPROVES LOCAL COMMUNITIES.” - CORRINE BROWN

CHAPTER 2 Long Range Plan Development & Update Process Public Involvement Process Public Involvement is a fundamental component of effective transportation planning, project development, and implementation. We use technical analyses to suggest transportation projects. We need public input to more fully understand and assess potential impacts from possible transportation projects. We invite and facilitate early and continuing public involvement from transportation agencies, governmental offices, topic experts, stakeholders and the general public to make us aware of potential issues, problems and impacts. The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) development is a tool and a process that identifies transportation needs and prioritizes investments in solutions. The TCRPC is committed to a clear, accessible, and open public process in developing and renewing our region’s transportation plans. TCRPC’s nationally recognized best practices in public participation are broad, varied, ongoing, continuous, cumulative and flexible. Each update to the Plan builds on earlier efforts and applies or adapts tested techniques in this document. TCRPC is committed to providing multiple opportunities and methods for participation and always provides a high level of outreach to target participation by different groups using different methods. TCRPC is proactive, provides full notice, full public access, supports early and continuing involvement, and followed all of these guidelines throughout the development of the 2040 LRTP. The TCRPC has a long history of proactively involving the public in transportation planning. It could be argued that this Regional 2040 Transportation Plan has involved the public in its development continuously for more than 25 years. Beginning with its scenario-based planning initiatives in 1989, called Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future, TCRPC initiated Town Hall Forums throughout the region that involved hundreds of residents. Together they identified issues common across the region and identified a set of principles to guide growth and development. In addition, they specified regional transportation goals and objectives. We adopted those goals and objectives in the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan. We reevaluated and adopted those Transportation plan goals and objectives with only minor revisions in the Regional 2030 Transportation Plan and again in the Regional 2035 Plan. During 2013-14, we reviewed and reconsidered those goals and objectives and integrated them with other significant planning initiatives in our region, particularly our regional sustainable planning activities, called the Mid-Michigan Program for Greater Sustainability, funded by a grant from U.S. Housing and Urban development’s sustainable communities planning program. The Tri-County region’s 2014 Long Range Transportation Goals and Objectives are discussed later in this document. The TCRPC Public Participation Plan guides and describes our public involvement practices and procedures. TCRPC completely revised and updated the Public Participation Plan in 2013 to reflect the opportunities and practices of electronic communications and social media. Also, in 2014, the Commission reviewed and edited it to reflect MAP-21 guides and to clarify and add specificity to the document. So, the Public Participation Plan document was re-adopted in August 2014, following another public comment period. The Commission also revised and adopted a completely updated Title VI and Limited English Proficiency Plan in 2013. The Commission’s practices and procedures reflect its goals of transparency and soliciting and encouraging full community participation in planning for our region. We comply with and regularly exceed the requirements of all federal and state requirements including Title

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, the Department of Transportation Order on Environmental Justice and other applicable policies. TCRPC creates and facilitates active involvement in transportation planning for our region. We also offer and maintain passive, accessible information about transportation plans. We applied all of these public involvement processes and techniques in the development of this 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. The following is an overview of our participation processes. Chapter 6 of this plan includes our list of transportation projects. The projects and their proposed year of construction reflect the Goals and Objectives set by and with our region for our transportation network.

Public Participation through Meetings Every month, TCRPC hosts and facilitates meetings of transportation advisory committees that are open and accessible to the public. This year, we undertook development of the Long Range Transportation Plan with these groups and their meetings provided regular forums for discussion and recommendations regarding the LRTP Goals and Objectives, project lists, and funding priorities. The Capital Area Regional Transportation Study (CARTS) and the Transportation Review Committee, a subcommittee of the Commissioners, meet on the first Tuesdays at 9:30 a.m. or the second Wednesdays at 3 p.m. respectively. The Rural Task Force, the Model Calibration Committee, and the Non-Motorized Task Force all met two to three times a year. These meetings were well attended during the past year by local transportation agency staff, by Michigan Department of Transportation staff, by regional staff from FHWA, and by various representatives of local transportation advocacy groups, such as the Active Transportation Coalition and the Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council. During June of 2014, and then again in September 2014, TCRPC hosted and facilitated sets of three to four public town hall style forums across the tri-county region. The events’ purpose was to collect direction and solicit comments and opinions about transportation needs, issues, and priorities in our region. The agendas for the events were similar and are shown below. -

Welcome by a local elected official or community leader; Overview of the agenda and introduction of the Long Range Plan process; An overview of transportation technical topics and data for our region; Small group or table top discussions with topics or questions; Anonymous keypad voting on issues and items including draft long range transportation goals and objectives, on project priorities, and on regional transportation objectives. Participants were given survey forms to complete and return and they were invited to circulate through displays and maps at tables throughout a room, stopping to comment, draw on, or write their ideas on the map, and to “vote” for their high priority projects and goals or objectives.

The meetings were held in different venues, in all three counties, in rural urban and suburban locations, and at different times of the day- morning, mid-day, evening. meetings in the urbanized area were all accessible by public transit. In June 2014, public meetings were held at the East Lansing Hannah Community Center in the central urban area, at Delhi Township Hall just south of the urban core, and in St. Johns, the county seat of our mostly rural Clinton county. In September, we hosted events in Delta Township on west side of the region’s central core urban area, at the Lansing Center in the central core urban area, in Bath Township, on the suburban-rural fringe, and in the Ingham County’s rural seat, Mason. Formal notices were published in our regional newspaper; flyers were mailed and emailed to all local municipal offices, to transportation providers, to citizen advocates, and to the TCRPC’s extensive contacts list of citizens, community and municipal leaders, and local elected officials. The events were Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

promoted on our website, in our newsletter, and were shared and endorsed by advocacy groups including the MidMEAC, the Heart of Michigan Trails and Greenways Alliance, and Disability Advocates, Inc. who all encouraged their constituents and members to participate. The full Commission is a board of 19 elected and appointed officials that includes commissioners from all three counties, road commission and transportation department/agency officials from all three counties, and an MDOT representative. At their publicly posted and noticed monthly meetings, 7:00 pm on the fourth Wednesdays they discuss and consider amendments to the TIP and the 2035 Long Range Plan. As a normal course, the Commission’s public meetings are a forum to discuss and receive comment about our regional transportation needs, the regional network, and plans for the future development and maintenance of the network. They received comments, suggestions and reactions to the LRTP goals and objectives, and priorities during their meetings in 2014. They considered and adopted base year population and socio-economic data and projections for the Long Range Plan development. Further, during 2013-14 public meetings, the TCRPC Commissioners explored transportation issues of regional concern. The Commission invited presentations and held discussion about the region’s economic conditions and economic development initiatives. They learned from guest speakers with rail and air cargo specialties. They hosted presentations and a panel discussion on transit services by the regions three public transit providers and discussed intercity bus services with a private provider and the state transit services division. They participated in parts of an environmental review of a proposed Bus Rapid Transit system in our region, a project which was designated as a “preferred alternative” in our last long range plan and was accepted into the FTA Small Starts program for federal support. Smart Growth America provided the Commission an analysis and report on non-emergency medical transportation issues, needs, and opportunities. The Capital City International Airport offered an overview of the Lansing International Port and a recently established free-trade zone at the airport. The Airport Authority and Michigan State University’s planning department both described their recently updated master land use plans to the Commission and discussed how transportation elements their relate to the regional transportation network. These public information and discussion sessions were an important step in planning for the region’s long term transportation.

Public Participation through Electronic and Informational Media In addition to the meetings, TCRPC posted an interactive display of the regional goals on our website and invited the public to review and submit comments or changes. Further, we proposed the Goals as discussion questions and placed them on our crowd-sourcing MindMixer site, inviting votes on them. We posted, these events and opportunities on our Facebook page and emailed, sent and distributed invitations in the form of flyers at public meetings and work groups including the regional economic developers group (Lansing Economic Area Partnership), environmental protection committee meetings of the Middle Grand River Organization of Watersheds, the Greater Lansing Committee for Storm water Management, the Groundwater Management Board, and the Greater Lansing Area Clean Cities Coalition. TCRPC’s easy to understand website, www.mitcrpc.org has a front page that is regularly updated with current stories, opportunities, and information relevant to planning the Tri-county region. The website offers information about the TCRPC, its board of directors, and our programs and activities in Environmental Protection Planning, Economic Development Planning, and Land Use Planning for the Greater Lansing mid-Michigan region. On the website, the Transportation tab has direct links to key documents and data about transportation plans in our region. The most current approved Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is there along with the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan and drafts of parts of the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan as it was being developed. A variety of required base documents are posted there including the Public Participation Plan, the Title VI and

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Limited English Proficiency plans, and informational fact sheets about transportation planning and funding for transportation. The TCRPC publishes a quarterly newsletter and distributes it in paper copy and by electronic mail also. Each quarter over the past two years we included stories and notices of transportation planning activities and shared information about current transportation issues of importance in our region. This venue also allows us to provide some public education about the transportation planning process and requirements. The TCRPC creates and shares flyers, maps, and some fact sheets about transportation processes with our partners, area road agencies, and the general public. Further, TCRPC distributes booklets and articles from FHWA and the State of Michigan about transportation planning, particularly about MAP-21 and state-wide transportation plans. Social Media has become an important way for the TCRPC to share our planning events and activities and to promote and encourage participation, or at least awareness, of regional transportation planning. TCRPC posts on its Facebook page and send email blasts. TCRPC staff regularly updates our page with transportation events and notices. The Commission considered and compiled the comments and suggestions that came from the meetings, forums, online, and discussions, revised the Goals and Objectives to reflect the input, and then, with minor revisions, adopted the goals and objectives for our 2040 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan. Then, following the September series of meetings, the publicly vetted lists of projects were modeled for their impacts on the regional transportation network. In short, our regional transportation plan goals and objectives have been getting nearly continuous public participation by hundreds of citizens and stakeholders for many years. In summary, TCRPC invites, encourages, facilitates, promotes, and responds to public participation throughout the transportation planning process. We encourage and accept public comments, questions, and suggestions at any time in any format that is comfortable for the concerned citizen. Information about activities and opportunities is available on our website www.mitcrpc.org at our offices, or by calling or emailing the Commission offices at the addresses and phone numbers on the cover.

Consultation Process Consultation between planning partners is an opportunity to confer on needs of the larger community, to compare and coordinate planning approaches, and to generally communicate about the mutual vision for the transportation system that often will cross over multiple jurisdictions. Early and throughout the plan development, TCRPC undertook a specific and targeted approach for a successful consultation process with planning partners. In addition to sharing draft chapters, tables, and project lists with the pubic and area transportation agencies, during 2014 the TCRPC held three Long Range Plan Update meetings with representatives of state, federal and local partners all invited to sit around a table and discuss in depth the planning and participation techniques the TCRPC was implementing, to review and monitor the consultant modeling efforts, and to consider current and pending changes to legislation and funding at state and federal levels which impact our regional transportation plans and planning. TCRPC maintains an extensive database of contacts including current contact information for environmental and social/human services agencies and organizations. TCRPC was thus able to solicit participation in reviewing and correcting socio-economic data, population and development forecasts, and for all to consider the project lists for potential impacts or threats to the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current and future community Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

land use, economic development, environment (natural, human, and cultural), traffic demand, public safety, health, and social needs, among others.

Steps in Long Range Plan Development Table 2-1 Steps in Long Range Plan Development

STEPS 1 2 3 4 5 6

ACTIVITY Establish Regional Goals & Objectives for the Long Range Transportation Plan; Set Priorities Assess existing and available resources and the transportation network condition; Perform a Needs Analysis Establish a funding plan Develop the Plan Implement and Monitor the Plan Evaluate and then review or update the Plan

The first step in developing an LRTP is to discuss the goals and objectives. With adoption of this Plan, the Tri-County region set its overall goals for how the transportation system should be designed, built, operated and maintained over the next 20 years. The Plan reflects our regional Growth Trends principles. Our Long Range Plan is linked to our region’s land use plan and it considers a full range of modal choices and investment options. With a clear set of Goals and objectives, the region sets its priorities. As in the past, this region continues its focus on the maintenance and preservation of our existing network and we encourage redevelopment in the already developed or urbanized areas, maintaining a higher level of density near the core of the region and thus preventing sprawl growth.

Perform a Needs Analysis Establish a Funding Plan The transportation plan needs to be realistic, and usually that means fundable. A financial analysis of the specific projects that implement the transportation plan will help to ensure that it is realistic. Without tying transportation projects to reliable funding, the recommended solutions that are developed can easily become a “wish list.” Principles for developing a funding plan include the following:

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Figure 2-1 Diagram of Partner Relationships

Photo credit to – FHWA, Executive and Legislature: Michal Beo, from The Noun Project; Public Health, Environment, Schools: OCHA AVMU; Land Use/Econ Dev:Pete Fecteau, from The Noun Project; Rural Planning: Evan Caughey, from The Noun Project; Municipalities: Thibault Geffroy, from The Noun Project.

Goals & Objectives The Goals and Objectives which follow are a substantially condensed version of those that were adopted in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. These 2040 Plan Goals and Objectives were reviewed and revised by the Commission with the public’s input. They continue to reflect a common and consistent theme for the tri-county region regarding transportation planning. These Plan Goals were shared and discussed with the region’s transportation advisory committees and the full Commission in April 2014, and with the Commission’s approval, were brought to public forums in June, 2014 where we invited public comment and feedback. The resulting Goals and objectives continue to link transportation goals and objectives to land use goals and objectives and the regional vision established through the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project. And, they extend the region’s goals to encompass the recent Mid-Michigan Program for Greater Sustainability, our regional initiative to continue and expand our regional planning framework to be more sustainable. The 2040 Goals and Objectives for Transportation Planning in our region reflect growing concerns with environmental sustainability, economic resilience and prosperity, as well as intermodal and multi-modal connectivity.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Table 2-2 Goals & Objectives

2040 Transportation Plan Mission Statement: The mission of the tri-county regional transportation plan is to provide and maintain a sustainable multi-modal transportation system for safe and efficient movement of people and good in and through our region that is based on the regionally adopted themes and land use principles in Regional Growth Trends: Choices for Our Future, on regional economic development, on protected environmental quality, and on an equitable, inclusive quality of life.

2040 Plan Goals

Objectives

Public Involvement: Proactively involve the public in planning and development of the transportation system.

 Offer various opportunities and venues for participation in planning.  Use modern communications media including social media, email, and websites along with standard methods to solicit input and feedback.  Involve social service and health agencies, underrepresented and minority groups, and other stakeholders to help meet regional goals of inclusion and environmental justice.

Management Systems and Efficiency: Maximize the transportation system’s efficiency by balancing its multi-modal performance and by using integrated management systems.

 Improve operations by prioritizing projects that enhance all modes and provide balance to the transportation system.  Use management techniques that maximize operating efficiency and coordinate the movements of people and goods.  Use accepted management systems to evaluate, prioritize, and develop cost effective strategies to address Congestion, Traffic Safety, Bridges, and Intermodal Management and Pavement Assets Conditions.  Integrate analyses to evaluate alternatives and develop strategies for problem identification, analysis, priority setting and programming.

Financial: Seek financial resources sufficient to preserve, maintain, and improve the multi-modal regional transportation system.

 Give highest funding allocations priority to preserving, enhancing, and wise management of the existing multi-modal system.  Encourage regional economic development that supports or maximizes financial resources for transportation systems.  Consider life cycle costs to maximize long term benefits of transportation improvements.

Safety: Design, manage and maintain transportation systems consistent with safety standards, with community character, and with the goals of the Regional Growth plan.

 Encourage traffic control measures and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) applications, lighting, signage, and innovative construction and design solutions to improve safety for all modes of travelers.  Encourage Complete Streets ordinances and designs. Use safety programs to minimize conflicts between modes with traffic calming, pedestrian and rail crossings, paved shoulders, bicycle lanes, safety education, and enforcement.  Maximize accessibility to all persons regardless of economic, physical and social characteristics and address special needs of persons.  Encourage land use planning techniques such as mixed use, infill, and transit-oriented-development that enhance access.  Expand public transit and other modal choices to region’s rural areas.  Promote Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies as an alternative to building additional capacity.  Reduce air pollutant emissions and concentrations consistent with the Clean Air Act.  Implement the regional land use vision with development designs that

Accessibility and Mobility: Develop a multi-modal transportation system that provides accessibility and offers choices for efficient movements of people and goods.

Climate Change Adaptation and Energy Sustainability: Develop a transportation system that reduces

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and encourages sustainable development. Economic Development: Maintain, improve, and integrate a multimodal transportation system that fosters and supports job creation, retention, and investment. Community & Environmental: Design transportation system improvements that are compatible with community character and minimize environmental impacts.

Land Use: Develop a transportation system which minimizes conflicts between transportation and land use and that meets federal, state and local environmental standards.

Transit: Develop, maintain, connect and expand the region’s public transportation system to provide convenient transportation.

Intermodal: Better integrate Aeronautics and Rail facilities and services into the regional transportation network. Increase intermodal passenger and freight transportation connections. Non-Motorized: Encourage pedestrian and bicycle modes as viable, healthy, safe and enjoyable alternatives. Parking: Address parking needs region-wide with approaches that minimize urban congestion and improve multi-modal transportation use.

reduce greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles of travel (VMT).  Promote use of cleaner fuels and sustainable energy technologies.  Evaluate projects for their impacts on greenhouse gases, vehicle miles of travel and energy sustainability.  Provide transportation services and intermodal connectivity that helps retain and expand existing businesses and attracts new businesses.  Foster regional cooperation and management of transportation that can reduce business costs, increase investments, and improve opportunities for residents.  Support cultural tourism and our regional transportation history.  Coordinate transportation projects with capital improvement projects to minimize disruption in affected communities.  Emphasize context-sensitive design solutions that preserve historic character.  Resize facilities with excess vehicle capacity to achieve community character goals.  Minimize transportation-generated noise.  Minimize disruptions to open space, farm land, wetlands and natural areas. Encourage urban high density development.  Strengthen the metropolitan center, discourage sprawl and encourage efficient use of existing infrastructure.  Develop transportation infrastructure and services consistent with the Regional Growth plan, local land use and Greening Mid-Michigan plans.  Encourage and incentivize transit-oriented development.  Increase public transit’s modal share in the region.  Develop and maintain the most cost effective regional public transit system possible.  Increase intermodal linkages between transit, auto, rail, air, and nonmotorized travel modes.  Provide high capacity rapid transit services in priority corridors such as Michigan/Grand River Avenues and Lansing to Detroit.  Provide stronger connections between all transit services.  Encourage passenger and freight facilities and services that provide multimodal connections. Encourage efficiency in freight movement.  Support Airports and Rail station services and improvements.  Prioritize projects that improve access to intermodal facilities.  Improve intermodal access to the region’s air and rail facilities.  Pursue balanced regional funding for Capital Region International Airport.  Provide and maintain economical bicycle, pedestrian and multi-use path facilities in rural, suburban and urban areas .  Encourage connectivity within and across jurisdictions and with statewide systems. Provide a system that serves high travel demand corridors and centers, such as Michigan State University.  Encourage reduced parking ratios in land use ordinances and provide preferential or discounted parking for carpools as incentives for adopting clean commute alternatives.  Promote an overall reduction in vehicle parking demand by encouraging use of other travel modes.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): Use information technologies to better manage and to enhance efficiency of the transportation system

 Develop parking facilities consistent with access management standards and community character goals. Encourage reduced parking ratios.  Develop actions consistent with the Lansing Sector ITS Architecture Report for all modes.  Improve safety of the regional transportation system by reporting hazardous conditions.  Improve transportation system management during peak periods, special events, incidents, and weather.  Enhance public transit service and attractiveness with ITS systems.

Applications of Goals and Objectives It is important to recognize that the TCRPC’s Goals and Objectives for Transportation Planning do not exist in a vacuum. As a region, we have and implement many different regional plans – for environmental protection, for economic development, for parks and recreation development, for health, prosperity, and an improved quality of life in our region. As we select individual projects and discuss the objectives to meet specific goals, we do so in an inter-related environment that requires us to seek and identify coordinated and complimentary action steps. And, with this plan, we focus new energy on assuring that the transportation development process becomes more strategic, performance based and focused on achieving regional goals and objectives for transportation programs and projects. The TCRPC has identified short term (five year) and long term (20 year) investment strategies. The short range program, the TIP, covers 2014-2017 and that plan has a clear and very detailed investment strategy as well as project selection criteria and performance measures that result in strategic and focused program. That strategy easily extends to the last two years of a 5 year band of projects. Then, on a longer term, the investment strategy, project selection criteria, and performance measures offer a more flexible approach. It is, nevertheless, constrained fiscally and thus lends itself well to performance measures and natural variances in policy and funding.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

“PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS A VITAL COMPONENT OF THE NATION’S TOTAL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PICTURE, AND WITH RIDERSHIP EXPECTED TO GROW, DEPENDABLE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS WILL BE VITAL TO THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS.” -MICHAEL MELANIPHY

CHAPTER 3 Overview of Existing Transportation Services The Tri-County region is Mid-Michigan’s population center and serves as a hub for highway, rail and air operations. Map 3-1 shows the region’s major transportation infrastructure. This chapter provides an overview of area transportation services.

Roadway Overview Roads are categorized using national standards based on function. National functional classification is used to determine eligibility for federal funding. Road mileage is categorized as urban or rural and classified by function and service type. Adjusted Census Urban Boundaries (ACUB) were updated in 2014. These boundaries are extended to reflect recent developments and “smoothed” to create orderly edges with input from responsible governments. TCRPC, local jurisdictions and MDOT update functional classifications and urban boundaries following each decennial census. Urban boundary and functional classification maps then are reviewed and approved by MDOT and FHWA.

Definitions of selected classes: These roads are classified based on National Functional Classification (NFC). NFC is an attribute of the Framework coverage. The Michigan Department of Transportation assigned each NFC value. NFC is a planning tool which federal, state and local transportation agencies have used since the late 1960's. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed this system of classifying all streets, roads and highways according to their function. The FHWA publication, “Highway Functional Classification: Concepts, Criteria and Procedures”, provides the basis for much of the following information: Principal arterials are at the top of the NFC hierarchical system. Principal arterials generally carry long distance, through-travel movements. They also provide access to important traffic generators, such as major airports or regional shopping centers. Minor arterials are similar in function to principal arterials, except they carry trips of shorter distance and to lesser traffic generators. Collectors tend to provide more access to property than do arterials. Collectors also funnel traffic from residential or rural areas to arterials.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 3-1 Main Transportation Infrastructure

Public Transportation The region is served by three public transit systems, each with specific missions or functions. The Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA), the largest of the three, is the regional fixed route public transportation provider. CATA also provides general public paratransit service, curb to curb complementary paratransit service (SPECTRAN) for persons with disabilities who canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t use fixed routes and demand response service for non-urban sections of Ingham County. CATA serves the Michigan State University campus in East Lansing. The Clinton Area Transit System (Clinton Transit) and Eaton County Transportation Authority (EATRAN) provide general public demand response service for their respective jurisdictions. All three transit systems provide important and valuable contributions to regional mobility. Cross boundary operating agreements between all three transit properties allow each system to transport passengers into adjoining counties under specific guidelines. All three properties work cooperatively to improve and coordinate services. Services from these three properties means virtually all regional residents have access to some public transportation services. Much of this service is demand responsive in rural areas, and all residents may not have service at all times or on all days of the week that is convenient enough to meet all of their travel needs. Characteristics of each property are summarized below.

Capital Region Transportation Authority (CATA) The Capital Area Transportation Authority has operating authority in Ingham, Eaton and Clinton County. Public Transportation services are provided to communities who provide funding for the service. Services are provided throughout Ingham County and portions of Eaton County and Clinton County. The Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s governmental membership includes the Cities of Lansing and East Lansing and the Townships of Delhi, Lansing, and Meridian. These communities approved 3.007 mills of property taxes to fund fixed-route and paratransit services. CATA provided 11,868,864 rides in FY 2013.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Table 3-1 CATA Ridership

Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fixed Route

Paratransit

System Totals

5,784,379 7,474,486 8,247,329 8,276,435 8,230,023 8,886,380 957,2803 10,186,019 10,800,414 10,884,977 10,883,409 11,343,956 11,351,619 11,358,534

424,929 443,501 457,910 477,767 452,580 464,286 458,254 496,773 509,055 488,822 463,522 477,805 510,141 510,330

6,209,308 7,917,987 8,705,239 8,754,202 8,682,603 9,350,666 10,031,057 10,682,792 11,309,469 113,73,799 11,346,931 11,821,761 11,861,760 11,868,864

Source: CATA; *Includes Special Events

Fixed-Route Service CATA offers 32 fixed-routes in the urbanized area (see Map 3-3). Days of operation and service hours vary by route. CATA also provides fixed-route service on the campus of Michigan State University (MSU) during fall and spring semesters. There are more than 1,300 bus stops and shelters located throughout CATAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fixed-route service area for convenient access to the routes. The standard one-way fare for fixedroute service is $1.25. Medicare cardholders, students, seniors and persons with disabilities pay a reduced fare of $0.60 cents. Children under 42 inches ride free.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 3-2 CATA System

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Spec-Tran Service Spec-Tran is CATA’s advance-reservation, curb-to-curb service for persons with disabilities who reside near fixed-route service but are unable to take advantage of it. CATA uses small buses equipped with lifts, as well as low-floor vans for this service. Spec-Tran operates seven days a week during the same hours as CATA’s fixed-route service. Spec-Tran eligibility is currently certified through the Capital Area Center for Independent Living. SpecTran customers must be certified in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The one-way fare is $2.50.

“The Limiteds” CATA offers express routes (called “The Limiteds”) which travel to the Meridian Mall, Mason, Williamston, Webberville and downtown Lansing during weekday morning and afternoon rush hours. The Limiteds serve select bus stops along each route for a faster commute. Fares are the same as fixedroute service.

Entertainment Express The Entertainment Express trolley travels between downtown Lansing and downtown East Lansing, serving select bus stops on the route to entertainment venues along Michigan and Grand River Avenue. The corridor features over 70 dining and entertainment nightspots. The service runs every Thursday, Friday and Saturday, year round, from 7:30 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. Fares are the same as fixed-route service.

Redi-Ride CATA’s Redi-Ride is a general public advance-reservation, curb-to-curb service operating in five areas. Mason and Williamston Redi-Rides operate within each city’s boundaries Monday through Friday, 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Saturday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Service is usually available within 30 minutes of a customer’s call. Meridian Redi-Ride operates in Meridian Township Monday through Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Delhi Redi-Ride serves Delhi Township Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Delta Redi-Ride operates in Delta Township Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Rides are scheduled in the order requested and limited to availability of space on the bus. Calls to request trips on these three Redi-Ride Services should be made at least four (4) hours in advance of desired pick up times. Transportation is not provided to or from schools when student school bus transportation is available. CATA Rural Service (CRS) This is a general public advance-reservation, curb-to-curb service for travel in the non-urban areas of Ingham County. CRS provides rides Monday through Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. One-way regular fares range from $2.25 to $3.25, based on the length of the trip. Discounted fares range from $1.00 to $1.50 for Medicare cardholders, students, seniors and persons with disabilities.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Connector Service Route Deviation Service Connecting outlying communities with the urbanized area, the Connectors offer regularly scheduled route deviation service Monday through Saturday. Buses make regular and requested stops within one mile of established routes. The Mason Connector travels between the Mason Meijer and the South Pennsylvania Meijer, serving bus stops along Cedar Street. The Williamston/Webberville Connector serves stops between Webberville and the Meridian Mall along Grand River Avenue, with stops in Williamston. Fares are the same as CRS.

Shopping Bus CATA provides regularly scheduled weekday service from area senior housing complexes to grocery stores and shopping centers. The fare is $2.00 round-trip.

Lot Link & Night Owl Lot link and Night Owl offers two curb-to-curb services on the MSU campus during fall and spring semesters for connections to commuter park and ride lots, as well as late night on-campus transportation. These are 20 minute advanced reservation services for evenings and weekends. Fares are the same as fixed-route.

Clean Commute Options Clean Commute Options is a free program dedicated to improving air quality in the Tri-County area. The program provides individuals traveling to or within Ingham, Eaton and Clinton counties with travel options that best fit their transportation needs. A free online commute-matching service provides registrants a complete list of potential bus routes, carpool and vanpool matches, bike buddies, bicycle and walking route information. CATA

Eaton County Transportation Authority (EATRAN) The Eaton County Transportation Authority (EATRAN) operates Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EATRAN provides local dial-a-ride services, rural demand response services and a downtown Lansing express route. The Lansing express route departs Charlotte and continues through Grand Ledge and Delta Township, arriving in downtown Lansing at approximately 7:45 a.m. and returns to Charlotte, Grand Ledge and Delta Township between 5:00 and 5:15 p.m. Out of county medical routes are available to the general public between appointment hours of 10:30 a.m., with a return no later than 3:30 p.m. EATRAN facilitates transfers to CATA on demand in the Delta Township area, operating 27 buses, 16 in peak hour service. EATRANâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fleet of medium duty and cutaway buses is fully accessible. One way fare is $1.00 for the elderly and those with disabilities, $2.00 for the general population and $3.00 for out of county trips. Passengers must use exact fare. Tokens are available at the EATRAN facility and participating city and township halls. Recent ridership trends are shown on Table 3-2.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Table 3-2 EATRAN Ridership, 2000-2013, Source: EATRAN

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Passengers 154,949 170,569 182,674 199,122 217,435 198,988 163,888 163,180 172,252 169,845 168,775 153,831 152,319 148,104

Clinton Area Transit System Clinton Transit was established in 2001 by the Clinton County Commissioners to take over transportation service from Community Resource Volunteers. The service provides origin to destination service to meet transportation needs of passengers in all of Clinton County. The "Blue Bus" is a demand response system--buses run only when people request a ride. There are no bus stops or regular schedules for any routes like larger city fixed route bus services.

All vehicles are fully accessible to persons with disabilities, including use of service animals. Passengers are requested to notify dispatch of any special needs when scheduling to assure proper accommodations in the vehicle. Clinton Transit operates a fleet of 21 small and medium duty â&#x20AC;&#x153;blueâ&#x20AC;? buses and 5 minivans. Additional service is provided above and beyond ADA by volunteer drivers to elderly and disabled passengers that are prequalified for medical trips. Passengers call during regular business hours to reserve a seat for a desired trip by giving name, address, phone number and other basic information to register as a rider in a computerized dispatch system. Round trips are scheduled while they are on the phone with a dispatcher. Cancellations must be called in at least 60 minutes before beginning of pickup time range to avoid a no show fee charge, which is double the regular ride fare for the scheduled trip. Passengers may schedule more than one trip and it may be a recurring trip for regular daily or weekly trips. Service is currently available Monday through Friday from 6:30 AM to 5:30 PM. Passenger fares are based on number of miles travelled from origin to destination with half-price fares available for elderly and persons with disabilities during non-peak hours of 9:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m and 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. during our weekday service hours. Recent ridership trends are shown in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 Clinton Transit System Ridership, 2010-2013

Fiscal Year 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total Passenger Trips 52,902 56,808 67,996 70,110

Source: Clinton Transit

Taxi & Limousine Service Capitol Transport LLC Operating as Spartan Cab and Yellow Cab, Capitol Transport is the largest taxi company in the region. It operates 7 automobiles, 10 passenger vans and 7 minivans providing service 24 hours per day. Additional mid-size taxi services include Green Cab and Big Daddy Taxi.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

In addition, numerous limousine services are available. Some of these specialize in airport services. Others are oriented to special uses, such as weddings and proms. There are also several one or two vehicle taxi operations that operate on a part-time basis. Numerous school districts and social service agencies also provide transportation services in various forms to their respective clients. An inventory of these regional services is available for reference at the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission.

Inter-City Bus Service Greyhound and Indian Trails Motorcoach Companies serve the Lansing area, with terminals in downtown Lansing at the multi-modal Ground Transportation Center and in East Lansing at the AMTRAK station. Greyhound provides six departures daily, with direct service to Detroit, Grand Rapids, Muskegon and intermediate points. Indian Trails provides eight departures along a corridor from Bay City through Saginaw, Flint, Lansing, Battle Creek, Kalamazoo and Chicago. In addition, Indian Trails is part owner of the “Michigan Flyer” Luxury Coach Service, which connects the Lansing area with Detroit Metro Airport with eight daily round trips. Local departures and arrivals take place at the Marriott Hotel in East Lansing.

UberX Taxi Service Uber is a rapidly expanding, nationwide Taxi service that turns everyday people into cab drivers. With service in over 70 cities worldwide and established in Detroit, MI, Uber recently announced new service for Lansing, Grand Rapids, Flint and Kalamazoo, dubbing it “UberX”. Service is accessed via smartphone app that will connect the user with the driver to set routes and fees.

Zipcar at Michigan State University Founded in 2000, Zipcar is a worldwide car sharing service that allows members to rent vehicles without the hassle that comes with using a traditional car rental company. Quite often used for short term travelers needing a car for a few hours or less than one day, Zipcar service on MSU’s campus is easily accessible via smartphone application or by online.

Rail Service AMTRAK The National Railroad Transportation Corporation, commonly known as AMTRAK, operates one train daily in each direction between Chicago and Port Huron (the “Blue Water”), stopping at a temporary depot west of Harrison Road (between Trowbridge and Service Road) near MSU in East Lansing. Currently, AMTRAK service is on CN-North America tracks through Flint, terminating in Port Huron. The Blue Water is supported through passenger fares, AMTRAK and state subsidies (through MDOT), which are essential for continuation of service. State subsidies in 2009 were $6.6 million.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

In addition to direct rail service, AMTRAK operates connecting bus service twice daily to and from Battle Creek (connecting with the Chicago-Detroit main line of AMTRAK) and once daily to and from Toledo (connecting with the Chicago-New York and Chicago- Washington corridors). Each of these scheduled buses is timed for coordination with arriving or departing trains on the main line. Table 3-4 shows annual total station boardings and deboardings at East Lansing since 2000. Recent trends have shown increased ridership. This is attributable primarily to more convenient schedules since early 2004 (when service to Toronto was suspended, resulting in Port Huron as the eastern terminus), higher gas prices and completion of work on the CN Railroad. Emerging passenger rail issues include adding high speed passenger rail (up to 110 miles per hour) on the Chicago to Detroit corridor and several other lines in the Midwest connecting to a Chicago hub, which could provide indirect benefits to the region. Additionally, federal funding has been received to create a new intermodal transportation facility to replace the decades old â&#x20AC;&#x153;temporaryâ&#x20AC;? AMTRAK station on the existing site. Table 3-4 East Lansing Rail Boardings/Deboardings, 2000-2013, Source: MDOT Transportation Planning Services

Annual Freight Rail Boardings/ Deboardings Railroads play a substantial role in freight movement into, out of and 2000 28,649 through the region. The three major rail carriers traversing the region are: Canadian National Railway, CSX Transportation, and Norfolk 2001 26,633 Southern Railway. Each railroad serves a valuable local role in freight 2002 24,185 transportation, providing medium and long haul services which are 2003 21,914 more efficient than other modes. In addition, a local line serves 2004 30,104 Charlotte and Eaton Rapids and provides weekly summer dinner 2005 68,674 excursions. 2006 44,430 2007 47,545 Airports 2008 49,716 2009 50,953 Capital Region International Airport (CRIA) 2010 58,529 2011 66,703 Capital Region International Airport, operated by the Capital Region 2012 66,552 Airport Authority, is located in the southwest portion of DeWitt 2013 64,552 Township in Clinton County. The airport is classified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as a small hub/non-hub airport. Fiscal Year

It is the fourth busiest airport in Michigan for passenger enplanements, third in annual operations (takeoff and landings) and fifth in number of based aircraft. CRIA is now only the second full service international airport in Michigan with a fully functional federal inspection station. Map 3-4 depicts a current Tri-County airport inventory of eighteen total facilities.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 3-3 Airport Inventory

Air traffic activities are recorded by the continuously operating FAA Air Traffic Control Tower. Operations are reported in four general categories: air carrier (jet operations by airlines and all cargo carriers), air taxi (commuter airlines), general aviation and military. Air carrier operations have declined recently, and have not been offset by increases in air taxi (commuter airlines) service. General aviation has declined and military aircraft operations have fluctuated. Table 3-5 shows enplaned passengers from 2000-2013. Following airline deregulation in 1978, passenger enplanement declined substantially as point to point service was largely replaced by a hub and spoke system. This service model channels most flights and passengers to primary “hub” locations and then to the destination “spokes.” Following deregulation, reductions in passenger enplanements took place as local air fares increased above major hubs, such as Detroit’s Metro Airport. This encouraged many Lansing area fliers to drive to Detroit or elsewhere for more competitive fares. Subsequently, fares from Capital City Airport, as it was then known, became more competitive with larger hubs. This resulted in steady growth in local passenger enplanements, with a peak of nearly 370,000 in 1999. Declines over the last several years are due in part to the general economic decline, price of fuel and collapse of financial markets, however since the 2008 recession, there has been significant growth in enplanements that currently sits at 210,859 in 2013.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Air Cargo In 2013, an estimated 44,200,511 pounds of air cargo was moved through Capital Region International Airport. The airport is served by one all-cargo airline, United Parcel Service (UPS), which provides overnight delivery of small packages and bulk freight. In addition, Martin Air provides on demand cargo charter services from their facility east of the aircraft parking apron. Air cargo service areas are proposed for expansion to foster economic development, both domestic and internationally. The Airport Authority extended the primary runway by approximately 1250 feet to 8500 feet in 2008. This allows larger jets to land and take off within FAA safety standards and will allow new entrant commercial passenger service to fully utilize their aircraft.

Other Airports The Capital Region Airport Authority also owns and operates Mason-Jewett Field, a general aviation airport in Mason, 12 miles southeast of Lansing. Other general aviation airports In the Tri-County region are Fitch H. Beach Field in Charlotte and Abrams Municipal Airport in Grand Ledge. In addition, there are approximately 14 other private basic utility landing strips scattered throughout the region. There have been various efforts to bring Clinton and Eaton Counties into the Airport Authority, who now have non-voting representation at the Board level. If successful, this would provide regional support for Capital Region International Airport as well as regional support and coordination for general aviation airport development. Capital Region International Airport is served by two airlines, Delta Airlines and United Express, serving three major hubs: Chicago Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Hare, Detroit and Minneapolis. The airport handles approximately 15 commercial passenger flights daily as of December 2013. Table 3-5 Passenger Enplanement Summary, Capital Region International Airport, 2000-2013, SOURCE: MDOT

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Passenger Enplanements 331,663 264,199 260,190 271,161 329,598 310,924 283,807 252,162 217,138 134,051 131,051 181,929 196,870 210,859

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Other Modes Capital Community Bike Share Capital Community Bike Share (CCBS) is a service where bicycles are available for rent from designated locations in the Lansing area on a short term basis. The goal of bike sharing is to provide a transportation option for short distance, short duration trips. CCBS is partnered with A2B Bikeshare to provide accessible and affordable transportation to the City of Lansing. The pilot program began in spring of 2013 and will continue in spring of 2014. CCBS will soon expand into a full-sized system.

The League of American Bicyclists named The City of Lansing as one of only eight bicycle friendly communities in Michigan. The City of Lansing achieved this recognition by providing safe accommodations for cycling and encouraging people to bike for transportation and recreation.

Bike Rack Locations       

Corner of Grand River Avenue and Turner Street in Old Town City Hall plaza City Market The Stadium District The 700, 1400 and 2000 blocks of East Michigan Avenue Sparrow Hospital Corner of Washington Avenue and South Street in REO Town

Lansing River Trail The Lansing River Trail stretches all the way from Jolly Road to Old Town. You can also take it from Potter Park into East Lansing and Michigan State University. The paved trail is approximately 13 miles long.

Sidewalks In 2011, TCRP completed the first regional sidewalk inventory that painstakingly digitized and analyzed over 5,000,000 feet or 967 total miles of sidewalks. There are more than 550 miles of sidewalk in the City of Lansing alone and in order to keep up with the annual deterioration rate of 11 miles, The Infrastructure and Environment Group (IEG) manages two sidewalk programs. Annual Sidewalk Repair Program  Repairs defects in the existing sidewalks  2014: Plan to implement city-wide repair project in coordination with the city forester for treerelated issues. Based on citizen complaint data, we find that our sidewalks are mostly in need of repairs due to tree root damage. Major Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Program  Installing new sidewalk to close gaps between existing sidewalk  Since the start of the program 10.8 miles of sidewalk have been completed  2014: 2 miles of sidewalk will be installed if funds are available. In addition, a significant amount of the annual repair budget continues to be spent on updating sidewalk ramps and intersections to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The Waverly Regional Recreational Network Connector (WRRNC) – Sidewalk to connect existing Moores River Drive pathway with the existing Waverly pathway south of Moores River Drive. Construction expected to begin in spring of 2014.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

“I THOUGHT ABOUT IT WHILE RIDING MY BICYCLE.” -ALBERT EINSTEIN ON THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY

CHAPTER 4 Socioeconomic Variables The socioeconomic data presents information on where people live and work, and is essential to help understand regional travel patterns. The purpose of socioeconomic forecasts is to establish realistic population and employment projections for input into the travel demand model in order to determine future travel patterns and transportation needs. The socioeconomic variables projected for two alternate land use scenarios; Trend and Wise Growth. This document provides in detail the methodology used to establish TAZ level socioeconomic information for each land use scenario.

Alternate Land Use Scenarios In the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan, two forecast scenarios are proposed to address the potential changes in land use policy; The Trend scenario assumes that development will occur in the manner that it has in the past and that no new policies or guidance will shape future development. The Wise Growth scenario is based on the assumption that future policies will encourage redevelopment of existing urban, suburban and rural centers, and limit low-density growth in undeveloped areas. The land use alternatives are described below.

Trend Forecast –The Trend scenario or the baseline scenario is based on the assumptions that current land use policies will remain unchanged, market-based trends will continue, and that anticipated development projects will occur as planned. It also incorporates the assumption that future urbanization and land use consumption will follow past trends. The result of this scenario is increasing lot sizes and distance between homes; a continued reduction in agricultural land and open space; increased transportation and infrastructure costs; and, a more auto-oriented form of development. The Trend forecasts are also referred to as the “Business as Usual” scenario.

Wise Growth Forecast – The Wise Growth alternative uses the same regional growth as the Trend forecasts and reallocates the growth to reflect regional land use goals and objectives. The Wise Growth scenario assumes that future policies will encourage infill development and growth patterns which make use of the existing infrastructure. It is assumed that growth will occur in areas where water and sewer services exist. The land use pattern also emphasizes preservation of environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands. This results in development that is contiguous to existing developed areas; preservation of open space and agricultural land; smaller lot sizes and increased density; lower infrastructure and utility costs; and, a more walkable community.

Countywide Population and Employment Control Totals The base year for the model update is 2010, the same year as the 2010 Census. As part of the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan, the population and employment in the region is forecasted to the 2040 plan horizon year in five year increments. The socioeconomic forecast process is based on a top-down approach. The control totals for the four socioeconomic variables: population, households, retail, and non-retail were developed at the countywide level and then disaggregated to a smaller, more detailed level of geography, i.e. Minor Civil Division (MCDs) and Traffic TAZs. There were two set of control

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

totals, one for the Trend and one for the Wise Growth scenario. Both sets of control totals incorporate the assumption that the population and employment totals for the three-county TCRPC area are equal, but the distribution between county differs for each scenario.

Base Year Control Totals The study area was divided into contiguous compact geographical areas called Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), with relatively homogenous land uses for assigning socioeconomic data in the travel demand model. Figure 3-1 illustrates the TAZ structure used in the Tri-County travel demand model. The 2010 population and household information for the Tri-County region were obtained from the 2010 Census at block level. The census block level data was aggregated up to TAZ and then to countywide level. Estimating base year employment data is challenging since there is no single comprehensive source for employment data at TAZ level geography. The employment data from MDOT’s Regional Economic Models Incorporated (REMI) model and Claritas-Hoover data along with inputs from TCRPC staff was reviewed to establish regional base year employment data. REMI model is a widely utilized dynamic economic forecasting and policy analysis tool which uses area-specific trends in demographics and economics to estimate detailed demographic and employment forecasts. Claritas-Hoover is a private market research firm, providing a variety of consumer and business databases which are constantly updated and regularly verified. The employment point data file from the above sources was geocoded over the TAZ layer to obtain TAZ level employment data. The anonymous records include number of employees and industrial sector of the business by two-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) classifications codes. The zonal employment information was segregated into five general categories based on NAICS codes; retail, manufacturing, wholesale, services, other basic, and other. The base year TAZ level employment data was aggregated to establish countywide employment control totals. Map 4-1 Model Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) and Area Types

Trend Countywide Forecasts MDOT’s REMI data was the primary source used to establish countywide control total forecasts for the Trend scenario. The REMI model uses Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), County Business Patterns (CBP), U.S. Census, and several other supplementary sources to estimate detailed regional demographic and employment forecasts. University of Michigan made adjustments to the model based on local expertise and based on comments and insights of a number of local MPOs and regional planning organizations. REMI forecasts were generated at the county-level in five year intervals. The forecasts were then disaggregated to statewide model TAZs based on the methodology developed by MDOT’s Statewide & Urban Travel Analysis (SUTA) Section. This REMI information for the statewide TAZs was aggregated to Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

develop the countywide level population and employment forecasts for the Tri-County Region. This information was compared against IHS’s Global Insight forecasts, and 2012 Woods & Poole’s economic and demographic forecasts, to develop the recommended Trend countywide control totals

Wise Growth Countywide Forecasts In the Wise Growth scenario the Trend forecasts were reallocated to reflect regional land use goals and objectives. The Wise Growth land use option was first developed as part of the Regional 2035 Transportation Plan with the intention of reducing transportation infrastructure and emission costs in the long term. Significant effort was put into developing this scenario including a socio-economic model and several rounds of inputs from RPC staff and local jurisdictions. This growth reallocation resulted in concentrated future population and employment growth in existing city or town centers, focused/clustered growth areas and in proximity to existing infrastructure, such as public water, sewer and transportation access. The Wise Growth forecasts from the 2035 Transportation Plan were used as a basis to estimate the Wise Growth forecasts in the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan. This was done by identifying the countywide growth patterns from the “old” forecasts and applying them to the 2010 base year data. The revised Wise Growth forecasts in the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan were developed in five year increments. Maps below present the population and employment density maps for 2010 base year. Map 4-1 to 4-9 and Figures 3-6 to 3-13 present the historical and future socioeconomic projections for both Trend and Wise Growth scenarios. Map 4-2 2010 Base Year Population Dot-Density Map

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-3 2010 Base Year Households Dot-Density Map

Map 4-4 Base Year Retail Employment Dot-Density Map

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-5 2010 Base Year Non-Retail Employment Dot-Density Map

Table 4-1 Tri-County Population Forecast Year 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Historical Census 433,414 443,395 448,355 455,315 464,036

Global Insight

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

433,899 444,030 448,569 455,335 462,604 470,666 477,938 484,405 490,055 494,101 498,147 502,193

2012 Woods & Poole 433,414 443,395 448,735 462,743 464,076 474,086 485,260 496,862 508,383 519,719 531,273 542,827

REMI

Projected Population

464,036 470,032 476,850 485,021 491,545 495,706 497,953 502,090

464,036 473,192 482,656 490,995 498,257 502,207 504,465 508,613

Figure 4-1 Tri-County Regional Population Forecast

Tri-County Regional Population 550,000 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Historical Census

Projected Population

Table 4-2 Tri County Employment Forecast Historical Data 249,597 270,184 280,733 273,026 266,576

Year 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

2005 Global Insight 216,379 225,634 237,677 227,326 233,696 234,945 239,807 245,811 251,601 256,424 261,247 266,070

2012 Woods & Poole 248,012 268,157 278,025 277,859 266,576 277,592 291,181 305,221 319,789 334,944 350,802 366,660

REMI

Projected Population

271,552 287,309 292,809 298,027 302,127 308,061 313,206 318,351

268,828 281,172 289,249 295,066 298,791 303,854 308,556 313,293

Figure 4-2 Tri-County Employment Forecast

Tri-County Regional Employment 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Historical Data

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

Projected Population

Table 4-3 Percent Change in Socioeconomic Variables for Trend and Wise Growth Scenario Variable

Population

Household

Year 2010 Base 2040 Trend % Change 2040 Wise Gr. % Change WG 2010 Base

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Clinton County 75,382 91,472 21.3% 79,402 5.33% 28,766

Eaton County 107,759 122,826 14.0% 114,283 6.05% 43,494

Ingham County 280,895 290,167 3.3% 310,780 10.64% 111,163

Retail

Non Retail

2040 Trend % Change 2040 Wise Gr. % Change WG 2010 Base 2040 Trend % Change 2040 Wise Gr. % Change WG 2010 Base 2040 Trend % Change 2040 Wise Gr. % Change WG

38,219 32.9% 32,582 13.27% 4,066 4,336 6.6% 3,806 -6.40% 25,729 32,774 27.4% 28,451 10.58%

51,310 18.0% 49,918 14.77% 6,144 6,365 3.6% 5,930 -3.49% 37,078 45,472 22.6% 40,928 10.38%

126,593 13.9% 133,622 20.20% 23,052 23,020 -0.1% 23,986 4.05% 172,808 196,589 13.8% 205,456 18.89%

The Wise Growth scenario is focused towards high density growth in urban and suburban clusters with little to no growth in the rural areas. This reallocation is evident in the 2045 Wise Growth forecasts, which show limited growth in Clinton and Eaton Counties (compared to the Trend scenario) and increased growth in Ingham County. All socioeconomic variables increase from 2010 to 2040, except retail in the Wise Growth scenario. Retail employment in this scenario is expected to shift from rural parts of Clinton and Eaton Counties to urban areas in Ingham County. The retail employment for Ingham County also decreases slightly in the Trend scenario, which is consistent with the MDOTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s REMI data. These control totals were reviewed by TCRPC staff, local agencies, and advisory committee and approved by the Commission.

Adopted Forecasts and Methodology Once the countywide control totals were established, the next steps were to disaggregate the socioeconomic data at MCD and TAZ level geography. The countywide data were allocated to TAZs in a two-step process. The countywide growth is first distributed to each Minor Civil Division within the county and then disaggregated to each TAZ within a MCD.

Countywide to MCD Allocation The countywide growth for each forecast year was disaggregated to MCDs based on historical trend. The MCD growth distribution adopted in the Regional 2035 Transportation Plan was used to estimate the MCD allocation of the new countywide control totals. The MCD level data for year 2010 and year 2035 from the Regional 2035 Transportation Plan was evaluated to estimate the percent allocation of countywide growth by MCD. This portion of countywide growth by MCD was applied to the forecast year control totals to determine the revised MCD forecasts in the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan. The MCD forecasts were checked for reasonability and consistency using tests such as person/HH ratios and employment/person ratios. The person/HH shows a declining trend between year 2010 and year 2040. This decline is supported by historical data, as shown in Table 4-1. Throughout the forecasting process, MCD control totals were reviewed in coordination with TCRPC staff and local governmental agencies. Table 4-4 Historical Trend for Person/Household County

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

2000 Census

2010 Census

2045 Trend

2045 WG

Clinton County

Eaton County

Ingham County

Population Household Person/HH Population Household Person/HH Population Household Person/HH

64753 23653 2.7 103655 40167 2.6 279320 108593 2.6

75382 28766 2.6 107759 43494 2.5 280895 111163 2.5

93077 39128 2.4 123824 51946 2.4 291712 129165 2.3

80043 33161 2.4 115595 51046 2.3 312976 136031 2.3

Figure 4-1 to 4-12 illustrates the difference in Trend and Wise Growth forecasts for year 2040. Tables 42 to 2-14 present Wise Growth MCD forecast in five year increments. Tables and charts of this information are available in the Appendix of this document. Figure 4-3 Clinton County MCD Population Forecast

Figure 4-4 Eaton County MCD Population Forecast

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Figure 4-5 Ingham County MCD Population Forecast

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Table 4-5 Clinton County Wise Growth Population Forecast in Five Year Increments Clinton County MCD Bath Twp Bengal Twp Bingham Twp Dallas Twp Dewitt Dewitt Twp Duplain Twp Eagle Village Eagle Twp East Lansing Elsie Essex Twp Fowler Grand Ledge Greenbush Twp Hubbardston Lebanon Twp Maple Rapids Olive Twp Ovid Ovid Twp Riley Twp St Johns Victor Twp Watertown Twp Westphalia Westphalia Twp

Census 2010 11605 1188 2846 1161 4507 14317 1397 123 2548 1966 966 1238 1208 2 2199 44 561 672 2476 1597 2198 2024 7878 3460 4836 923 1442

2015 11627 1188 2846 1187 4509 14749 1397 126 2548 1966 969 1243 1245 2 2199 44 561 673 2476 1653 2198 2024 8092 3460 4836 923 1442

2020 11649 1188 2846 1215 4511 15195 1397 130 2548 1966 972 1248 1283 2 2199 44 561 674 2476 1711 2198 2024 8314 3460 4836 923 1442

Population Forecast (Wise Growth) 2025 2030 2035 11669 11688 11704 1188 1188 1188 2846 2846 2846 1239 1262 1282 4513 4515 4517 15589 15966 16295 1397 1397 1397 133 136 139 2548 2548 2548 1966 1966 1966 974 977 979 1252 1256 1260 1317 1350 1378 2 2 2 2199 2199 2199 44 44 44 561 561 561 675 676 677 2476 2476 2476 1762 1811 1853 2198 2198 2198 2024 2024 2024 8509 8696 8860 3460 3460 3460 4836 4836 4836 923 923 923 1442 1442 1442

2040 11714 1188 2846 1293 4518 16483 1397 140 2548 1966 980 1262 1394 2 2199 44 561 677 2476 1878 2198 2024 8953 3460 4836 923 1442

2045 11731 1188 2846 1314 4520 16828 1397 143 2548 1966 983 1265 1424 2 2199 44 561 678 2476 1922 2198 2024 9125 3460 4836 923 1442

2040 1282 1868 2787 1537 2892 9322 1747 35811 1251 4065 5804 4106 8122 3329 1842 5582 560 1907 3861 2898 1295

2045 1282 1868 2787 1537 2899 9370 1747 36496 1255 4065 5918 4106 8189 3329 1842 5752 561 1968 3861 2952 1295

Table 4-6 Eaton County Wise Growth Population Forecast in Five Year Increments Eaton County MCD Bellevue Bellevue Twp Benton Twp Brookfield Twp Carmel Twp Charlotte Chester Twp Delta Twp Dimondale Eaton Twp Eaton Rapids Eaton Rapids Twp Grand Ledge Hamlin Twp Kalamo Twp Lansing Mulliken Olivet Oneida Twp Potterville Roxand Twp

Census 2010 1282 1868 2787 1537 2855 9082 1747 32405 1234 4065 5235 4106 7788 3329 1842 4737 553 1605 3861 2626 1295

2015 1282 1868 2787 1537 2862 9126 1747 33028 1237 4065 5339 4106 7849 3329 1842 4892 554 1660 3861 2676 1295

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

2020 1282 1868 2787 1537 2869 9171 1747 33672 1240 4065 5446 4106 7912 3329 1842 5051 556 1717 3861 2727 1295

Population Forecast (Wise Growth) 2025 2030 2035 1282 1282 1282 1868 1868 1868 2787 2787 2787 1537 1537 1537 2875 2881 2888 9211 9250 9296 1747 1747 1747 34239 34786 35438 1243 1246 1249 4065 4065 4065 5541 5632 5741 4106 4106 4106 7968 8021 8085 3329 3329 3329 1842 1842 1842 5192 5328 5490 557 558 559 1768 1816 1874 3861 3861 3861 2772 2816 2868 1295 1295 1295

Sunfield Sunfield Twp Vermontville Vermontville Twp Walton Twp Windsor Twp

578 1419 759 1294 2266 5604

578 1419 800 1294 2278 5641

578 1419 842 1294 2291 5680

578 1419 879 1294 2302 5714

578 1419 915 1294 2313 5747

578 1419 958 1294 2326 5787

578 1419 982 1294 2333 5809

578 1419 1027 1294 2347 5850

2040 3368 3525 2390 643 26034 52123 1889 128041 9932 2258 1936 2502 1871 9295 39685 3158 1295 2678 3812 1462 1647 1425 4417 5395

2045 3403 3525 2410 649 26046 52528 1889 129396 10066 2258 1942 2510 1876 9371 39685 3158 1301 2678 3833 1476 1647 1444 4457 5428

Table 4-7 Ingham County Wise Growth Population Forecast in Five Year Increments Ingham County MCD Alaiedon Twp Aurelius Twp Bunker Hill Twp Dansville Delhi Twp East Lansing Ingham Twp Lansing Lansing Twp Leroy Twp Leslie Leslie Twp Locke Twp Mason Meridian Twp Onondaga Twp Stockbridge Stockbridge Twp Vevay Twp Webberville Wheatfield Twp White Oak Twp Williamston Williamstown Twp

Census 2010 2893 3525 2119 563 25873 46605 1889 109588 8114 2258 1856 2384 1791 8261 39685 3158 1218 2678 3528 1272 1647 1173 3864 4953

2015 3007 3525 2184 582 25912 47927 1889 114010 8550 2258 1875 2412 1810 8509 39685 3158 1236 2678 3596 1317 1647 1233 3996 5059

2020 3125 3525 2251 602 25952 49294 1889 118581 9000 2258 1895 2441 1830 8765 39685 3158 1256 2678 3666 1364 1647 1296 4133 5169

Population Forecast (Wise Growth) 2025 2030 2035 3228 3316 3349 3525 3525 3525 2310 2360 2379 620 634 640 25987 26017 26028 50498 51516 51902 1889 1889 1889 122608 126012 127303 9397 9732 9859 2258 2258 2258 1913 1928 1933 2467 2489 2497 1847 1862 1867 8991 9181 9254 39685 39685 39685 3158 3158 3158 1272 1287 1292 2678 2678 2678 3728 3781 3801 1406 1441 1454 1647 1647 1647 1351 1397 1415 4254 4356 4395 5265 5347 5378

MCD to TAZ Allocation A socioeconomic model was developed as part of the Regional 2035 Transportation Plan to disaggregate population and employment data from MCD to TAZs. The two major factors used in the socioeconomic model to disaggregate population and employment of a MCD to its TAZs were; 1) the percentage of each TAZ than can be zoned or planned for each land use type and 2) proximity to major transportation facilities. When allocating TAZ data, the Trend and Wise Growth differ in their approach of using farmland as developable area. In Trend scenario the accessibility is the main factor that determines the amount of agricultural land that is converted to other uses. On the other hand, the Wise Growth scenario uses agricultural land only when the planned usable areas are not adequate to accommodate the allocated population and employment. An accessibility factor was calculated for each traffic analysis zone. The mode assumes that zones with higher attractiveness factor develop faster than those zones that have a lower factor. Utilizing the developable lands by TAZ, the socioeconomic model projected the amount of population and employment in each TAZ.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

The TAZ growth distribution adopted in the Regional 2035 Transportation Planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s detailed socioeconomic model was used to establish the TAZ growth allocation for MCD forecasts in the the 2040 Plan. In some cases, the TAZ growth trend carried forward from the previous plan resulted in TAZ employment dropping below zero, especially in the Wise Growth scenario where the retail employment shifts from rural areas to urban areas. Most of these situations were resolved by assuming no growth instead of negative growth and allocating the drop in MCD employment to other TAZs within the MCD. Local agencies reviewd the TAZ level forecasts and they were refined based on the inputs. Figure 4-13 to 4-16 shows the change in socio-economic variables between 2010 base year and 2040 Wise Growth scenario. Map 4-6 TAZ Population Growth 2010 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2040 Wise Growth

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-7 TAZ Household Growth 2010 – 2040 Wise Growth

Map 4-8 TAZ Retail Growth 2010 – 2040 Wise Growth

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-9 TAZ Non Retail Growth 2010 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2040 Wise Growth

Other Socioeconomic Variables In addition to zonal population, households, and employment data the following additional socio-economic variables are required in the travel demand model to forecast future travel; Median household Income, Student Enrollment (K-12), Number of workers, Auto Availability, Michigan State University (MSU) Student Enrollment.

The United States Census Bureau websiteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interactive map was used to code the year 2010 median income at census block level. The Census data was used to obtain the number of autos by household size, number of workers by household size, and enrolled students by household data tables for the Census Tracts in the Tri-County modeled region. The total autos and workers for each census tract were derived using a weighted average of the number of autos or workers (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4) x the number of households with each group present. The K-12 enrolled student data was derived by subtracting the enrolled nursery, undergraduate, and graduate records from the total enrolled students, leaving the K12 enrolled students at the Census Tract level. To calculate the number of autos, workers, and enrolled K-12 students for each census block, the census tract level data was used to obtain the rates of autos, workers, and enrolled K-12 students per occupied household in each census tract. These rates were then multiplied by the number of occupied households in each census block to obtain the autos, worker, and enrolled K-12 students for each Census Block in the Tri-County modeled region. The TransCAD aggregation tool was used to obtain the final HH Size, Median Income, autos, workers, and enrolled K-12 students for each TAZ in the Tri-County modeled region. The Block file was aggregated to the TAZ level, and the estimates for autos, households (both vacant and occupied), workers, enrolled K-12 students, and population were derived by merging these values using the aggregation method of addition. The HH Size and Median income values were calculated by merging these values using the aggregation method of weighted average by occupied household. These rates were assumed to remain constant over the 30-year forecast period. MSU building maximum classroom capacity information was obtained from MSU staff. The size of each classroom is determined by (a) The current inventory managed or (b) the largest number of students scheduled in that space within the last 5 years. The total MSU enrollment of 42,553 was estimated for year 2010. Historical growth trend of student enrollment at MSU between 2009 and 2013 was used to project the future enrollment through year 2030.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Travel Demand Model Development A Travel Demand Model (TDM) is an important transportation planning tool used to evaluate the existing transportation system and predict impacts of future growth. It is a computer based mathematical model that simulates existing roadway conditions, vehicle demand on roadways and the use of public transit. The model utilizes the roadway network, socioeconomic data, and regional travel surveys to simulate existing travel conditions. With a model that accurately replicates existing travel conditions, future conditions and impacts of alternatives can be evaluated. The travel demand model for the Tri-County region is a traditional four-step model, developed using the TransCAD transportation planning computer software package. The four steps in a traditional travel demand model include:  Trip Generation – How many trips are generated?  Trip Distribution – Where do the trips go?  Mode Choice - What travel mode is used for each trip?  Trip Assignment – What route does the trip use? Figure 4-6 Tri-County Travel Demand Model Flowchart

Inputs

Model Steps

Highway Network Development In order to utilize a travel model, the existing roadway system must be represented by a TransCAD highway network. Translating the highway system into a computer representation is known as network coding. Basic elements of a network are nodes and links. Links represent actual roadways found in the highway system. Nodes are end-points of links and connect links together. Nodes are usually located where a change in travel direction is allowed, such as intersections. The network links store basic roadway information as link attributes. Links attributes are used in the model to distribute and assign trips. The accuracy of link attributes is essential to develop a reliable travel demand model. The roadway network used in the Tri-County travel demand model was limited to interstates/freeways, arterials, and collector roadways. The local roadway system is too detailed for modeling purposes and was represented using centroid connectors. Once the network was created, it was reviewed for accuracy. This was done by reviewing “highway paths” or minimum time routes between areas of the region.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) The study area was divided into series of small geographical areas called Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). The TAZs are the locations where trips begin (trip producers) and end (trip attractors). TAZs are characterized by their socio-economic conditions (population and employment data) and are used to evaluate the traffic flow patterns in the region. A TAZ in a model is represented by a centroid and is connected to the roadway network via centroid connectors. The spatial extent of a TAZ is based on the U.S. Census block data, land use characteristics, density of population and employment, physical/jurisdictional boundaries, natural barriers, and the model roadway network. Tri-County travel demand model was delineated into 1139 internal zones and 62 external zones. Figure 2 shows the general delineation of the model zones. Map 4-10 Tri-County Model Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs)

Socioeconomic Data Development The travel demand model utilizes zonal socioeconomic information on population, housing, auto-ownership, retail employment and non-retail employment to estimate the amount of regional travel. The 2010 base year population and household data are obtained from 2010 Census. The base year employment information was obtained from Michigan department of Transpiration (MDOTs) Regional Economic Models Incorporated (REMI) data and Claritas-Hover data. Future year socioeconomic data were forecasted using a top-down approach. First, the countywide control total forecast were established based on MDOT’s REMI model, IHS’s Global Insight forecasts, and 2012 Woods & Poole’s economic and demographic forecasts. Socioeconomic data by County was then disaggregated to MCD and TAZ level geography. Throughout the forecasting process, the control totals are reviewed by TCRPC staff and local agencies. A detailed description of socioeconomic data development is presented in Chapter XX (socioeconomic variables). Table 4-8 provides a summary of socioeconomic data used in the travel demand model.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Table 4-8 Tri-County Socioeconomic Input Data Variable Population

Household

Retail

Non Retail

Year 2010 Base 2040 Trend 2040 Wise Growth 2010 Base 2040 Trend 2040 Wise Growth 2010 Base 2040 Trend 2040 Wise Growth 2010 Base 2040 Trend 2040 Wise Growth

Clinton County 75,382 91,472 79,402 28,766 38,219 32,582 4,066 4,336 3,806 25,729 32,774 28,451

Eaton County 107,759 122,826 114,283 43,494 51,310 49,918 6,144 6,365 5,930 37,078 45,472 40,928

Ingham County 280,895 290,167 310,780 111,163 126,593 133,622 23,052 23,020 23,986 172,808 196,589 205,456

Trip Generation Trip generation is the first step of the four-step modeling process. The trip generation module estimates the trips being produced and attracted to each zone in the model, based on zonal socio-economic data. The trip productions are associated with zonal household data (number of households, automobiles owned, and household size), whereas the trip attractions are associated with the employment in the zone. Model trips include Internal-Internal (I-I) trips where both trips end within the model study area, Internal-External (I-E) trips where one trip ends outside the model study area and External-External (E-E) trips where both trips end outside the model study area. Production and attraction trips are categorized into different trip purposes based on the nature of the trip. While most of the model trips either start or end at home, the trips are categorized based on the activity at the trip destination. Depending on the purpose of travel, model trips differ in characteristics such as trip length and auto occupancy and are sensitive to specific socioeconomic data. In the Tri-County travel demand model, I-I trips were categorized into the following trip purposes:  Home based Work (HBW) o Home Based Work – Low Income (HBWLI) o Home based Work – Medium Income (HBWMI) o Home Based Work – High Income (HBWHI)  Home based School (HBS)  Home based Retail (HBR)  Home based Other (HBO)  Non Home Based (NHB) Additionally, separate trip purposes were developed for I-E/E-I trips and Michigan State University (MSU) trips to account for their unique trip characteristics.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

The trip production rates were developed based on Tri-County Transportation Management Area (TMA) portion of the Michigan travel Counts (MITC) household travel survey data. As part of the Urban Model Improvement Program (UMIP) effort, MDOT developed trip attraction regression equations based on the MITC SUMA survey database. These linear regression equations were used to calculate initial zonal trip attraction and later adjusted during the validation process. Truck trips were calculated based on equations provide in the United States Department of Transportationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (USDOT) Quick Response Freight Manual (QRFM) II. Trip generation rates were applied to socioeconomic data for each TAZ. Few sites in the region required special consideration when developing trip generation estimates. This was because the model trip generation rates do not accurately estimate the trip activity or travel patterns for certain facilities/establishments in the model. A separate set of trip attraction rates were used to represent the trip characteristics of these special generators. The special generators in the TriCounty model included Lansing community college, Cooley law school, major retail centers, Lansing mall and auto manufacturing centers. Table 4-9 summarizes the 2010 base year trip generation analysis. Table 4-9 Trip Generation Trip End Summary 2010 Total Trip Ends 36667 86771 149626 146739 154518 459565 365641 85036 189624 57864 13899 3809 12787 74412 1836958

Trip Purpose Home Based Work - Low Income (HBWLI) Home Based Work - Med. Income (HBWMI) Home Based Work - High Income (HBWHI) Home Based School (HBS) Home Based Retail (HBR) Home Based Other (HBO) Non Home Based (NHB) Michigan State University (MSU) Internal/External Auto Truck 4 tire Truck Single Unit Truck Combination Internal/External Auto External Trips Total

% of Total Trip Ends 2.0% 4.7% 8.1% 8.0% 8.4% 25.0% 19.9% 4.6% 10.3% 3.1% 0.8% 0.2% 0.7% 4.1% 100.0%

Trip Distribution Trip distribution allots the trips generated from each TAZ to every other TAZ in the model study area by trip purpose. Model trips were distributed from their production zone to their attraction zone based on the gravity model. In the gravity model, the allocation of trips between zones depends on the magnitude of activities at the destination zone and the spatial separation between the two zones. The following equation describes the gravity model:

đ?&#x2018;ťđ?&#x2019;&#x160;đ?&#x2019;&#x2039; = đ?&#x2018;ˇđ?&#x2019;&#x160; â&#x2C6;&#x2014;

đ?&#x2018;¨đ?&#x2019;&#x2039; đ?&#x2018;đ?&#x2019;&#x160;đ?&#x2019;&#x2039; đ?&#x2018;˛đ?&#x2019;&#x160;đ?&#x2019;&#x2039; â&#x2C6;&#x2018;đ?&#x2019;?đ?&#x2019;&#x2039;=đ?&#x;&#x17D; đ?&#x2018;¨đ?&#x2019;&#x2039; đ?&#x2018;đ?&#x2019;&#x160;đ?&#x2019;&#x2039;đ?&#x2018;˛đ?&#x2019;&#x160;đ?&#x2019;&#x2039;

Where, Tij = Number of trips from zone i to zone j Pi = Number of trip productions in zone i Aj = Number of trip attractions in zone j Fij = Friction factor relating to spatial separation between zone i to zone j Kij = Trip distribution adjustment factor between zone i to zone j

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Trip distribution was performed for each trip purpose. Reasonableness of a trip distribution model was determined by reviewing average trip lengths and trip length frequency distribution by purpose. Model trip lengths and trip length frequency distribution were validated against the regional household travel survey. Table 4-10 shows year 2010 average trip lengths by purpose for the Tri-County trip distribution model. Table 4-10 2010 Average Trip Length Summary

Number of Trips 36667 86771 149626 146739 154518 544601 365641 189624

Avg. Trip Length 13.4 17.0 17.9 10.7 14.1 13.5 12.5 25.7

Time of Day Analysis A four-step travel demand model is typically used to estimate weekday daily travel. Incorporating the time of day factors in a travel demand model enables the analysis of both daily and peak hour conditions. The estimation of travel over specific periods of the day is necessary for certain planning studies, such as peak hour congestion, emission analyses, and transit services. In the Tri-County model, daily trips were separated into time periods.  AM Peak (7AM and 9AM)  Midday (9 AM and 3 PM)  PM Peak (3 PM and 6 PM)  Night (6 PM and 7 AM) The sum of these periods will be the 24-hour daily trips and flows. The time of day factors were developed using the regional household travel survey. The trip tables separated by time period are carried through the mode choice step.

Mode Choice Mode choice step of the forecasting process allocates the model person trips to competing transportation modes in the region: autos and transit. Mode split of model trips is essential to address the existing and future transit in the study region and also improves the estimation of auto trips in the model. The input to the mode choice step were the P/A trip matrix for each time purpose by time of day, transit skims by time of day, and the mode choice constants. The mode choice constants were continually adjusted during the mode choice calibration process to ensure that the mode choice targets are met. The outputs of the mode choice step were the balanced trip P/A matrices by competing modes of travel. The following travel modes were used in the model.  Auto drive alone

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

   

Auto shared ride Auto commuter lot Transit walk to bus Transit drive to bus

The calibrated transit ridership outputs of the model were validated against the observed weekday data from the 2009 CATA on-board survey. Table 4-11 Mode Choice Calibration Summary

MODE Drive Alone Shared Ride Shared Ride 3+ Transit-Drive Transit-Walk

Model Person Trips 997,806 240,421 62,617 3,377 32,908

Model Shares 0.75 0.18 0.05 0 0.02

Target Person Trips 998,331 240,554 62,650 3,378 32,910

Target Shares 0.75 0.18 0.05 0 0.02

Vehicle Occupancy Factors Prior to trip assignment step, the auto person trips were converted into vehicle trips. This is done by applying vehicle occupancy factors to person trip to derive vehicle trip. Separate vehicle occupancy factors were used for different trip purposes by time of day to reflect local operating conditions. These factors were derived from the regional household travel survey. Table 4-12 displays vehicle occupancy factors used in Tri-County travel demand model. Table 4-12 Vehicle Occupancy Factors for Shared Ride 3+

Trip Purpose HBWLI, HBWMI, HBWHI HBS, HBR, HBO NHB MSU

AM 0.28 0.30 0.25 0.30

MD 0.33 0.31 0.33 0.31

PM 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30

NT 0.33 0.29 0.31 0.29

Similarly, to account for the relatively greater impact that trucks and commercial vehicles have on traffic flow, they were converted to Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE), as shown in Table 4-13. Table 4-13 Freight to Passenger Car Conversion

Freight 4-Tire Truck Singe Unit Truck Combined Truck

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Passenger Car Unit Conversion (PCE) 1.5 2 4

Trip Assignment - Non-Motorized After the mode choice model is executed, two sets of matrices are produced (one for highways and one for transit) representing auto volumes (highways) or person trips (transit) between all traffic analysis zones. While this indicates amounts of travel between zones, it is still unknown what routes those traffic volumes or trips take to their destinations. In the traffic assignment step, auto (vehicle) trips were assigned to the roadway network and the transit (person) trips were assigned to the transit network by time of day. The basic premise is that traffic will follow the route with the least impedance or, in other words, the fastest travel time. However, for highway trips, when volumes on a route or link approach capacity of a link, speed is reduced and trips begin to divert to other routes which are now faster. This method of assigning traffic to a network is called “capacity restraint” and represents choices drivers make when driving on the actual highway network. The Tri-County travel demand utilizes an equilibrium assignment algorithm as part of the capacity restraint program. The equilibrium algorithm allows for assignment of interzonal traffic to multiple paths based on interzonal travel times. The transit assignment was performed using the pathfinder assignment method in TransCAD.

Walk and Park Analysis Model An additional procedure was developed that reconciled automobile traffic projections for downtown Lansing and the MSU campus to supply of parking facilities to accommodate projected traffic. Regional travel forecasting procedures, for the most part, do not consider parking available in traffic analysis zones. Auto travel projections for a particular traffic analysis zone were compared to parking supply of that zone to ensure parking demand did not exceed supply. Accomplishing this task required: coding a walk and park network; estimating parking supply and demand, and calibrating the peak period demand. If travel demand in excess of existing (or proposed) parking supply is projected, the excess demand was reallocated to adjacent or nearby traffic analysis zones with excess supply (where demand is less than supply). The walk time required for auto users to access their destination was determined. The amount of excess supply in other traffic zones, parking cost in these zones and local traffic circulation patterns used to access these zones are all considered in reallocation of auto trips from zones with “excess parking demand.” This iterative process was repeated until a pattern of parking demand is achieved in downtown Lansing and MSU that is in agreement with, or does not exceed, the distribution of parking.

Model Calibration Highway Assignment Calibration ensures accuracy of the travel forecast model. The basic goal in calibrating the model is to verify assigned traffic volumes simulate counted volumes on the actual roadway network for the same year. This is an iterative process in which assigned volumes were compared to actual ground counts. If results do not correspond to counted volumes, adjustments were made to the model in a number of ways. A region-wide problem might indicate need for adjusting trip rates in the trip generation model. Over or under-assignments in specific locations might require reviewing and adjusting socioeconomic data at the TAZ level or including a special generator in the trip generation process. Problems at the link level might indicate need to adjust capacity, speed or other attributes of links with problems. This iterative process was repeated until assigned volumes accurately simulate ground counts for the region. Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

The FHWA has developed statistical targets for measuring the level of calibration of a travel demand model. The Tri-County model was refined until it met FHWA targets for acceptability. Tables 4-14 and 415 outline some of the FHWA validation and calibration targets and how the model measures up to those targets. Table 4-14 Estimated vs. Observed Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by Facility Type

Facility Type Interstate Trunk Principal Arterial Non-Trunk Principal Arterial Minor arterial Collector Total

Count VMT 2,624,361 262,400 72,559 539,349 468,311 3,966,980

Assigned VMT 2,646,012 250,691 72,023 523,253 416,269 3,908,248

Percent Difference

Target

0.8% -4.5% -0.7% -3.0% -11.1% -1.5%

±7% ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 15 % ± 25 % ±5%

Target Met Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Count Locations 82 87 16 215 279 679

Table 4-15 Estimated vs. Observed Volume by Facility Type

Facility Type Interstate Trunk Principal Arterial Non-Trunk Principal Arterial Minor arterial Collector Total

Count Volume 1,582,384 1,240,920 292,592 1,698,170 1,201,617 6,015,683

Assigned Volume 1,588,627 1,167,842 287,341 1,593,224 1,029,210 5,666,244

Percent Difference

Target

0.4% -5.9% -1.8% -6.2% -14.3% -5.8%

±7% ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 15 % ± 25 % ±5%

Target Met Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Count Locations 82 87 16 215 279 679

Transit Assignment The model estimated ridership is compared against the 2009 CATA On-board survey data. The model estimated a total transit ridership of 44,213. This compared closely with counted ridership of 44,489. Table 4-16 presents ridership comparison for major routes in the region. Table 4-16 Ridership Comparison for Major Routes in the Region

Route 1 5 26 30 31 33

Name Lansing Meridian Mall Cedar Edgewood Abbot Chandler Wilson Akers Brody Hubbard Camper Cruiser Total

Modeled Ridership 6,895 2,448 3,618 5,223 5,234 3,535 26,953

Observed Ridership 6932 2181 4403 5073 6368 3811 28,768

Screenline/Cutline Analysis An additional measure of model accuracy is reviewing screenlines and cutlines in the study area model. A screenline is an imaginary line drawn through the region which divides the study area into two parts. The volume of traffic crossing that line in the model is then compared to actual ground counts. This gives a broad indication of whether overall volumes in the model are approaching correct values for the region. Six screenlines were developed for the Tri-County region. All six screenlines were within target.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Additionally, cutlines were developed for major corridors in the region. Cutlines are short screenlines which give a more accurate indication of whether volumes in a specific corridor are within acceptable parameters. Twenty corridor cutlines were developed. Of the 20 cutlines, one was 3% over the target. This may potentially be due to faulty traffic counts. All other cutlines were within target. Locations for cutlines and screenlines are shown in Table 4-10 and 4-11. Table 4-17 presents screenline/cutline analysis results. The model estimated volumes compared well against observed traffic volume in the Tri-County region. Therefore, the model can be used in forecasting future traffic to examine future year capacity deficiencies and as a reliable tool to perform future year plan development and analysis. Future year analyses require substitution of base year socioeconomic data with 2040 future year data and the entire modeling process is then rerun to develop future year values. Table 4-17 Tri-County Screenline/ Cutline Analysis Trip Purpose Screenline 1 Screenline 2 Screenline 3 Screenline 4 Screenline 5 Screenline 6 Cutline 1 Cutline 2 Cutline 3 Cutline 4 Cutline 5 Cutline 6 Cutline 7 Cutline 8 Cutline 9 Cutline 10 Cutline 11 Cutline 12 Cutline 13 Cutline 14 Cutline 15 Cutline 16 Cutline 17 Cutline 18 Cutline 19 Cutline 20

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Count Volume 101,882 173,872 41,605 61,501 41,199 94,964 25,020 26,977 32,758 25,738 100,271 21,369 15,976 35,863 46,713 26,074 38,919 14,068 46,930 63,426 35,408 107,593 59,248 149,336 98,633 34,323

Assigned Volume 102,295 165,752 40,857 60,508 41,403 96,132 22,913 27,659 32,181 26,867 109,380 23,099 17,168 38,014 49,784 22,694 41,105 14,112 43,615 65,417 37,669 110,601 63,655 139,576 106,638 37,167

Percent Difference 0.4% -4.7% -1.8% -1.6% 0.5% 1.2% -8.4% 2.5% -1.8% 4.4% 9.1% 8.1% 7.5% 6.0% 6.6% -13.0% 5.6% 0.3% -7.1% 3.1% 6.4% 2.8% 7.4% -6.5% 8.1% 8.3%

Target ±5% ±5% ±5% ±5% ±5% ±5% ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 % ± 10 %

Target Met Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Map 4-11 Screenline Locations in Tri-County Travel Demand Model

Map 4-12 Cutline Locations in Tri-County Travel Demand Model

Deficiency Analysis

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

An important goal of the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan is to ensure an efficient and effective regional transportation system. To achieve this goal, policy makers and planners analyze the existing and potential transportation problems, and evaluate suitable solutions to resolve the issues. The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate existing conditions, the impact of future travel demand on transportation facilities in the region, and identify potential future deficiencies. The transportation projects proposed in the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan will be designed to address these deficiencies. The validated travel demand model was used to identify deficiencies and subsequently develop transportation projects to address the deficiencies. Growth in population and employment are two of the main factors impacting the transportation demand. Two separate land use alternatives were considered to allocate this growth in the region: Trend and Wise Growth. These were described earlier in this chapter in Socioeconomic Variables; Alternate Land Use Scenarios. The regional travel demand model presented earlier in this chapter utilizes the socio-economic data and the roadway network to assign travel demand and identify existing and future capacity deficiencies. For highway deficiency analysis in the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan three separate scenario were modeled. This chapter details the model inputs and presents the deficiency maps and lists for each of the scenarios:  2010 base year analysis using the socio-economic data from 2010 Census, MDOT’s REMI and other commercial data sources.  2015 future year analysis based on Trend land use allocation.  2040 future year analysis based on adopted Wise Growth land use reallocation.

Travel Demand Model Inputs The travel demand model was validated for the 2010 base year and the process has been detailed in the model validation and calibration document. The socio-economic and model networks (highway and transit) were updated to run the 2015 Trend and 2040 Wise Growth scenarios. The regional control totals were established at the county level for year 2015 and 2040. The countywide control totals were disaggregated to Minor Civil Districts (MCD) level and then to the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) level to be used in the travel demand model. The countywide control totals are the same in both Trend and Wise Growth scenarios. The Wise Growth land use allocation redistributes the growth at the TAZ level based on alternative land use policies. The MCD and TAZ level forecasts are presents in detail in Chapter XX (refer to socio-economic chapter). The TAZ level socio-economic data was used in the trip generation module of the travel demand model to develop future trip generations and productions. The person trips are distributed using the gravity model and separated by travel modes in the mode choice step. The vehicle and transit trips are then assigned on the highway and transit network respectively. Base year 2010 fixed line public transit routes operated by CATA were used as the transit network for all scenarios, with no adjustment to route service level in future year deficiency model runs.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

The base year 2010 highway network was updated from the previous model (2005 highway network) by TCRPC staff. The 2015 Existing + Committed (E+C) network was generated by adding the capacity enhancing projects completed since the base year. Other projects scheduled to be completed by year 2015 with “committed” funding in place were also added. The 2011-2014 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (Adopted July 2010) and 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program was reviewed to identify the list of capacity enhancing projects to be completed by year 2015. This above input information was used to perform model runs for 2010 base, 2015 trend, 2040 Trend, and 2040 Wise Growth scenarios. Table 2-1 through 2-24 compare the regional travel characteristics of the four scenarios. Here are examples of that data and analysis. Additional tables describing Peak Period Vehicle miles for different times as well as Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel are available in the appendix of this document. Table 4-18 AM Peak Period Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)

Base Year 2010

Trend 2015

Wise Growth 2040

Trend 2040

1 1,007,038

2 1,023,123

3 1,031,001

4 1,042,611

Ramp

58,733

60,858

64,784

65,998

Trunk Principal Arterial

248,739

256,546

274,665

278,043

Non-Trunk Principal Arterial

77,463

80,641

91,411

88,332

Minor arterial

470,662

490,604

535,382

546,517

Collector

484,629

503,948

562,454

589,493

Local

252,334

261,611

276,657

290,564

2,599,598

2,677,331

2,836,354

2,901,558

Facility Type Interstate

Regional Total

Table 4-19 Modeled Unlinked Transit Ridership for each Alternative

Facility Type Transit Ridership

Base Year 2010

Trend 2015

Wise Growth 2040

Trend 2040

44,213

46,218

55,887

53,202

Results indicate daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT) increase 10 percent from 2010 to 2040 while daily vehicle hours of travel (VHT) increase about 12 percent. The increase in AM peak and PM peak VHT is 9.1 percent and 10.1 percent, respectively. The average regional speed decreases slightly from 46.62 in year 2010 to 45.7 in year 2040. Transit ridership increases 26 percent from 2010 based on the “Wise Growth” alternative. Resulting from denser community land use patterns more conducive to transit, ridership increases from 44,213 to 55,887 unlinked trips. Additional transit ridership reduces congestion on the highway system. Based on the adopted “Wise Growth” scenario, the congested roadway miles between year 2010 and 2040 is projected to increase 41.2 % in the AM peak and 122.7 percent in the PM peak period. The congested VMT and VHT increase similarly. The analysis shows that Trend land use forecast performs slightly better than “Wise Growth” land use assumptions, it is understandable considering the concentration of future growth in proximity to existing infrastructure overburdens that infrastructure if no improvements are made. Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Future Year Capacity Deficiencies Roadway segments or corridors are deemed deficient when the projected vehicle volumes approach or exceed the capacity of the roadway. The link capacity is a function of number of lanes available to carry traffic adjusted for effects of traffic signals, speeds, facility types and other factors.The methodology adopted to calculate link capacity is presented in Appendix XX (capacity calculator appendix) of Regional 2040 Transportation Plan. When vehicle volumes begin to approach or exceed roadway capacities, travel speed and travel time decreases and congestion occurs. The measure used to identify the roadway deficiencies in the model is the Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio. The V/C ratio is an indication of whether a link has sufficient capacity to handle traffic assigned to it. If a link has a V/C ratio of 1.0 or greater, it indicates that the roadway has more traffic than it can effectively handle. In this study, the roadway links with V/C ratio of 1.0 and greater were considered deficient. However, link performance begins to degrade well before the V/C ratio reaches 1.0.Links with a V/C ratio greater than 0.8 and less than 1.0 were identified as neardeficient and are also considered congested, since they are approaching capacity. The near deficient links should be closely monitored for worsening conditions and remedial treatment should be proposed to prevent them becoming deficient. In addition to roadway improvements, close attention should be paid to land use adjacent to near deficient segments. Access management, mandatory traffic impact studies for new land development or other techniques should be considered to prevent further degradation of these facilities. Both deficient and near deficient locations are considered â&#x20AC;&#x153;congested corridorsâ&#x20AC;? as the region pursues solutions to future deficiencies. The deficiencies and near deficient links for year 2010 (base), 2015 (Trend), and 2045 (Wise Growth) were identified based on the forecast assignment volumes from the calibrated travel demand model. The deficient and near deficient links in AM peak (7 A.M. to 9 P.M.) and PM peak (3 P.M. to 6 P.M.) period for each scenario are presented in Tables 3-1 through 3-12. An example of the data table, Table 3.1 is shown below. The rest of these tables are found in the Appendix. Figures 3-1 to Figure 3-6 illustrate the deficient and near-deficient links in the region for each scenario. Network deficiencies for 2010 and 2040 together provide a perspective on system wide changes occurring in the region. As expected in the Wise Growth land use scenario, the congestion issues are identified mainly around the urban center, in the Cities of Lansing and East Lansing where the population and employment growth is concentrated.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-13 2010 AM Base Year Deficiencies

Map 4 13 2010 AM Base Year Deficiencies (cont.)

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-14 2010 PM Base Year Deficiencies

Map 4 14 2010 PM Base Year Deficiencies (cont.)

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-15 2015 AM Adopted Trend Deficiencies

Map 4 15 2015 AM Adopted Trend Deficiencies (cont.)

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-16 2015 PM Adopted Trend Deficiencies

Map 4 16 2015 PM Adopted Trend Deficiencies (cont.)

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-17 2040 AM Adopted Wise Growth Deficiencies

Map 4-17 2040 AM Adopted Wise Growth Deficiencies (cont.)

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-18 2040 PM Adopted Wise Growth Deficiencies

Map 4-18 2040 PM Adopted Wise Growth Deficiencies (cont.)

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Revised Network Alternatives Analysis This report describes analysis of eight different alternatives to evaluate solution to the highway capacity deficiencies. The eight separate approaches were defined to meet regional transportation plans goals and objective, evaluate investment strategies, and to solve roadway system deficiencies. These alternatives were developed as separate scenarios using the validated TCRPC travel demand model and are combinations of three transit routes and services, four different road networks, two socioeconomic forecast scenarios and a vehicle demand reduction procedure based on the dynamic area type. TCRPC staff and local agencies reviewed the deficiency analysis results and identify potential highway solutions to mitigate transportation system deficiencies. Of all combinations of potential solutions, alternatives were framed based on assessment of costs, financial constraints on implementation, likelihood of alternatives being implemented and ability of each alternative to meet the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future transportation needs under a Wise Growth scenario. This report documents development and analysis of these eight different alternatives and their results. Each alternative has four components: Socioeconomic data, network, transit lines and services, and demand reduction procedure. The following table summarizes the alternatives analyzed. Table 4-20 Transportation Network Alternatives Summary

Alt Number 1 2 3 4 5 6A 6B

Year

SE Data

Network

2040 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040

WG WG WG WG WG WG Trend

2040

2035 EC 2035 EC 2035 EC 2035 EC 2040 2040 2040 2040 High Only

Demand Reduction No No Yes Yes Yes No No No

Summary Descriptive Name High Transit Medium Transit Demand Reductions/Improve Operations Combination of 2 & 3 (above) Combination of 2 & 3 (above) & 6a (below) Potential Highway Options List Potential Highway Options List, 2040 Trend Highways Only

Transit Alternatives Two transit scenarios were evaluated as part of the alternatives analysis: medium transit and high transit. Each scenario includes changes to the service level of existing CATA routes and adding additional routes. The change in route service levels was simulated in the model by adjusting the route headways for each time period. Table 4-21 and 4-22 presents the adjusted route headways by time period for medium transit and high transit scenarios, respectively.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Table 4-21 Proposed Headways for Medium Transit Scenario Existing Route 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20 22 23 24 25 26 30 31 32 33 39 46 48

Medium Transit Alternative

AM Peak

Mid-Day

PM - Peak

Evening

Peak

Mid - Day

PM Peak

Evening

12 30 30 15 20 60 30 30 25 60 30 60 25 60 60 35 35 35 30 30 6 8 7 11 7 13

9 30 30 15 25 60 25 25 25 60 60 60 50 60 60 35 35 25 30 30 6 8 7 11 7 20

10 30 20 30 25 60 25 20 25 60 30 60 25 60 60 35 35 25 30 30 10 8 7 11 7 20

20 60 30 60 60 45 45 45 60 60 60 45 60 60 60 35 70 60 60 40 10 15 11 10 35

5 20 15 10 15 30 12 12 12 60 30 60 25 60 30 17 35 25 25 30 6 6 6 11 7 13

4 20 15 10 15 30 10 10 12 60 60 60 50 60 30 17 35 25 25 30 6 6 6 11 7 20

5 20 10 20 20 30 10 8 12 60 30 60 25 60 30 17 35 25 25 30 10 6 6 11 7 20

10 40 15 40 30 18 18 22 60 60 60 45 60 30 30 35 30 60 60 40 8 12 11 10 35

2 trips/day

Change in Headway -58% -33% -50% -33% -25% -50% -60% -60% -52% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -50% -51% 0% -29% -17% 0% 0% -25% -14% 0% 0% 0%

3 trips/day

Table 4-22 Proposed Headways for High Transit Scenario Existing Route 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20 22 23

High Transit Alternative

AM Peak

Mid-Day

PM - Peak

Evening

Peak

Mid - Day

PM Peak

Evening

12 30 30 15 20 60 30 30 25 60 30 60 25 60 60 35 35 35

9 30 30 15 25 60 25 25 25 60 60 60 50 60 60 35 35 25

10 30 20 30 25 60 25 20 25 60 30 60 25 60 60 35 35 25

20 60 30 60 60 45 45 45 60 60 60 45 60 60 60 35 70

5 20 15 10 15 30 12 12 12 30 30 30 25 60 30 17 35 25

4 20 15 10 20 30 10 10 12 30 60 30 50 60 30 17 35 25

5 20 10 20 20 30 10 8 12 30 30 30 25 60 30 17 35 25

10 40 15 40 30 18 18 22 60 60 60 45 60 30 30 35 30

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Change in Headway -58% -33% -50% -33% -25% -50% -60% -60% -52% -50% 0% -50% 0% 0% -50% -51% 0% -29%

24 25 26 30 31 32 33 39 46 48

30 30 6 8 7 11 7 13

30 30 6 8 7 11 7 20

30 30 10 8 7 11 7 20 2 trips/day

60 60 40 10 15 11 10 35

25 15 6 6 6 11 7 13

25 15 6 6 6 11 7 20

25 15 10 6 6 11 7 20

60 30 40 8 12 11 10 35

-17% -50% 0% -25% -14% 0% 0% 0%

4 trips/day

In addition to the change in service level of the existing routes, new transit routes were proposed in each transit alternative. Separate fixed guide way links were coded in the line layer for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes.

Medium Transit:  

Route 21 between MSU and Lake Lansing Wal-Mart, along Michigan Ave and US 127. Michigan/Grand River BRT from downtown Lansing via MSU to meridian mall in Meridian Township, along Michigan Ave. and Grand River Ave.

High Transit: 

Michigan/Grand River BRT from downtown Lansing via MSU to meridian mall in Meridian Township, along Michigan Ave. and Grand River Ave.  BRT Extension between downtown Lansing and Marketplace in Delta Township, along Saginaw Ave.  NB/SB BRT from Meijer in south Lansing to Grand River Ave. & Cedar St, along Cedar St.  Commuter BRT between Charlotte and Delta Township, along Lansing Rd. and I-69/I-96  BRT from City of Lansing to Dewitt Township, along Cedar St. and Old US 27. The new routes were coded in the respective transit networks. Map 4-19 and 4-20 illustrate the proposed routes in the medium and high transit alternatives, respectively.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-19 Proposed Routes for the medium transit alternative

Map 4-20 Proposed Routes for the High Transit Alternative

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Model Highway Networks The initial lists of roadway deficiencies were identified using the 2015 Existing-Committed (E+C) network, existing base year transit network, and 2040 Wise Growth land use assumptions. The maps and lists of deficiencies were reviewed and potential highway improvements were identified. This list of capacity expanding was then modeled in the 2040 highway network. These potential highway solutions are not financially constrained prior to modeling. The list was used as a starting point to establish final list of projects for the long range transportation plan. Certain capacity projects such as intersection improvements and roundabouts could not be modeled or simulated in the travel demand model and were considered part of the demand reduction option. The projects along local roadways that are not included in the model were left out. Tables 4-22 and 4-23 presents the list of potential highway solutions included in the 2040 highway network. The highway projects included in the 2040 highway network did not address all the listed roadway deficiencies. In some cases, the modeled improvements were not sufficient to mitigate deficiency. And, potential solutions may not be feasible due to cost right-of-way or l design limitations or other. Following further local review, we identified additional highway for each deficient segment. The resultant list of additional potential highway only solutions is listed in Table 4-23. These hypothetical capacity improvement options were developed without regard to financial constraint or political viability and were modeled solely to permit evaluation of what a total highway system capacity improvement program might require to resolve all future deficiencies. These additional projects were coded in 2040 highway only network. In summary, the three network options used in the alternative analysis include: ď&#x201A;ˇ 2015 Existing + Committed (E+C) Network: This network is the 2010 base year highway network plus the current committed highway projects without further capacity expansions. ď&#x201A;ˇ 2040 Revised Highway Network: The network is the 2015 E+C highway network plus the proposed expanding capacity options. The capacity expanding projects coded in the 2040 revised network are listed in Table 4-22 and 4-23. ď&#x201A;ˇ 2040 Highway Only Network: This network is a modified version of the 2040 revised highway network. In addition to the capacity expanding projects, additional hypothetical projects were coded in this network. Many have unacceptable costs or consequences that may affect feasibility. The additional projects coded in the 2040 highway only network are presented in Table 4-24.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Table 4-23 Analyzed Capacity Expanding Projects in Potential Highway Options Alternative Map Key

CCRC

DeWitt Road

Airport to I-69

2.70

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (added 9/14/14 at CCRC request

4,000,000

2040

CCRC

State Road

DeWitt Road to US 127 BR

1.30

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes

4,500,000

2040

0.19

Construct 2 lane bridge and approaches, including bike lanes

7,328,916

2031

0.50

Construct new bridge and roadway

7,076,929

2040

Widen bridge from 2 to 4 lanes

5,816,628

2035

5,100,000

2020

1,889,209

2024

3,878,260

2032

3,358,992

2023

4,060,333

2026

10,400,000

2017

1,309,977

2022

Location

Termini

Length (miles)

Estimated Year Estimated of Construction Year Open Cost

Local Jurisdiction

Eaton Rapids

Eaton Rapids bridge and approaches

Extensions of Grandview and Barnes Roads to serve as approaches to new bridge over Grand River; includes bike lanes

ECRC

Nixon Road and bridge

Willow to North Highway

ECRC

St Joe Highway Bridge at I-69/96

East Lansing

Coleman Road

West to Wood

0.78

Mason

Franklin Farms Drive

LaVonne Drive to Kipp Road

0.20

Mason

W Columbia Street

Extension through Maple Grove Cemetery

0.25

MSU

Bogue Street

Service Road to Mount Hope

0.52

MSU

Webberville

N Shaw and S Shaw (two way pair) Wilson Road extension Webberville Road Extension

Red Cedar to Farm Lane Wilson-Fee intersection to Hagadorn, connecting north to Grand River extending S .57 mile into existing business park.

0.25 0.50 0.57

Potential Option

Construct 2 lane roadway including bike lanes Construct 2 lane extension from end of LaVonne Construct 2 lane road to connect with existing Columbia alignment Construct new 3 lane road Eliminate North Shaw; restore South Shaw to two way traffic Construct 4 lane boulevard connecting Wilson to Hagadorn Construct new 2 lane road

Table 4-24 Analyzed Capacity Expanding Projects (Management & Operations) in Potential Highway Options Alternative Local Jurisdiction

Map Key

Eaton Rapids

State Street

JB Davidson to Greyhound

0.46

Grand Ledge

Jenne Street

South to Edwards

0.35

Grand Ledge

Jenne Street

Edwards to M -43

0.20

ECRC

Canal Road

Willow to Delta Commerce

0.64 2.00

Location

Termini

Length (miles)

ECRC

Creyts Road

Lansing Road to Dimondale village limit

ECRC

Mt. Hope Highway

Canal to Guinea

1.00

ECRC

Mt. Hope Highway

Guinea to Nixon

1.00

ECRC

Mt. Hope Highway

Nixon to M-100

2.00

ECRC

Snow Road Bridge

at I-496

ECRC

St Joe Highway

Canal to Marketplace

0.50

ECRC

St Joe Highway

Broadbent to Nixon

1.00

ECRC

St Joe Highway

Royston to M-100

1.00

ECRC

St Joe Highway

Royston to Nixon

1.00

ECRC

Willow Highway

M-100 to Canal

4.00

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Potential Option

Reconstruct and add center left turn lane from Miller east .27 Reconstruct with curb and gutter; widen by 3 feet to add center Reconstruct with curb and gutter; widen by 3 feet to add center Add left turn lanes, bike lanes and sidewalk Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Widen bridge from 2 to 3 lanes and add non-motorized pathways Reconstruct; add left turn lane Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders

Estimated Year of Construction Cost

693,265

Estimated Year Open

318,876

2019 2015 (revised 2016 (revised

1,285,571

2020

6,680,380

2025

2,015,361

2020

2,357,661

2025

5,737,072

2030

5,817,000

2035

567,145

2015

2,015,350

2021

2,868,576

2030

2,357,781

2025

11,474,228

2030

433,393

Table 4 24 Analyzed Capacity Expanding Projects (Management & Operations) in Potential Highway Options Alternative (cont.) Local Jurisdiction

Map Key

East Lansing

Location

Coleman Road

Termini

West to Wood

Length (miles)

Potential Option

Estimated Year Estimated of Construction Year Open Cost

0.78

Construct 2 lane roadway including bike lanes

5,100,000

2020

1,678,500

2016

East Lansing

Harrison Road

Saginaw Hwy to Lake Lansing

1.04

Reconstruct; reduce from 4 to 3 lanes; add non-motorized lanes

East Lansing

Lake Lansing Road

US 127 to Harrison

0.75

Widen from 4 to 5 lanes; add intersection turn lanes; possible roundabout at Lake Lansing and Coolidge

2,210,400

2025

Lansing

Capitol Avenue

Malcolm X to Oakland

1.25

Switch from one way to two way (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping)

9,663,396

2020

Lansing

Cedar at Pennsylvania/American; Cedar/Pennsylvania/Edg Pennsylvania at I-96 ramps; Cedar at ewood Complex Edgewood

0.60

Construct 3 roundabouts; reconstruct Cedar and Edgewood between roundabouts

8,700,000

2020

Lansing

E Grand River Avenue

Wood to Howard

0.60

Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes and add bike lanes

20,000

2020

Lansing

E Grand River Avenue

Railroad tracks E of Larch to Massachusetts

0.35

Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes and add bike lanes (grinding, striping, signage)

9,633

2016

Lansing

Grand Avenue

Lenawee to Oakland

1.05

Switch from one way to two way and add bike lanes (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping)

750,000

2020

Lansing

Grand Avenue

St Joe to Lenawee

0.15

Switch from one way to two way and add bike lanes (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping)

71,291

2020

Lansing

Jolly Road

Waverly to MLK

1.80

Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes and add bike lanes (grinding, striping, signage)

52,229

2018

Table 4 24 Continued Map Key

Lansing

Michigan Avenue

Detroit Street to Clippert

0.25

Boulevard reduced from 3 lanes to 2 lanes in each direction with the addition of bike lanes

18,664

2018; revised termini

Lansing

MLK Boulevard

Oakland to Queen

0.60

Mill and resurface, ADA ramp upgrades, 4 to 3 lane conversion with addition of bike lanes

314,605

2015

Lansing

MLK Jr. Boulevard

Queen to Grand River

0.50

Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes with addition of bike lanes (grinding, striping, signage)

16,424

2018; revised termini

Lansing

Mt. Hope Avenue

Pleasant Grove to Washington

1.60

Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes with addition of bike lanes (grinding, striping, signage)

39,037

2022; revised termini

Lansing

Pine Street

Malcolm X to Shiawassee

0.82

Switch from one way to two way (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping)

629,800

2020

Lansing

Pine Street

Shiawassee to Oakland

0.43

Switch from one way to two way (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping)

314,900

2020

Lansing

Pleasant Grove

MLK to Jolly

1.15

40,174-local

2022

Lansing

Saginaw Street

Larch to Merrill

1.60

25,839-local

2020

Lansing

Townsend Street

Elm to Malcolm X

0.25

8,568-local

2022

Location

Termini

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Length (miles)

Estimated Year Estimated of Construction Year Open Cost

Local Jurisdiction

Potential Option

Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes with addition of bike lanes (grinding, striping, signage) Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes with addition of bike lanes (striping & signage only) Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes (grinding, striping, signage) with addition of bike lanes

Table 4 24 Analyzed Capacity Expanding Projects (Management & Operations) in Potential Highway Options Alternative (cont.) Map Key

Lansing

Walnut Street

Malcolm X to Shiawassee

0.82

Switch from one way to two way (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping)

540,000

2020

Lansing

Walnut Street

Shiawassee to Oakland

0.43

Switch from one way to two way (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping)

401,729

2020

Lansing

Willow Street

Sunset to MLK Boulevard

0.60

Reduce from 4 lanes (to 3 lanes from city limit to railroad track; to 2 lanes from railroad to MLK)

87,335-local

2022

2,232,483

2018

1,300,000

2025

3,234,000-EDA

2015

750,000

2025

Location

Termini

Length (miles)

Estimated Year Estimated of Construction Year Open Cost

Local Jurisdiction

Potential Option

ICRC

Aurelius Road

Harper (west leg) to Holt Road

1.50

Harper to Wilcox: widen from 2 to 3 lanes; Wilcox to Holt: reduce from 4 to 3 lanes; add possible roundabout at Holt-Aurelius intersection; bike lanes on both sides

ICRC

Marsh Road

Central Park to Tihart

0.50

Widen from 4 to 5 lanes with intersection improvements

ICRC

Okemos Road

Sandhill to Jackson National Life

0.45

Widen from 2 to 3 lanes

0.95

Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes, includes bike lanes

ICRC

Willow Road

Waverly to Lansing city limit

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Table 4-25 Capacity Expanding Projects in Highway Only Alternative

Local Jurisdiction

Location

Termini

Potential Option

MDOT

US 127

Kinley to Gratiot County Line

Expansion to limited access freeway

CCRC

Clark Road

U.S. 127 B.R. to Wood

Reduce from four lanes (road diet)

CCRC

Park Lake/Webster Ext.

Webster to Coleman

Construct connecting link

CCRC

State Road extension

Webster to Chandler

Construct new road

Chandler Road

I-69 to Ingham County line

Increase capacity and add I-69 interchange

MDOT

US 127 interchange

at State Road

Construct new interchange

MDOT

I-96 interchange

at Meridian Road

Construct new interchange

East Lansing

Collingwood Drive

East Circle Drive to Albert

Add northbound lane

East Lansing

Hagadorn Road (SB)

Grand River to East Shaw

Add third southbound lane

East Lansing

Lake Lansing Road

Kerry to Coolidge

Add continuous right turn lane

Cedar Street

Jolly to Armstrong

Add continuous right turn lane

Leslie

Bellevue Road

U. S. 127 sb ramp to west of High Street

Add continuos left turn lane

MDOT

Grand River Avenue (M-43)

Harrison to Michigan

Add west bound lane

MDOT

I-496 eb

Ramp to U.S. 127 nb

Add lane

MDOT

U.S. 127 ramp nb

Ramp approach to Homer

Add lane

MDOT

U. S. 127 ramp nb

Ramp approach to Saginaw

Add lane

MDOT

U. S. 127 ramp nb

Ramp approach to lake Lansing

Add lane

MDOT

U. S. 127 ramp sb

Ramp approach to I-496 wb

Add lane

East Circle Drive to Grand River Termini

Add northbound through lane Potential Option

CCRC/MDOT

Lansing

MSU Collingwood Drive Local Jurisdiction Location

MSU

Farm Lane

Auditorium Road to Shaw

Widen from 3 to 4 lanes

MSU

Kalamazoo Street

West Circle Drive eb to Chestnut

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes

MSU

West Circle Drive

West Circle wb to West Circle eb

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes

Williamston

Putnam Street/Williamston Road

I-96 wb ramp to Linn

Add continuos left turn lane

Williamston

Putnam Street

Grand River (M-43) to Church Street

Add continuous left turn lane and eliminate parking

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Demand Reduction Procedure The demand reduction procedure is used in the model to simulate a combination of demand reduction and operational treatments that a traditional fourstep travel demand forecasting model is not suited to model individually. Examples of such capacity improving projects include:      

Expanding the regions non-motorized facilities to improve community walkability and bike ability and remove trips from the highway system, with a particular focus on improving connections between neighborhoods, schools, parks, downtowns and other attractions. Certain types of ITS or other operational treatments which improve travel times, reduce delays or prevent some trips from further degrading quality of service. Traffic engineering improvements to improved signal timing, traffic operations centers and traffic signalization systems that improve operations as congestion grows. Access management along major corridors. Other operational treatments, not conducive to modeling, but consistent with TCRPC’s goals and investment strategies such as roundabouts to replace traffic signals. Synergistic effects of these strategies with higher density mixed land uses, which encourage trip chaining, use of walking and biking and shorter trips.

This alternative was simulated by a reduction in growth of the regional vehicle trip table system wide. A dynamic area type procedure was used to identify locations for demand reductions based on density of population and employment for each traffic zone in relation to all other zones in a one mile radius. The higher the density of population and employment, the greater the potential is for impact of these strategies. Thus higher density zones have higher percentage of trip reduction. Table 4-1 shows the demand reductions made in the model based on area types. The trip reduction percentages were adjusted to achieve a total of ten percent reduction of vehicle trips in the entire region. Table 4-26 Strategic Demand reduction by Geographic Area

Area Type Code 1 2 3 4 5 -

Area Type CBD Fringe Urban Suburban Rural MSU (Central TAZs) MSU (Peripheral TAZs) External TAZs

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Description Very High Density High Density Medium Density Low Density Very Low Density -

Demand Reduction Percentages 15% 12% 10% 7% 5% 35% 25% 5%

Summary of Network Alternatives This section presents a summary of each alternative transportation network and their components and related assumptions. Alternative 1: High Transit  Socio-economic Data: Alternative 1 applies the 2040 Wise Growth scenario reallocation to demographic data.  Roadway Network: This alternative uses the 2015 E+ C network , which is the 2010 base year network plus the currently committed highway projects without any further capacity improvements.  Transit: The 2010 base year CATA routes plus the new BRT routes proposed in the high transit form the transit lines for this alternative. The service headways for the existing CATA are also adjusted as shown in Table 2-2.  Demand reduction Procedure: Alternative 1 does not apply any reduction procedures to its vehicle demand. Alternative 2: Medium Transit  Socio-economic Data: Alternative 2 applies the 2040 Wise Growth scenario reallocation to demographic data.  Roadway Network: This alternative uses the 2015 E+ C network , which is the 2010 base year network plus the currently committed highway projects without any further capacity improvements.  Transit: The 2010 base year CATA routes plus the routes proposed in the medium transit scenario are used in this alternative. The service headways for the existing CATA are also adjusted as shown in Table 2-1  Demand reduction Procedure: Alternative 2 does not apply any reduction procedures to its vehicle demand. Alternative 3: Demand Reduction  Socio-economic Data: Alternative 3 applies the 2040 Wise Growth scenario reallocation to demographic data.  Roadway Network: This alternative uses the 2015 E+ C network , which is the 2010 base year network plus the currently committed highway projects without any further capacity improvements.  Transit: The 2010 base year CATA routes are maintained for this alternative  Demand reduction Procedure: Alternative 3 applies the demand reduction procedure base on the dynamic area type to its vehicle demand. Alternative 4: Combination of 2 & 3 - Medium Transit and Demand Reduction  Socio-economic Data: Alternative 4 applies the 2040 Wise Growth scenario reallocation to demographic data.  Roadway Network: This alternative uses the 2015 E+ C network , which is the 2010 base year network plus the currently committed highway projects without any further capacity improvements.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

 

Transit: The 2010 base year CATA routes plus the routes proposed in the medium transit scenario are used in this alternative. The service headways for the existing CATA are also adjusted as shown in Table 2-1 Demand reduction Procedure: Alternative 4 applies the demand reduction procedure base on the dynamic area type to its vehicle demand.

Alternative 5: Comb. of 2, 3, & 6a - Medium Transit, Demand Reduction, & Potential Highway Options.  Socio-economic Data: Alternative 5 applies the 2040 Wise Growth scenario reallocation to demographic data.  Roadway Network: This alternative uses 2040 revised highway network. The revised highway network is the 2015 E+ C highway network plus the potential capacity expanding projects. All the capacity expanding options coded in the network are presented in Table 3-1.  Transit: The 2010 base year CATA routes plus the routes proposed in the medium transit scenario are used in this alternative. The service headways for the existing CATA are also adjusted as shown in Table 2-1  Demand reduction Procedure: Alternative 5 applies the demand reduction procedure base on the dynamic area type to its vehicle demand. Alternative 6a: Potential Highway Options on Wise Growth Scenario  Socio-economic Data: Alternative 6a applies the 2040 Wise Growth scenario reallocation to demographic data.  Roadway Network: This alternative uses 2040 revised highway network. The revised highway network is the 2015 E+ C highway network plus the potential capacity expanding projects. All capacity expanding options coded in the network are in Table 3-1.  Transit: The 2010 base year CATA routes are maintained for this alternative  Demand reduction Procedure: Alternative 6a does not apply any reduction procedures to its vehicle demand. Alternative 6b: Potential Highway Options on Trend Scenario  Socio-economic Data: Alternative 6a applies the 2040 Trend scenario to demographic.  Roadway Network: This alternative uses 2040 revised highway network. The revised highway network is the 2015 E+ C highway network plus the potential capacity expanding projects. All capacity expanding options coded in the network are in Table 3-1.  Transit: The 2010 base year CATA routes are maintained for this alternative  Demand reduction Procedure: Alternative 6a does not apply any reduction procedures. Alternative 7: Highways Only  Socio-economic Data: Alternative 7 applies the 2040 Wise Growth scenario reallocation to demographic data.  Roadway Network: A modified version of 2040 revised highway network is used for this alternative. In addition to the potential highway options (6a & 6b), this network also includes hypothetical capacity enhancing options. Table 3-2 presents the additional projects coded in the highway only network.  Transit: The 2010 base year CATA routes are maintained for this alternative  Demand reduction Procedure: Alternative 7 does not apply any reduction procedures to its vehicle demand.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Network Alternate Analysis Results The regional travel demand model was used to evaluate impacts of each alternative. Performance measures listed below were used to evaluate and compare network solutions to select a suitable alternative for the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan.  Impact on resolving deficient links based on V/C ratio  Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)  Vehicle Hours Travelled (VHT)  Average Travel Speed  Congested VMT  Congested VHT  Daily Transit Ridership Results of link level analysis are identified in Tables 4-27 to 4-30. Each deficient link is shown on this table, as is the impact each network alternative would have on its assigned volume/capacity (V/C) ratio, a common measure of congestion, and is shown during 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. ( AM peak) and 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. (PM peak ) peak travel periods. The “base” scenario is list of deficiencies identified in Chapter XX (deficiency chapter). Links on this table are shown as deficient (V/C ratio greater than 1.0), near deficient (V/C of .80 to 1.00) or as a non-congested link. By comparing against alternatives relative impacts of alternatives are shown link by link. The deficient links are marked “+”, near deficient links are marked “0”, and the non-congested links are marked”-“. The change in deficiency along each segment is also highlighted (blue of near deficient and green for non-congested).

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Demand Reduction

Combination of 2 & 3

Combination of 2,3, & 6a

Highway Only 2040

Medium Transit 2040

Principal Jurisdiction

High Transit 2040

Lake Lansing Rd.

Link

Base Scenario

Corridor

Potential Options 2040 Wise Growth Potential Options 2040 Trend

Table 4-27 AM Deficient Links - Results of Network Alternative Model Runs on Deficient Links

N US 127/Lake Landing to Coolidge Rd.

East Lansing

Grand River Ave.

Hillcrest Ave. to Harrison Rd.

East Lansing

Kalamazoo St.

W Circle Dr. (EB) to Chestnut Rd.

East Lansing

Collingwood Dr.

Grand River Ave. to E Circle Dr.

East Lansing

Hagadorn Rd. (SB)

Grand River Ave. to E Shaw Ln.

East Lansing

Farm Ln.

Auditorium Rd. to N of Shaw Ln.

East Lansing

W Circle Dr.

W Circle Dr. (WB) to W Circle Dr. (EB)

East Lansing

Service Rd.

Farm Ln. to West of Bogue St.

East Lansing

Williamston Rd./Putnam St. Williamston/E I 96 Ramp to Linn Rd.

Williamston

Putnam Rd.

Grand River Ave. to E Church St.

Williamston

Leslie/ Ingham Cnty.

Bellevue Rd.

Churchill Rd. to W of High St.

Okemos Rd.

Okemos/E I 96 on Ramp to Corporate Way Lansing/ Ingham Cnty

Cavanaugh Rd.

Cedar St. to W of Wildwood Ave.

Lansing

Saginaw/ N US 127 Ramp

NB Off Ramp to Saginaw

MDOT

N US 127/ Homer St. Ramp

NB Off Ramp to Kalamazoo St.

MDOT

W I 496/ S US 127

Freeway ramp

MDOT

E I 496 / N US 127

Freeway ramp

MDOT

M 43/ I 69 BR WB Cutoff

W Saginaw St. to Grand River Ave.

MDOT

Howard Ave.

Grand River Ave. to E Saginaw St.

Ingham County

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

High Transit 2040

Medium Transit 2040

Demand Reduction

Combination of 2 & 3

Combination of 2,3, & 6a

Highway Only 2040

Base Scenario

Potential Options 2040 Wise Growth Potential Options 2040 Trend

Table 4-28 AM Near Deficient Links - Results of Network Alternative Model Runs on Deficient Links

Lake Lansing Rd.

Kerry St. to N US 127/Lake Landing

East Lansing

W Saginaw St.

Sunset Ln. to Old Hickory Ln.

East Lansing

Grand River Ave.

Hillcrest Ave. to College St.

East Lansing

Beal Entrance

Michigan Ave. to W Circle Dr.

East Lansing

E Circle Dr.

W Circle Dr. to Collingwood Dr.

East Lansing

Collingwood Dr.

Grand River Ave. to Albert Ave.

East Lansing

Albert Ave.

Collingwood Dr. to Kedzie St.

East Lansing

Trowbridge Rd. (EB)

W 1496 Off Ramp to S Harrison Rd.

East Lansing

Grand River Ave.

Okemos Rd. to Marsh Rd.

Ingham County

Grand River Ave.

Cornell Rd. to Meridian Rd.

Ingham County

Hamilton Rd.

Okemos Rd. to Manitou Dr.

Ingham County

Dobbie Rd.

Boulevard Dr. to Kinawa Dr.

Ingham County

College Rd.

E Jolly Rd. to N of Dell Rd.

Ingham County

Eifert Rd.

Leif and Kathy's Ln. to Willoughby Rd.

Ingham County

Willoughby Rd.

Eifert Rd. to Helman Blvd.

Ingham County

Aurelius Rd.

Keller Rd. to Wilcox Rd.

Ingham County

Howard Ave.

E Saginaw St. to S US 127 On Ramp

Ingham County

Putnam St.

Linn Rd. to Jackson/School St.

Williamston

E Church St.

N Putnam St. to Highland St.

Williamston

Okemos Rd.

Corporate Way to Sandhill Rd.

Lansing/ Ingham Cnty

North St

Cedar St. to Mason St.

Mason

Columbia St.

Mason St. to State St.

Mason

State St.

Columbia St. to Sycamore St.

Mason

Corridor

Link

Principal Jurisdiction

Cedar St.

W Grand River Ave. to Shiawassee St.

Lansing

Cedar St.

Elm St. to Christiancy St.

Lansing

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

High Transit 2040

Medium Transit 2040

Demand Reduction

Combination of 2 & 3

Combination of 2,3, & 6a

Highway Only 2040

Base Scenario

Potential Options 2040 Wise Growth Potential Options 2040 Trend

Table 4-28 AM Near Deficient Links - Results of Network Alternative Model Runs on Deficient Links (cont.)

Mt. Hope Ave. to to Greenlawn Ave.

Lansing

Cedar St.

Jolly Rd. to N of Edgewood Blvd.

Lansing

Cedar St.

American Rd. to Pennsylvania Ave.

Lansing

Moores River Dr.

Pattengill Ave. to MLK Blvd.

Lansing

Michigan Ave.

N Capitol Ave. to N Grand Ave.

Lansing

N Grand River Ave.

N Grand River Ave. to W Grand River Ave. Lansing

W Grand River Ave.

N Grand River Ave. to Cedar St.

Lansing

Lansing Rd.

E Saginaw St. to Upton Rd.

Clinton County

Webster Rd.

Clark Rd. to Webster/ W I 69 Ramp

Clinton County

Round Lake Rd.

S US 127/Rd. Lake Ramp to N US 127/Rd. Lake Clinton RampCounty

Corridor

Cedar St.

Link

Principal Jurisdiction

7 -

Vermontville Hwy

Folk St. to Hartel Rd.

Potteville

Lansing Rd. (NB)

E Main St. to S I 69/ Lansing Ramps

Potteville/ Eaton Cnty.

US 127 SB

Saginaw On Ramp to Kalamazoo St.

MDOT

W I 496/ Pennsylvania

WB Off Ramp to Pennsylvania Ave.

MDOT

W I 496

Penn. WB Off Ramp to Ramp to Cedar St. MDOT

E I 496/ Main St. Ramp

EB Off Ramp to App. Cedar St.

MDOT

E I 496/ MLK On Ramp

MLK Dr. to E I 496

MDOT

E I 496

W I 496/ MLK On Ramp to Capitol Ave.

MDOT

E I 496

Waverly On Ramp to MLK Off Ramp

MDOT

N US 127 / W I 496

Jolly / W I 496 Ramp to Trowbridge/ US 127 RampMDOT

N US 127 / Lake Lansing Rd. NB Off Ramp to Lake Lansing

MDOT

E Saginaw St. (M 43)

Howard St. to W Grand River Ave.

MDOT

M 43/ I 69 BR EB Cutoff

E Saginaw St. to E Grand River Ave.

MDOT

E Grand River Ave. (M 43)

M 43/ I 69 BR WB Cutoff to N Howard Ave. MDOT

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Demand Reduction

Combination of 2 & 3

Combination of 2,3, & 6a

Highway Only 2040

Medium Transit 2040

Lake Lansing Rd.

Kerry St. to Coolidge Rd.

East Lansing

Grand River Ave.

Harrison Ave. to College St.

East Lansing

W Circle Dr.

W Circle Dr. (WB) to W Circle Dr. (EB)

East Lansing

Kalamazoo St.

W Circle Dr. (EB) to Chestnut Rd.

East Lansing

Collingwood Dr.

E Circle Dr. to Grand River Ave.

East Lansing

Collingwood Dr.

Grand River Ave. to Albert Ave.

East Lansing

Farm Ln.

Auditorium Rd. to Shaw Ln.

East Lansing

Corridor

Link

Principal Jurisdiction

Base Scenario

High Transit 2040

Potential Options 2040 Wise Growth Potential Options 2040 Trend

Table 4-29 PM Deficient Links - Results of Network Alternative Model Runs on Deficient Links

Hagadorn Rd. (SB)

Grand River Ave. to E Shaw Ln.

East Lansing

Grand River Ave.

Okemos Rd. to Marsh Rd.

Ingham County

Howard Ave.

Grand River Ave. to E Saginaw St.

Ingham County

Williamston Rd./Putnam St.

Williamston/E I 96 Ramp to Jackson/School Williamston St.

Putnam Rd.

Grand River Ave. to E Church St.

Okemos Rd.

Okemos/E I 96 on Ramp to Corporate Way Lansing/ Ingham Cnty

Bellevue Rd.

Churchill Rd. to W of High St.

Leslie/ Ingham Cnty.

Cedar St.

Jolly Rd. to Armstrong Rd.

Lansing

Williamston

Cedar St.

American Rd. to Pennsylvania Ave.

Lansing

Cavanaugh Rd.

Cedar St. to W of Wildwood Ave.

Lansing

Miller Rd.

Cedar St. to Orchard Ct.

W Grand River Ave. (M 43)

M 43/ I 69 BR WB Cutoff to N Howard Ave. MDOT

M 43/ I 69 BR EB Cutoff

E Saginaw St. to Grand River Ave.

MDOT

M 43/ I 69 BR WB Cutoff

W Saginaw St. to Grand River Ave.

MDOT

Saginaw/ N US 127 Ramp

NB Off Ramp to Saginaw Ave.

MDOT

N US 127/ Homer St.Ramp

NB Off Ramp to Kalamazoo St.

MDOT

W I 496/ S US 127

Freeway Ramp

MDOT

E I 496 / N US 127

Freeway Ramp

MDOT

N US 127 / Lake Lansing Rd.

NB Off Ramp to

MDOT

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

High Transit 2040

Medium Transit 2040

Demand Reduction

Combination of 2 & 3

Combination of 2,3, & 6a

Highway Only 2040

Base Scenario

Potential Options 2040 Wise Growth Potential Options 2040 Trend

Table 4-30 PM Near Deficient Links - Results of Network Alternative Model Runs on Deficient Links

East Lansing

Coolidge Rd. to Highland Ave.

East Lansing

Michigan Ave. to W Circle Dr.

East Lansing

W Circle Dr. to Collingwood Dr.

East Lansing

M.A.C. Ave. to Division St.

East Lansing

Collingwood Dr. to Kedzie St.

East Lansing

Red Cedar Rd. to S Harrison Rd.

East Lansing

Trowbridge Rd. (EB)

W 1496 Off Ramp to S Harrison Rd.

East Lansing

Service Rd.

Farm Ln. to West of Bogue St.

East Lansing

Hamilton Rd.

Okemos Rd. to Tacoma Blvd.

Ingham County

Dobbie Rd.

Forest Hills Rd. to Kinawa Dr.

Ingham County

College Rd.

E Jolly Rd. to Dell Rd.

Ingham County

Willoughby Rd.

Eifert Rd. to Helman Blvd.

Ingham County

Aurelius Rd.

Keller Rd. to Sycamore St.

Ingham County

Howard Ave.

E Saginaw St. to S US 127 / Saginaw On Ramp Ingham County

E Church St.

N Putnam St. to Highland St.

Corridor

Link

W Saginaw St.

Sunset Ln. to Old Hickory Ln.

Grand River Ave. Beal Entrance E Circle Dr. Albert Ave. Albert Ave. Trowbridge Rd. (WB)

Principal Jurisdiction

Williamston

North St

Cedar St. to Mason St.

Mason

Mason St.

North St. to Columbia St.

Mason

Columbia St.

Mason St. to State St.

Mason

State St.

Columbia St. to W Ash St.

Mason

Cedar St.

E Grand River Ave to Shiawassee St.

Lansing

Cedar St.

Elm St. to Christiancy St.

Lansing

Cedar St.

Mt. Hope Ave. to Greenlawn Ave.

Lansing

Cedar St.

Armstrong Rd. to Edgewood Blvd.

Lansing

American Rd.

Cedar St. to Pennsylvania Ave.

Lansing

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

High Transit 2040

Medium Transit 2040

Demand Reduction

Combination of 2 & 3

Combination of 2,3, & 6a

Highway Only 2040

Base Scenario

Potential Options 2040 Wise Growth Potential Options 2040 Trend

Table 4-30 PM Near Deficient Links - Results of Network Alternative Model Runs on Deficient Links (cont.)

Moores River Dr.

Pattengill Ave. to MLK Blvd.

Lansing

Clemens Ave.

E Saginaw St. to E Michigan Ave.

Lansing

Michigan Ave.

N Capitol Ave. to N Grand Ave.

Lansing

N Grand River Ave.

N Grand River Ave. to W Grand River Ave. Lansing

W Grand River Ave.

N Grand River Ave. to Cedar St.

Lansing

Lansing Rd.

E Saginaw St. to Upton Rd.

Clinton County

Webster Rd.

S of Clark Rd. to Webster/ W I 69 Ramp

Clinton County

Corridor

Link

Principal Jurisdiction

Round Lake Rd.

S US 127/Rd. Lake Ramp to N US 127/Rd. Lake Clinton RampCounty

Vermontville Hwy

Folk St. to Hartel Rd.

Potteville

Lansing Rd. (NB)

E Main St. to S I 69/ Lansing Ramps

Potteville/Eaton Cnty. 0

Saginaw/ S US 127 Ramp

SB On Ramp from Howard St.

MDOT

US 127 SB

S US 127/ Saginaw On Ramp to Kalamazoo St.

MDOT

W I 496

US 127 to Grand Ave.

MDOT

E I 496

Cedar St. On Ramp to US 127

MDOT

W I 496/ Pennsylvania

WB Off Ramp

MDOT

E I 496/ Main St. Ramp

EB Off Ramp to App. Cedar St.

MDOT

W I 496

Walnut Off Ramp to MLK Off Ramp

MDOT

E I 496

MLK On Ramp to Pine/ E I 496 On Ramp

MDOT

W I 496

Pine/ W I 496 On Ramp to W I 496/ Lansing Off MDOT Ramp

E I 496

E I 496/ Lansing On Ramp to E I 496 / Walnut OffMDOT Ramp

N US 127 / W I 496

Jolly / W I 496 Ramp to Trowbridge/ US 127 Ramp MDOT

S US 127/ E I 496

Trowbridge/ US 127 Ramp to E I 496/ Jolly

MDOT

E Saginaw St. (M 43)

E of Merill Ave. to W Grand River Ave.

MDOT

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Alternatives Analysis Results Model alternative analysis results indicate Alternatives 5, 6B and 7 results in fewer deficiencies in both AM and PM peak period. Alternative 7 shows a higher benefit based of V/C ratios, but is not feasible due to costs and other impacts of adding all hypothetical or potential highway options in this highway only approach. Likewise, alternative 6b showed good results but is not consistent with the Commissions direction to develop the long range transportation plan. Tables 6-5 through 6-9 (in the Appendix) present the vehicle miles of travel (VMT), a measure of overall travel, for each time period (AM, Midday, PM, Night) and daily totals. In all travel periods, Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 show the least vehicle miles system wide. Tables 6-10 through 6-14 depict vehicle hours of travel (VHT). VHT represents travel time on the highway system and correlates to VMT. All time periods show alternatives 3, 4 and 5 with lowest VHT. Tables 6-15 through 6-19 are available in the appendix. They present the average speed by functional classification for each alternative. On a system wide basis, relative speeds are indicators of ability to travel without delay due to congestion. Average roadway speeds for all alternatives were similar. Tables 6-20 and 6-21 (in the Appendix) show congested vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for AM and PM peak period. This measures miles of travel on congested links and is an indicator of the proportion of travel constrained by congestion. While clearly demonstrating most congestion is in the PM peak period, alternative 5 performs the best. Alternative 7 performs similar to Alternative 1, 2 and 6. Tables 6-22 through 6-23 in the Appendix show congested vehicle hours of travel (VHT), a performance measure similar to congested VMT, except it measures hours spent in travel on congested links. This is an indicator of travel delay. Alternatives 3, 4, 5 show best results overall, with marginal difference between alternatives 6, 6a, and 7. Tables 6-24 through 6-25 show congested lane miles. Miles of lanes congested during peak and daily time periods indicate patterns of congestion. Results show alternatives 3, 4, 5 have lowest congested lane mileage. Alternative 6b has lower congestion miles in the p.m. period when compared to alternatives 6 and 7. Table 6-26 presents the daily unlinked transit trips by alternative. As expected alternative 1 (high transit) has the highest ridership. Alternative 2, 4, and 5 (medium transit) also show high ridership compared to other alternatives. Based on this analysis, Alternate Number 5, the Combination alternative, which includes the medium transit service improvements, demand reductions and the proposed list of highway projects is the preferred alternative recommended for implementation. Additional line graphs which demonstrate the comparative analysis of these alternatives follow, and details on the transit and nonmotorized system plans, and sections addressing other deficiencies, intelligent transportation systems, parking and intermodal issues, and recommended future studies.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Table 4-31 Modeled Unlinked Transit Ridership for each Alternative

Facility Type

Transit Ridershi p

High Transi t 2040

Medium Transit 2040

Demand Reduction

Combination of 2 & 3

Combinati on of 2,3, & 6a

Potential Options 2040 Wise Growth

Potential Options 2040 Trend

Highway Only 2040

68,856

62,128

55,855

62,144

61,592

55,841

53,333

56,184

Other System Deficiencies Highway capacity deficiencies are just one problem considered in the planning process. Examples of other deficiencies include: safety and operations, pavement conditions, system continuity, bridges, economic development and accessibility.

Safety and Operational Deficiencies The Regional 2040 Transportation Plan does not identify all highway safety projects or operational treatments to be completed by 2040. Safety projects with funding commitments in the first five year planning period are included in the preservation program. Safety of motorized and non-motorized transportation users are each mandatory factors considered in the Long range plan. Improving efficiency of management and operations and improving security for all users are also mandatory planning factors. The Commission also has adopted safety investment strategies, project selection criteria, analysis tools and performance measures which assure consideration of safety in setting all project priorities. Additional safety and operational improvement projects may be amended into this plan as they are identified. TCRPC and MDOT have a long history of working with the FHWA, local implementing agencies and the Michigan State Police Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) to integrate safety considerations in the planning process. TCRPC, has sponsored a regional traffic safety forum, developed a regional safety profile, initiated strategic planning and exercises to identify regional safety priorities for the planning process. TCRPC regularly brings safety experts to make presentations to committees to educate members about safety issues. The public has identified a number of safety related issues in our town forums, at our committee meetings, through the Mindmixer on-line engagement tool or in the annual County Traffic Summits. And, TCRPCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strong partnerships with stakeholders, such as the League of Michigan Bicyclists, Tri-County Bicycle Association, Michigan Trails and Greenways Alliance, Michigan Fitness Foundation, and task. TCRPCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s land use planning approaches reduce crashes. National studies repeatedly demonstrate safety benefits of access management in congested corridors. TCRPCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s model zoning ordinance for access management has been integrated in many local zoning ordinances. An access management overlay ordinance adopted by six local governments for the M-43/M-52 corridors from Meridian Township to Webberville is an example. A recent access management plan was also developed by MDOT and DeWitt Township for the old US 27 corridor to reduce the number and severity of crashes.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Pavement Deficiencies The Regional 2040 Transportation Plan lists many capacity improvements to address congestion deficiencies. Federal law requires that all regionally significant new roads or capacity expansions (through lanes) be included in this plan which are anticipated through 2040, regardless of funding source. The plan lists a five year program of preservation projects—resurfacing and reconstruction or other improvements which do not include new through lanes—to maintain the existing system, address pavement condition or resolve surface and base deficiencies. Regionally, our PASER data trends reflect this continued systemic de-construction of our highways – and this does not even reflect conditions on local streets! All indications are that local responsible transportation agencies are in a worse situation with their local road systems. Increasingly, local pavement management will be based on comparable PASER ratings and local asset management plans. A Bridge Management System is used to identify deficient bridges and fixes. An example project will widen the bridge on Snow Road over I-496 in Eaton County.

System Continuity Deficiencies From a systems perspective, deficiencies may also occur due to gaps in roads, functional classification, boundaries between urban and rural areas or where new development is permitted without adequate infrastructure. Deficiencies resulting from gaps in system coverage are known as system continuity deficiencies. Map 4-21 2012 PASER Ratings

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-22 2013 PASER Ratings

Some plan projects are to fix continuity deficiencies. An example is constructing a new two lane road extension with bike lanes under US 127 on Coleman Road from West Street to Wood Street in East Lansing and Lansing Township.

Economic Development/Access The plan includes projects to stimulate regional economic development, or improve access to regional facilities, like the East Towne Center Mall. Some of these projects may be constructed with private or other funds. Federal law requires the MPO planning process to explicitly consider all regionally significant transportation projects, regardless of funding source. All regionally significant projects known by TCRPC are included in this plan, such as this Coleman Road extension.

Other Transportation System Considerations Some other transportation system considerations are appropriate, required or both when evaluating regional transportation system needs. These issues include intermodal facilities, transit facilities and services, parking system needs, bicycle and non-motorized facilities and special studies. These issues are treated separately below. Regional air and rail service are important components of the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transportation system. Some discussion of these issues is in this report. However, this plan does not address specific details of airport or rail service planning. These details are typically in separate plans or studies, which are not part of the MPO process. However, the MPO coordinates with these efforts and recommendations from these separate facilities plans are either summarized or considered in this plan. These more detailed plans are complementary and assist in considering these issues on a regional basis.

Intermodal Planning Issues in our region Intermodalism considers moving toward a â&#x20AC;&#x153;seamlessâ&#x20AC;? nationwide transportation system for people and freight. This section summarizes issues related to interaction between transportation modes, including air, rail, trucking, freight and non-motorized travel. Federal law requires that certain mandatory planning factors be considered in regional transportation plans. One such factor is accessibility and mobility for people and freight.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

To evaluate intermodal issues the TCRPC conducted several surveys of regional intermodal/freight transportation providers and businesses such as major manufacturing firms, rail, air, trucking and pipeline services, to identify issues. Issues identified included Physical Limitations, such as clearance for double stacking. Accessibility including time and cost to facilities, Transferability and coordination, Delivery and collection, Safety, regulatory issues such as truck weight limits and route restrictions, and environmental concerns.

Capital Region International Airport Access The Capital Region International Airport is about three miles northwest of downtown Lansing corner of DeWitt Township and serves over 200,000 passengers annually. Over 20,000 tons of air freight and mail traverse the airport and accessibility is important since it is an International Port and the hub a 10 county Trade Zone. It is an important economic development generator for the region. The airport has one principal ground access corridor and access is constrained by an at-grade rail crossing. Accidents and conflicts between train operations and passenger terminal traffic are reported and delays caused by trains impact airline passengers. Airport access improvements are crucial component of the Capital Region International Airport’s growth strategy and are recommended in the Airport Master Plan. The master plan recognizes the need for a new terminal with access via State Road from U.S. Business 27(North East Street).It would require improvements to accommodate additional traffic. The airport and local governments are initiating a feasibility study of access improvement alternatives and suggest that an Interchange be considered at State Road and US 127. This Interchange is NOT included in this plan, but was modeled as part of the “Highways Only” alternative, along with other alternates to improve access to the airport such as a Chandler Road Interchange and others not part of this plan. Modeling these ideas in the “Highways Only” alternative provides some initial indicators of potential impacts on the surface transportation system.

International Rail and Truck-Rail-Air Loading Facilities International rail traffic dramatically increased when a modernized rail tunnel under the St. Clair River to Canada was done. Coupled with the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), Lansing has had substantial growth in rail traffic. Lansing remains a major automobile producer and much freight bound for Canda originates here. While providing an economic stimulus to the region, increased rail traffic has negative impacts on at-grade crossings at high volume roads like Harrison or Waverly. The MSU campus was particularly impacted. No new railroad grade separations are planned but TCRPC continues to monitor impacts of increased rail traffic on highway safety and delays. TCRPC created an inventory of trucking and other intermodal firms in the region. Many are directly on a rail line and/or have transfer facilities at the airport. TCRPC’s survey of intermodal providers raised the likely need for refrigeration facilities at the airport to accommodate refrigeration shipments. And, operations improve due to better runways and the business park expands land side access and other freight service improvements may be needed to support expanded services. The Tri-County region has a shortage of facilities for off-loading standard size trailers from railroad flat cars. With increases in double stack trains passing through the region, additional facilities for this type of intermodal operation would be in the area’s best interest. These issues illustrate the transportation

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

system remains far short of the seamless ideal desired, and demonstrate continued opportunities for improvement

Truck-Highway Issues Local and long haul truck freight operations play a significant role in cargo transport and are vital to the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic strength. Trucks share space on streets and highways with other modes. This creates intermodal conflicts. Safety concerns, increased congestion and physical wear on roads result. Solutions require recognition that trucking and freight improvements need consideration with other modes. Issues to address include Bridge weight restrictions, horizontal radii that limit truck movements, designated truck routes, and interference with street traffic. TCRPC will continue to examine these truck-highway interface issues. TCRPC modified the regional travel demand forecasting model and developed a simple truck/commercial vehicle freight sub-model to facilitate analysis. The freight submodel was improved to be consistent with the most recent Quick Response Freight Forecasting Model (Version two) methodology.

Trip Generation The truck trip generation rates provided in QRFM II were applied to zonal socioeconomic data to estimate the number of Internal-Internal (I-I) truck trips generated from each zone. The generation rates were categorized into three truck categories; Four-Tire Trucks, Single Unit Trucks (6+ tires), and Combination Trucks. Table 1 presents the truck trips generation rates. Table 4-32 Truck Trip Generation Rates

1.11

Single Unit Trucks (6+ Tires) 0.289

Combination Truck 0.174

0.938

0.242

0.104

0.888 0.437 0.251

0.253 0.068 0.099

0.065 0.009 0.038

Generation Variables

Four-Tire Truck

Agriculture, Mining, and Construction Manufacturing, Transportation/ Communications/utilities, wholesale Retail Trade Office and Services Households

The trip generation rates were adjusted during model calibration process. In addition to I-I truck trips, IE and E-E truck trips were estimated to account for truck trips entering or/and leaving the model area. The I-E and E-E truck trips at each external station were calculated using the following formula:

E-E Truck Trips = (Total ADT * % through trip at external station) * % trucks I-E Truck trips = (Total ADT â&#x20AC;&#x201C; E-E Trips) *% trucks Where, ADT = Average daily traffic The I-E truck attractions at internal TAZs were estimated based on the regression equation developed by Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) as part of the Urban Model Improvement Program (UMIP), using the Michigan Travel Counts (MITC) SUMA IE-EI database. The rates were adjusted during the model calibration process.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Table 4-33 I-E Zonal Truck Attraction Rates

Generation Variables Agriculture, Mining, and Construction Manufacturing,Transportation/ Communications/Utilities, and Wholesale Retail Trade Office and Services Households

I-E Truck Trips (Attr) 0.11 0.137 0.11 0.009 0.021

Table 3 presents the truck trip generation summary. A large percentage of the truck trip (61.16%) in the Tri-County travel demand model were four tire trucks. I-E and E-E trucks account for 19.5 % of the regional truck traffic. Table 4-34 Truck Trip Generation Summary

Trip Purpose Four Tire Trucks Single Unit Trucks Truck Combination Internal-External Trucks External-External Trucks Total

2010 Total Trip Ends 57864 13899 3809 12787 5512 93871

% of Total Trip Ends 61.6% 14.8% 4.1% 13.6% 5.9% 100.0%

Trip Distribution Model I-I and I-E truck trips were distributed between model zones by time period using the gravity model. The QRFM II manual provides impedance functions to calculate friction factors for use in the gravity model. The friction factor equations are below;

Four-tire commercial vehicles: đ??šđ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2014; = đ?&#x2018;&#x2019; â&#x2C6;&#x2019;0.08đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2014; Single Unit Trucks (6+ tires): đ??šđ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2014; = đ?&#x2018;&#x2019; â&#x2C6;&#x2019;0.1đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2014; Combination Trucks: đ??šđ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2014; = đ?&#x2018;&#x2019; â&#x2C6;&#x2019;0.03đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2014; All I-E trips and E-E trips are assumed to be combination truck trips. The E-E truck trips between the external zone pair were balanced using an iterative proportional factoring (Fratar) process. E-E truck seed matrix obtained from MDOT is used to balance the E-E trips. The model processes the E-E trips for each external station with the E-E trip seed matrix using a double constrained growth factor model to generate a new E-E trip matrix reflective of the current number of E-E trips at the external stations while maintaining the same basic distribution of E-E trips as the seed matrix.

Trip Assignment Model I-E and E-E truck trip matrices were combined with I-I combination truck matrix. All three truck matrices (4-tire, single unit, and combination) were then separated in four modeling time periods; AM, Midday, PM, & Night. The time of day factors were derived from the regional classification counts. To

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

account for the relatively greater impact that trucks and commercial vehicles have on traffic flow, they were converted to Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE), as shown in Table 4. Table 4-35 Freight to Passenger Car Conversion

The truck trips were then assigned on the highway network along with car (automobile) trips using 4-Tire Truck TransCADâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Multi-Modal Multi-Class Assignment Singe Unit Truck (MMA) process. All assignment models implement Combined Truck the User Equilibrium (UE) method with the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) function as the Volume-Delay function.

Freight

Passenger Car Conversion (PCE) 1.5 2 4

Unit

Model Results The truck/freight sub model estimates 93,871 commercial vehicle trips daily in the region in year 2010, of which about 61.6 percent are four tire trucks, 14.8 percent are single unit commercial trucks, and about 23.6 percent are combination unit vehicles. The model forecasts 12% increase in commercial vehicles by 2040. Model results show commercial vehicles log nearly 1.08 million vehicle miles of travel and nearly 22,110 vehicle hours of travel per day region wide in year 2010. The model also suggests the truck vehicle miles of travel will increase to 1.16 million and hours of travel will increase to 24,119 hours per day region wide in year 2040. The model also presents that by year 2040, 32,036 vehicle miles and 715 vehicle hours of travel will be on congested roadways during AM and PM peak period. By year 2040, truck vehicle miles travelled account for about 9% of the total congested vehicle miles travelled in the region. Map 4-23 Freight Volume along 2040 Wise Growth Deficient and Near Deficient Links

The figure presents the freight volume along the 2040 region wide deficient and near deficient links. Results suggest congestion on US 127, I496, Saginaw and Grand River Ave. have the greatest potential for adverse impacts on truck freight and other commercial vehicle movements in the region. Numerous other spot locations where congestion and large commercial vehicle concentrations are also shown, such as short segments of Lake Lansing Rd. over US 127, Cedar St. north of Saginaw St, Hagadorn south of Grand Rive Ave., and Grand Rive Ave west of Saginaw/Grand River Cutoff.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Priority of treatments for future roadway capacity deficiencies should be considered in terms of their costs and benefits to expedite freight movements. Where large numbers of commercial vehicles are stuck on congested roadways, lost time and operational inefficiencies increase costs to everyone.

Passenger Related Interface Issues Previously identified issues include Capital Region International Airport access rail crossing conflicts, which impact all ground transportation modes. Another example is the new bus transfer facility on the MSU campus that easily accommodates local buses, but is not large enough for intercity buses that provide feeder service to the Amtrak station at Harrison and Trowbridge, just off campus. CATA and East Lansing have recently obtained funding for a major replacement to upgrade and expand this facility. Park-and-ride lots are scattered in 14 locations in the Tri-County region and can accommodate up to 800 vehicles. Opportunities may exist to create intermodal connections between outlying lots and the urbanized area, particularly since CATA currently operates service to Mason and Williamston. A further challenge to both freight and passenger interfaces is evaluating economic tradeoffs between modes.

Public Transportation Element Transit Issues The entire population of the Tri-County region has access to public transportation at least on a demand response basis. However, ownership and funding issues constrain some trips by the riding public and operators encounter barriers to a seamless region-wide transit service. All the transit agencies made progress toward breaking down these barriers but issues remain. Sprawl-like land use changes exacerbate a need for additional transit service options. Need for maximum regional coordination has never been greater. County lines continue to create barriers to movement. For the most part persons wishing to travel from County A to County B must transfer mid-trip and must arrange that in advance. Fixed route service presents a somewhat greater challenge. The most desirable situation is extension of current CATA routes to out county places as recognized in the adopted TDP. Free transfers between systems would help potential passengers Two particularly useful tools for eliminating some of these barriers has been cooperative development of a joint Tri-County Regional Transit Development Plan (TDP), and joint Regional Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan covering all three counties and all three transit systems. Both documents are available at the TCRPC website www.mitcrpc.org on the Transportation programs tab. But, they are growing stale and should be updated or revised to meet current circumstances. TCRPC assisted in and conducted additional survey research and public outreach with the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Power of Weâ&#x20AC;? community organization. Surveys of human services providers, who in turn administered surveys to over 500 of their clients, sought to identify and quantify additional service. Results of both surveys have been provided to all three transit agencies to assist and inform service and operational planning. A description is available at: http://powerofwe.org/who-we-are/ad-hoc-committees/.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Per studies, numerous human social service agencies are providing lots of transportation services and spending a great deal of staff time and their limited resources on client transportation services. Some resources could be redirected to client services. Coordinating human service and public transportation services needs are still present, even if that is not a cost effective public transit trip. An ongoing dialogue within this process, and within the coordinated human services planning effort should continue to look at actual cases and potential solutions.

Tri-County Mobility Management Study In 2013, the Michigan Livable Communities Demonstration Project, managed by Smart Growth America, Inc. and funded by a Rockefeller Foundation Grant, conducted analyses of Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) needs in the region with assistance from TCRPC and the three transit agencies. The research identified the following as the three main barriers to providing NEMT and offered potential action steps to resolve this: 1. Users find the current NEMT system daunting and inefficient; 2. The demand for NEMT is growing, but the costs of providing the services are high and will likely continue to grow; and 3. Public transit providers are well-positioned to provide high quality NEMT service, but struggle to do so at the rate they are being reimbursed by Medicaid.

Transit Alternatives Funding A medium transit service improvement option is identified and is part of the preferred alternative in this Regional 2040 Transportation Plan for implementation. This adopted alternative included strategies to improve transit, implement selected “demand reductions,” management and operations, along with selected highway capacity improvements and is the network for this Regional 2040 Transportation Plan.

network network improve adopted

Currently, these service options are in discussion and additional operating funds have yet to be identified. A rough estimate of additional annual costs for operating new services is about $17-18 Million, $12.8 million for the recommended medium transit year, pus additional capital costs, and $17.8 million for the high transit alternative. While these additional operating costs are currently beyond financial constraint, in the long term it is reasonable to assume some shift of those cost savings to public transit to enhance services, expand mobility, and reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. A cost savings from unnecessary roadway improvements estimated at between $1.5 and $4.5 billion dollars could result from the “Wise Growth” land use alternative.

Michigan/Grand River Transit/Transportation Study In 2009 the region studied public transit and other improvements for all transportation modes in the Michigan Ave/Grand River corridor from downtown Lansing to the Meridian Mall. This study conducted an alternatives analysis consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) new starts analysis requirements. TCRPC has been working directly with the CATA team. The TCRPC regional travel forecasting model is in use to facilitate future plan amendments and FTA funding decisions. Recent

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

economic analysis indicates 40% of the region’s jobs are within one half mile of proposed transit station locations, clustered in five distinct and unique employment destinations. Over half of the region’s jobs in industries which are supportive of transit oriented development are connected by the corridor. The corridor includes numerous activity centers and major destinations, from the state capitol to the downtown core and the Stadium District to Sparrow Hospital, the Frandor Shopping Center, Michigan State University, downtown East Lansing and the Meridian Mall. Numerous new development opportunities are present in the corridor that could be bolstered by transportation improvements. The corridor also has the highest concentration of public transit trips and services in the region. Since the last Long Range Plan update, CATA, TCRPC and other partners, completed an Alternatives Analysis for the Michigan/Grand River Avenue Corridor the area within 1 mile of Michigan and Grand River Avenues from the Meridian Mall area in Meridian Township through the City of East Lansing, Lansing Township and the City of Lansing to the State Capitol. The performance of each alternative regarding environmental; redevelopment and transit-oriented development potential and community character were very similar. This reflects the strong similarities between the alternatives in terms of their impact on the community. The following table displays key elements of each of the alternatives. Table 4-36 Key Elements of the Alternatives

Alternative Baseline

LRT

Modern Streetcar

BRT

Elements  Exclusive use of articulated buses  Same stops as current Route 1, with enhanced shelters  Traffic signal priority for buses  Park-and-ride facilities near Frandor and Meridian Mall/Meijer  Median-running for most of the alignment  16 stations, 10 minute peak service  Park-and-ride facilities near Frandor and Meridian Mall/Meijer  New bridges over the Grand River and two rail road crossings  New vehicle maintenance and storage facility  Route 1 continues to operate with 30 minute frequency  Median-running for most of the alignment  29 stations, 6 minute peak service  Park-and-ride facilities near Frandor and Meridian Mall/Meijer  New bridges over the Grand River and two rail road crossings  New vehicle maintenance and storage facility  Route 1 would be completely eliminated  Median-running for most of the alignment  23 stations, 7.5 minute peak service  Park-and-ride facilities near Frandor and Meridian Mall/Meijer  Station amenities equal to LRT and Modern Streetcar with level boarding, offboard fair collection, etc.  Route 1 continues to operate with 20 minute frequency

The total project cost of the BRT Alternative was more acceptable to the study team than the other alternatives, but the additional ridership projected for BRT did not meet expectations for such an investment. The result was a Modified BRT The Locally Preferred Alternative: Following this final series of public open houses, the project Steering Committee voted unanimously to recommend the CATA Board of Directors adopt the Modified BRT

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). On February 16, 2011, the CATA Board of Directors also voted unanimously to adopt the Modified BRT Alternative as the LPA. The City of East Lansing and Michigan State University conditionally voted to adopt the Modified BRT Alternative as the LPA. Both entities had concerns about the impact of the Modified BRT Alternative on the median in East Lansing, impact on left hand turn lanes and the impact of such a project on local funding sources. Their approval was conditioned upon these issues being addressed to their satisfaction in the Project Development stage. The proposed Locally Preferred Alternative alignment &approximate station locations. Map 4-24 LPA Station Map - West

Map 4-25 LPA Station Map - East

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Subsequently, the Michigan-Grand River Avenue Bus Rapid Transit project was officially admitted to the Small Starts program by the FTA. An Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Engineering/ Design studies are in progress and an updated financial plan is being developed. This work is currently anticipated to be completed for possible amendment into this financially constrained Regional 2040 Transportation Plan in early calendar 2015. Lansing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Detroit Commuter Rail: â&#x20AC;&#x201C; For several years CATA managed a feasibility study of Lansing to Detroit rail service with five round trip trains per day. Following alternatives analysis, the project was divided into phases. Phase I is the minimum operating segment from Detroit to Ann ArborNew commuter rail service remains a possible initiative within the 2040 planning horizon. In 2014, the Commission also endorsed a proposed feasibility study of passenger rail service from Holland to Detroit by way of Lansing.

Parking Element Parking supply and demand is an integral component of transportation systems. In suburban and rural areas parking is plentiful and free. However, in Central Business Districts (CBD) like Lansing, East Lansing or Michigan State University, parking availability and costs are factors in making a trip. The CBD and East Lansing adjacent to and including Michigan State University provide the highest regional employment concentrations and highest potential for transit and HOVs. Concentrated employment centers also provide opportunities for transit service. The Plan does not include specific recommendations on parking supply. but it recommends future investments in parking facilities be analyzed for system impacts. Investments in parking facilities should be balanced with transit, congestion and other transportation needs. Future parking analysis should consider Transportation Demand Management (TDM. TCRPC has a parking inventory for the urban core, East Lansing and MSU that is a database and digital map of parking facilities and spaces by traffic zone, including on and off street parking. TCRPC developed a park-walk sub-model for the travel forecasting model based on this inventory. The model can be used to evaluate future parking demand and supply, including alternative sites for new parking facilities. And, urban core areas should evaluate and consider programs to encourage long-term commuters to shift to public transit with cash out programs, before tax employerpaid bus passes or transit voucher programs and preferential parking for carpools

Regional ITS Architecture and Deployment Plan Development of a regional intelligent transportation system (ITS) architecture is an important step in the planning and implementation of ITS in a region. An ITS architecture is a high level plan that identifies the need for the various services that ITS can provide and documents how ITS systems and components can be integrated together. ITS architectures provide a framework for implementing ITS projects, encourage interoperability and resource sharing among agencies, identify applicable standards to apply to projects, and allow for cohesive longâ&#x20AC;?range planning among regional stakeholders. ITS is the application of electronic technologies and communications to increase the safety and efficiency of the transportation system. The TCRPC Region as defined for the Regional ITS Architecture and Deployment Plan corresponds to the metropolitan planning area covered by TCRPC The update of the regional ITS architecture and the ITS deployment plan were assembled with significant input from local, state, and federal officials. That

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

document, The Final ITS Architecture and Deployment Plan can be found here and is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/TCRPC_ITS_Architecture_and_Deployment_Plan_414250_ 7.pdf

Regional Non-Motorized System Plan This section provides a system level plan for future regional non-motorized travel. This section presents a regional non-motorized facilities plan and recommendations on its use by local governments as well as identifying adopted regional non-motorized investment strategies and direction of future planning efforts. Federal law requires consideration of bicycling and non-motorized options to reduce congestion, improve air quality and for development of a multi-modal transportation system. TCRPC surveyed local governments, road agencies, parks and recreation planners, comprehensive planners, state agency staff, and private bicycle interest groups. TCRPC added all planned facilities to the inventory. Staff also held work sessions with the Tri-County Bicycle Association and several public and private traffic engineers, to review existing and planned facility maps and to identify additional proposed or â&#x20AC;&#x153;desiredâ&#x20AC;? facilities. TCRPC prepared plots showing all existing, planned and desired facilities, by type of facility, which were forwarded to local governments and road agencies for review and comment. Cooperatively developed maps were used to shape non-motorized goals, objectives, policy statements, recommended actions, future planning efforts and an understanding about how maps and policies should be used and are included in the transportation plan for the region. Maps show the existing inventory of non-motorized facilities. Substantial details about this inventory are in TCRPCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s GIS and can be mapped and shared as needed. Additional data or inventory information can be added as it is collected or changes. These maps, along with recommendations, policies, investment strategies, goals and objectives and other items pertaining to non-motorized travel in this document together constitute the Regional Non-Motorized System Plan. Federal law requires regional transportation plans and programs be financially constrained. Maps of proposed bicycle routes are not constrained to available resources. However, bicycle and pedestrian facility projects selected for federal funds are constrained in the Transportation Improvement Program (or TIP) by funding/selection decisions by responsible agencies. As local non-motorized plans or specific project level design details are evaluated, communities are encouraged to initiate early public participation by the user community in planning and facility design. They may contact TCRPC for obtain technical assistance or community contacts.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-26 Existing Non-Motorized

Map 4-27 Proposed Non-Motorized

Corridors on the river trail system were selected based on the primary importance of the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s river trail system to the overall Regional Non-Motorized System Plan. Priority roadway corridors were selected based on factors like immediate land use and economic development issues, ability to serve multiple jurisdictions in continuous travel, filling critical non-motorized travel flow needs for major users and non-motorized travel generators. Non-motorized projects in these corridors should be given priority over other projects, except locations where immediate safety issues may be present. It is specifically recommended that consideration be given to integrating non-motorized improvements in all bridge projects and railroad/grade crossing safety projects throughout the Tri-County region consistent with this Regional 2040 Transportation Plan and results of the Regional Growth project. Local communities and agencies should consider developing a data collection/monitoring program, including bicycle and pedestrian counts and surveys to assist in planning, funding and development of the future nonmotorized system.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-28 River Priority Corridor

Map 4-29 Roadway Priority Corridors

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-30 Bridges as Potential Barricades to be Evaluated

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-31 Tri-County Sidewalk Inventory

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Map 4-32 Tri-County Sidewalk Inventory â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Greater Lansing

Map 4-33 Tri-County Sidewalk Inventory â&#x20AC;&#x201C; East Lansing

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

100

“EVERYWHERE IS WALKING DISTANCE IF YOU HAVE THE TIME.” -STEVEN WRIGHT

CHAPTER 5 Introduction The Regional 2040 Transportation Plan (the Plan) includes a list of road and transit projects that Michigan’s Capital tri-county region anticipates implementing between 2015 and 2040. The project lists must be fiscally constrained. This means that the total estimated cost of projects in this Plan cannot exceed the amount of funding reasonably expected to be available during the timeframe of this Plan. This chapter, the Financial Plan, documents how we calculated the amount of funds reasonably expected to be available. In addition, it compares the expected funds to the costs of proposed projects to demonstrate that the Plan is fiscally constrained. This financial plan chapter also identifies the costs of operating and maintaining the region’s transportation system.

Transportation Funding Sources The motor fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees are the basic sources of transportation funding. The federal government taxes motor fuel with taxes per gallon of gasoline or diesel. The State of Michigan taxes gasoline and diesel per gallon as well. Michigan also charges sales tax on motor fuel but does not apply that revenue to transportation. The motor fuel taxes are excise taxes and are a fixed amount per gallon. The tax collected does not change with the cost of fuel. Thus, over time inflation erodes the purchasing power of the motor fuel tax. The State of Michigan also collects annual vehicle registration fees when motorists purchase license plates or tabs. This is a very important source of transportation funding for the state. About half of the state transportation revenues are collected in the form of vehicle registration fees.

Cooperative Revenue Forecasting Revenue forecasting relies on a combination of data and experience. Estimating the amount of funding available for the long term Plan depends on factors including economic conditions, miles travelled by vehicles nationally and in our state, and the amount of federal and state transportation funding received in previous years. The revenue forecasting process is a cooperative effort. The Michigan Transportation Planning Association (MTPA), a voluntary association of transportation agencies, formed the Financial Working Group (FWG) to develop a statewide standard forecasting process. The FWG includes representatives of the public agencies responsible for transportation planning in Michigan. It includes members from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), transit agencies, and metropolitan planning organizations. The FWG determines reasonable transportation financial forecasts and growth rates for use in transportation plans statewide. This Plan’s transportation revenue assumptions are based on the current Financial Work Group’s forecasts. The Plan assumes that Federal revenues will hold steady in 2015 and 2016 and then have an annual growth rate of 2.39 percent until 2040. State revenue growth rates are assumed at 0.4 percent for the first five years then at 2.16 percent annual growth rate until 2040. The MTPA approved these assumptions and they are used for all long-range transportation plans in Michigan.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

101

Highway Funding Forecast—Federal Sources of Federal Highway Funding At the Federal level, receipts from motor fuel taxes, mostly gasoline and diesel are deposited in the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and then apportioned or distributed to the states using formulas established in law. The current law governing transportation apportionments is Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). Under MAP-21, Michigan receives about $1 billion in federal transportation funding annually. This funding is apportioned through a variety of programs designed to accomplish different objectives, such as road repair, bridge repair, safety, and congestion mitigation. A brief description of the major funding programs follows. National Highway Performance Program (NHP): To support condition and performance and construct new facilities on the National Highway System (NHS). The NHS is the network of the nation’s most important highways and in Michigan, most NHS roads are state trunk line routes labeled “I”, US, or M. In 2014, approximately $586.6 million NHP was available statewide. MAP-21 legislation expanded NHS eligibility to include all principle arterials regardless of jurisdiction. So, in 2014 the NHP program included $257,000 for local NHP eligible roads. Surface Transportation Program (STP): Funds for construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, preservation, or operational improvements to federal-aid highways and for replacement, preservation, and improvements to bridges on public roads. Half of Michigan’s STP apportionment is designated to areas based on population. The other half can be used anywhere in the state. In FY 2014, Michigan’s STP apportionment was estimated to be $269.8 million. The Tri-County region received approximately $5,999,300 that was used by cities, villages, and county road agencies. STP may also be “flexed” or used on transit projects. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP): Funds to correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature or address other highway safety problems. Projects include intersection improvements; shoulder widening, rumble strips, guardrails, highway signs and markings, and improving safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, or disabled persons. The State of Michigan retains all Safety funding and uses a portion on the state trunk line system, distributing the remainder to local agencies through a competitive process. Michigan’s statewide FY 2014 estimated Safety apportionment was $64.5 million. Local agencies in the Tri-County region received about $556,600 in HSIP funding in FY 2014. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ): Funds intended to reduce emissions from transportation-related sources. MAP-21 emphasizes diesel retrofits, but funds can also be used for traffic signaling; dedicated turn lanes; roundabouts; travel demand management such as rideshare and vanpools; transit; and non-motorized projects that divert non-recreational travel from single-occupant vehicles. MDOT uses half of available CMAQ funds on the state trunk line system. TCRPC distributes its part of the remaining to local projects that meet the federal eligibility through a public scoring and selection process. Michigan’s FY 2014 apportionment of CMAQ funding was an estimated $71.5 million. The Tri- County region’s share was about $1,564,000.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

102

Transportation Alternatives Program: Funds to improve the transportation system environment, including non-motorized projects, historic transportation facilities preservation, outdoor advertising control, vegetation management in rights-of-way, and planning and construction improvements to students ability to walk or bike to school. The statewide apportionment for FY 2014 Transportation Alternatives was estimated at $26.4 million. The Tri-County region’s share of this funding was approximately $375,258 in FY 2014, and was distributed to local agencies on a competitive basis. Local Bridge Program: Funding to construct, rehabilitate, or maintain local bridges, on or off the designated Federal Aid System. The Tri-County region received approximately $1,496,000 in federal dollars for local bridges in 2014.

Base and Assumptions Used in Forecast Calculations of Federal Highway Funds Base year targets are the amount of funds the Tri-County region expects to receive for each of these programs. Targets are based on federal apportionment documentation and state law. Targets can vary from year to year due to factors including the amount of funding the Highway Trust Fund actually received, the federal “authorization” which is the annual transportation funding spending ceiling, or the federal “appropriation” which is the ceiling set for federal spending. Revenues for fiscal year 2014 are held constant and are used as the 2015 baseline for the forecast. Federal revenues are assumed to hold steady for 2015 and 2016 followed by an annual growth rate of 2.39 percent. State revenues are assumed to grow at a 0.4 percent rate for the first five tears followed by a 2.16 percent annual growth rate for the duration of the Plan. While this is less than the five percent growth rate over the past 20 years, the decrease in motor fuel consumption (due to less driving and higher miles per gallon vehicles) and the economic downturn and restructuring experienced by the nation in general, and Michigan in particular, made assumptions based on long-term historical trends unusable. The MTPA Financial Work Group recommends that all long-range transportation plans identify revenues for each of the first five years of the Plan and then group the revenues into five-year bands. They recommend identifying revenues as federal, state, local or trunkline. This Plan consolidates all federal revenues into a single revenue column rather than identifying specific funding sources for every project. The State revenue column represents Transportation Economic Development Fund (TEDF) Category D funds, the primary state revenue source for local projects. The local revenue column represents local dollars needed to match federal dollars. The following table shows the federal transportation revenue projections for the 2040 Plan.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

103

Table 5-1 Federal Highway Transportation Revenue Projections for the 2040 Plan (Thousands of Dollars)

STPU

STPR

NHPP

CMAQ

Bridge

HSIP

TAP

TOTAL

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2040 TOTAL

4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 25.2 27.7 30.5 34.3 140.2

1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 10.6 56.9 304.0 342.1 723.0

2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 15.1 80.8 432.0 486.1 1,027.6

16.0 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 9.5 50.9 272.0 306.1 661.3

3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.4 17.9 95.8 512.0 576.1 1,217.9

5.7 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.3 33.6 179.6 959.9 1,080.2 2,283.3

3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 22.4 119.8 639.9 720.2 1,522.3

12.0 12.3 12.5 24.6 25.2 134.5 611.5 3,150.2 3,545.0 7,575.6

Highway Funding Forecast—State Funding Sources of State Highway Funding There are two main sources of state highway funding, the state motor fuel tax and vehicle registration fees. The motor fuel tax, currently set at 19 cents per gallon on gasoline and 15 cents per gallon on diesel, raised approximately $937.5 million in fiscal year 2011.1 This tax that does not increase as the price of fuel increases, so over time, inflation erodes the purchasing power of these funds. Vehicle registration fees generate approximately $855.9 million annually in additional revenue when motorists purchase their license plates or tabs. The state sales tax on motor fuel, which taxes both the fuel itself and the federal tax, is not deposited in the Michigan Transportation Fund. Altogether, motor fuel taxes, vehicle registrations, heavy truck fees, interest income, and miscellaneous revenue raised approximately $1.9 billion in FY 2011. Michigan’s Public Act 51 of 1951, commonly known as “Act 51,” is the state law governing collection and distribution of state highway revenues, which are deposited into the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF). MTF funding is distributed statewide to incorporated cities and villages, and to county road commissions, collectively known as “Act 51 agencies.” The formula is based on population and public road mileage in an Act 51 agency’s jurisdiction. Act 51 contains a number of complex formulas for the distribution of the funding, but after funding for certain grants and administrative costs is subtracted, 10 percent of the remainder is deposited in the Comprehensive Transportation Fund (CTF) for transit. The remaining funds are going into the Michigan Trunkline Fund (MTF). MDOT administers 39.1 percent of the MTF along with county road agencies (39.1 percent), and municipalities (21.8 percent).2 MTF funds are critical to the operation of the road system in Michigan because they are used to operate and maintain our road system. Since federal funds cannot be used to operate or maintain many roads, the MTF covers snow removal, grass mowing, electricity for streetlights and traffic signals, etcetera. And, most federal transportation funding must be matched with 20 percent non-federal revenue. In Michigan, most matching funds come from the MTF. Finally, MTF funds can be used for maintenance and repair of local public roads, such as those in residential subdivisions, since federal funding cannot be used on local public roads. 1

Michigan Dept of Transportation, Annual Report, Michigan Transportation Fund, Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 (MDOT Report 139), Schedule A. 2 Act 51 of 1951, Section 10(1)(j).

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

104

Base and Assumptions Used in Forecast Calculations of State Highway Funds The base for the financial forecast of state funding is the FY 2014 distribution of MTF funding as found in MDOT Report 139. This report details distribution of funding to each eligible Act 51 agency. The sum total of all Act 51 distributions to cities, villages, and county road commissions in the Tri-County region provides a regional total. In 2014, the regional state funding total was $37,737,257. The Financial Work Group of the MTPA predicts that state revenues will increase 0.4 percent for fiscal years 2015 through 2019. Table 5-2 shows the amount of MTF funding cities, villages, and road commissions in the Tri-County Region. Table 5-2 Projected MTF Distribution to Act-51 Agencies for Highway Use (Millions of Dollars)

MTF Funds

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2040 TOTAL

$38.6 $38.8 $39.0 $39.2 $39.3 $211.3 $234.2 $259.5 $349.9 $1,249.8

State funding is projected to grow much faster than federal funding from 2015-2019, but more slowly than federal funding during the remaining Plan period. This will have two effects on the region’s highway funding: First, available funding for operations and maintenance of the highway system will most likely not keep pace with the rate of inflation, leaving less money for a growing list of maintenance work. Secondly, the federal highway funding will grow at a greater rate than non-federal money to match it. For those federal transportation sources requiring match, this means that some funding will go unused, despite the demand.

Highway Funding Forecast—Transportation Economic Development Fund Michigan’s programs that use both state funding and federal funding are collectively known as the Transportation Economic Development Fund (TEDF) with these categories:  TEDF Category A: Highway projects to benefit targeted industries;  TEDF Category C: Congestion mitigation in designated urban counties (none in our region)  TEDF Category D: All-season road network in rural counties (available for all three local counties)  TEDF Category E: Forest roads; and  TEDF Category F: Roads in cities located in rural counties.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

105

Categories A and F are awarded on a competitive basis, and Category E is not awarded in the Tri-County region. TEDF Category B no longer exists. So, we limit our discussion to Category D. The TEDF Category D program is a state funding source that provides funding to bring federally eligible rural roads to all season standards. Based on direction from MDOT, the revenue targets are assumed to grow 2 percent annually. MAP-21 changed how the federal portion of TEDF was done. Now, the State of Michigan has funds the federal portion of the TEDF Category D program with Surface Transportation Program funding. Table 5-3 provides a summary of expected TEDF funding over the Plan period. Table 5-3 Projected Transportation Economic Development Fund (Millions of Dollars) FY 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2040 TOTAL

State D $6.9 $6.9 $6.9 $6.9 $6.9 $34.3 $34.3 $34.3 $41.2 $178.4

Highway Funding Forecastâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Local Funding Sources of Local Highway Funding

Local highway funding can come from a variety of sources, including transportation millages, general fund revenues, and special assessment districts. This Plan is required to focus on federally funded transportation projects and others of regional significance. So, this plan does not fully assess how much local funding is spent for roads in the Tri-County region. And, since special assessment districts and millages generally have finite lives, a fully accurate estimate of local transportation funding would require a complicated knowledge of what millages and special assessment districts were in force in each year of the Plan period. This level of information for all 75 jurisdictions and authorities within our three-county region is not available. However, a proxy measure is available.

Base and Assumptions Used in Forecast Calculations of Local Highway Funds The current TIP covers fiscal years 2014 through 2017. The current TIP, plus FY 2010 from the previous TIP, were queried for all projects with funding codes indicating that local funding was or will be used.3 Local funds programmed by transit agencies were removed, as were advance construct funds. Advance construct (AC) means that the road agency uses its own money to build the project, and then pays itself back in a future year with federal funding. Summing the AC projects listed in the TIP exaggerates the amount of local funding used for projects. The five-year annual average of local funding totaled about $6,021,129. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s difficult to predict significant increases in local funding over the Plan period, so the actual five year average was applied to 2015 as a base year and then grown annually by 0.4 percent in 2015-2019, and 2.16 percent annually thereafter, consistent with state revenue assumptions.

These are City, County, Township, and Village funds; DDA funds; General Fund; Local Bond; Local Tax; Millage; Other Local Funds, and Private funds.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

106

Discussion of Innovative Financing Strategies--Highway Over the past twenty years, transportation agencies have developed a number of innovative financing strategies to help stretch limited transportation dollars. Private funding contributions for transportation improvements are becoming more common, particularly in some modes such as transit and nonmotorized facilities. Public-Private Partnerships, with funds from a private developer or interest group are paired or matched with federal, state, and local funds, offers our region new and expanding opportunities for our future transportation systems. While our transportation planning mostly still limits itself to federal, state, and local funding, our long-range plan encourages project planners to explore innovative financing strategies. A discussion of some of the more common strategies follows. Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA): This nationwide program, significantly expanded under MAP-21, provides lines of credit and loan guarantees to state or local governments for development, construction, reconstruction, property acquisition, and carrying costs during construction. The TIFIA funding repayment can be delayed for up to five years after project completion and the repayment period can be up to 35 years. Interest rates are also low. The amount authorized for the TIFIA program in FY 2014 nationwide is $1.0 billion. Bonding: Bonding, or borrowing with an agreement to repay the capital and interest, can support public infrastructure investments. Within some limitations, States are allowed to borrow against their federal transportation funds. While bonding provides money up front for important transportation projects, it also means diverting funding in future years to pay back the bond. Michigan transportation law requires bond and other debt payments to have first position, to be paid before distributing funds for other purposes. Thus, over the long term plan the advantages of bonding for immediate projects must be carefully weighed against the challenges of reduced resources in future years.

Toll Credits: This strategy allows states to use the funding they earn through tolled facilities as “soft match” for federal transportation projects. Toll credits have helped to mitigate Michigan’s funding challenges of having insufficient non-federal funding available to match all of the federal funding apportioned to the state.

State Infrastructure Bank (SIB): Under the SIB program, states can place a portion of their federal highway funding into a revolving loan fund for transportation improvements such as highway, transit, rail, and intermodal projects. This program is established in Michigan.4 Loans are available at 3 percent interest with a 25-year term to public entities. Private and nonprofit corporations developing publicly owned facilities may apply. In Michigan, the maximum per-project loan amount is $2 million.

Advance Construct/Advance Construct Conversion (AC): Advance Construct allows municipalities to build a transportation project with its own funds and then be reimbursed with federal funds in a future year (advance construct conversion). This can be “tapered” or programmed so that the agency is reimbursed over a period of years. Advance construct allows for the construction of highway projects before federal funding is available, but the municipality must have the funds to do the project first.

FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery. “Project Finance: An Introduction” (FHWA, 2012).

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

107

Public-Private Partnerships (P3): Funding available through traditional sources, such as motor fuel taxes, are not keeping pace with the growth in transportation system needs. Governments are increasingly turning to public-private partnerships (P3) to fund large transportation infrastructure projects.

Highway Operations and Maintenance Construction, reconstruction, repair, and rehabilitation of roads and bridges are only part of the total cost of the highway system; it must also be operated and maintained. Operations and maintenance is defined as those items necessary to keep the highway infrastructure functional for vehicle travel. Operations and Maintenance does not include construction, reconstruction, repair, and rehabilitation of the infrastructure. It does include items such as snow and ice removal, pothole patching, rubbish removal, maintaining the right-of way, maintaining traffic signs and signals, clearing highway storm drains, paying the electricity for lights and signals as well as the personnel and direct administrative costs of these activities. Federal transportation funds cannot be used for operations and maintenance of the highway system. The Long Range Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes federally funded projects and non-federally-funded projects of regional significance. It does not include operations and maintenance projects. However, this Plan offers an estimate of funding that will be spent operating and maintaining the federal-aid eligible highway system over the Plan period. In this section, we provide an estimate for the Tri-County region and describe the method used to estimate these costs. According to Michigan’s FY 2011-2014 State Transportation Improvement Program, approximately $599.3 million will be available statewide for operations and maintenance costs in FY 2014 for the state trunk line highway system (roads with “I-,”, “US-,” and “M-“ designations).5 About 5.26 percent of the lane miles in the state trunkline system are located in the Tri-County region. Assuming similar costs, MDOT was projected to spend approximately $30,789,633 in the Tri-County region in FY 2014. Since MDOT’s operations and maintenance funding comes from state motor fuel taxes, the MTF, the agreedupon rate of increase for state funds (0.4 percent annually increasing to 2.16 percent after five years) was applied to derive the operations and maintenance costs for the duration of the Plan. Local municipalities’ costs to operate and maintain their portions of the federal-aid highway system were estimated through surveys of county road agencies. By determining the total lane mileage of all roads and of federal-aid eligible roads in each jurisdiction, we derived an estimated local per lane-mile operations and maintenance expenditure of $2,114.28. Applied to the total lane mileage of federal-aid eligible roads in the Tri-County region, the result is a region-wide total for FY 2011 of $9,518,662. We make the assumption that local communities and agencies spend every available operations and maintenance dollar, so funds expended equal funds available. Much of local agencies’ operations and maintenance funding comes from the Michigan Transportation Fund, so the agreed-upon rate of increase for state funds (0.4 percent annually, increasing to 2.16 percent after five years) was applied to derive maintenance and operations costs. We calculated a regional total as a sum of MDOT and local operations and maintenance funding available and provide it in a table.

Michigan Department of Transportation. FY 2011-2014 State Transportation Improvement Program

(January 2012), p. 9. Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

108

Table 5-4 Projected Available Highway Operations & Maintenance Funding (Millions of Dollars)

FY 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2040 TOTAL

Estimate $40.6 $40.7 $41.0 $41.2 $41.3 $269.1 $299.5 $340.6 $458.0 $1,572.0

Highway Commitments and Projected Available Revenue

The Plan must be fiscally constrained; that is, the cost of projects programmed in the Plan cannot exceed revenues “reasonably expected to be available” during the 26-year Plan period. Funding for core programs such as NHP, STP, HSIP, and CMAQ are expected to be available to the region based on historical trends of funding from earlier, similar programs in past federal surface transportation laws. Likewise, state funding from the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) and the state program, Transportation Economic Development Fund Category D, are also assumed to be available through the period. Funds from other programs, are generally awarded on a competitive basis and are therefore impossible to predict. In these cases, projects are not amended into the TIP and Plan until proof of funding availability (such as an award letter) are provided. Funds from federal competitive programs are not included in the revenue forecast. All federally funded projects must be included in the first five years of the Plan, 2015-2019. Additionally, any non-federally-funded but regionally significant project must also be included. In these cases, project submitters demonstrate that funding is available and what sources of non-federal funding are to be utilized. Beginning with the sixth year (2020), only capacity changing projects need to be shown. This includes new roads and roads that add or reduce lanes. Projects programmed in the Plan are known as commitments. As mentioned previously, commitments cannot exceed funds reasonably expected to be available. We must program Projects in year-ofexpenditure dollars, meaning that they must be adjusted for inflation to reflect the estimated purchasing power of a dollar in the year we expect to build the project. The MTPA/Financial Work Group has decided on an annual inflation rate of four percent for projects over the length of the Plan. This means that a project costing $100,000 in FY 2015 is expected to cost $104,000 in FY 2016, $108,160 in FY 2017 and $112,486 in FY 2018. Since the amount of federal funds available is expected to be unchanged in 2015 through 2017, and then grow 2.39 percent per year thereafter, and state funds will grow by only 0.4 percent per year over the first five years, less work can be done each year with available funding. The next table demonstrates this Plan’s fiscal constraint. It shows that our region plans to meet the federal and state requirements that the cost of planned projects does not exceed the amount of funding reasonably expected to be available. A Long Range Transportation financial goal is to Plan to a net balance equal to 0, indicating that the programmed project costs equal available funding. Net Balance is the available funding less the cost of programmed projects. A positive net balance would mean that the available funding exceeds programmed project costs; a negative net balance means that programmed costs exceed the funding. This is a summary.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

109

Table 5-5 Summary Highway Fiscal Constraint Demonstration FY 2015 through FY 2040 Plan Period (Thousands of Dollars) FY 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2040 TOTAL

Federal Amount Available 47.0 45.2 45.2 43.0 44.7 256.2 298.3 323.4 431.5 1,534.6

Approximate Match (20%) 11.7 11.3 11.3 10.8 11.2 64.0 74.6 80.9 107.9 383.6

Total Available 58.7 56.5 56.5 53.8 55.9 320.2 372.9 404.3 539.4 1,918.2

Amount Programmed 53.2 14.1 56.5 12.7 11.7 77.3 17.5 16.9 27.2 701.1

Net Balance 5.5 42.4 41.1 44.2 242.9 355.4 387.4 512.2 1,217.1

Transit Financial Forecast—Federal Sources of Federal Transit Funding Federal Revenue for transit comes from federal motor fuel taxes, just as it does for highway projects. Motor fuel taxes collected nationally are deposited in the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The federal Mass Transit Account balance was $7.32 billion as of October 2011.6 Like federal highway funding, federal transit funding is distributed by formula to several core programs that are competitive. Brief descriptions of the most common programs for our region follow. Section 5307: This is the largest single source of transit funding apportioned to Michigan. Section 5307 funds are for capital projects, transit planning, and projects intended to link people without transportation to available jobs, the former Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program. Funds can also be used for operating expenses, depending on the transit agency size. One percent of funds are used to improve security at agency facilities, and one percent for transit improvements. Distribution formulas for 5307 consider population, population density, and operating characteristics related to transit service. Urbanized areas of 200,000 population or larger receive their own apportionment. Funds to areas between 50,000 and 199,999 population are awarded from the governor’s apportionment. The Lansing Urbanized Area’s (UZA) apportionment is allocated to the Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA). Section 5310, Elderly and Persons with Disabilities: Funding to benefit seniors and disabled persons when service is unavailable or insufficient and for transit access projects for disabled persons exceeding Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Section 5310 incorporates the former New Freedom program. The State of Michigan allocates its funding on a per-project basis. Section 5311, Non-Urbanized Area Formula Grant: Funds for capital, operating, and rural transit planning activities in areas less than 50,000 population. Activities to get people to jobs in rural areas are also eligible. The State of Michigan must use 15 percent of its Section 5311 funding on intercity bus transportation and operates this program on a competitive basis. Section 5337, State of Good Repair Grants: Funding to state and local governments for capital, maintenance, and operational support projects to keep fixed guide way systems in a state of good repair. Recipients must implement an asset management plan. Half of Section 5337 funding is 6

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/index.htm.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

110

distributed via a formula accounting for vehicle revenue miles and directional route miles and half is based on ratios of past funding received. Section 5339, Bus and Bus Facilities: Funds are to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities. Each state will receive $1.25 million, with the remaining funding apportioned to transit agencies based on various population and service factors. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ): Intended to support projects that improve air quality or reduce emissions, transit agencies can apply for CMAQ program funds in competition with highways and roads facilities. Base and Assumptions Used in Forecast Calculations of Federal Transit Funds: The base for the federal portion of the transit financial forecast is the amount of federal funding each transit agency received in the region. Table 5-6 Federal Transit Revenue Projections for the 2040 Plan (Millions of Dollars)

FY 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2040 TOTAL

Sec 5307 $5.7 $5.9 $6.2 $6.3 $6.4 $35.5 $42.5 $50.9 $74.5 $233.8

Sec 5310 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $1.6 $1.9 $2.3 $3.4 $10.6

Sec 5311 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $6.0 $7.2 $8.6 $12.6 $39.5

Sec 5339 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $4.2 $5.0 $6.0 $8.8 $27.8

Total $7.6 $7.9 $8.2 $8.3 $8.5 $47.3 $56.6 $67.9 $99.4 $311.7

Transit Financial Forecastâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;State Sources of State Transit Funding Most state-level transit funding comes from the same source as state highway funding, the state tax on motor fuels. Act 51 stipulates that 10 percent of receipts into the MTF, after certain deductions, is to be deposited in a subaccount of the MTF called the Comprehensive Transportation Fund (CTF). This is analogous to the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund at the federal level. Additionally, a portion of the state-level auto-related sales tax is deposited in the CTF. Distributions from the CTF are used by public transit agencies for matching federal grants and also for operating expenses. Approximately $157 million was distributed to the CTF in FY 2014.

Base and Assumptions Used in Forecast Calculations of State Transit Funds The base for calculations of state transit funding is the amount transit agencies in the Tri-County region were set to receive in FY 2014. That funding is adjusted upward by 3.75 percent for state match and 0.37% for state operating in FYs 2015 through 2017, in accordance with factors determined by the Financial Workgroup and approved by the Michigan Transportation Planning Association. The state-level

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

111

CTF distributions to Tri-County region transit agencies are shown in the next table, broken down by state match and state operating. Table 5-7 State Transit Revenue Projections for the 2040 Plan (Millions of Dollars)

FY 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2014 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2040 TOTAL

Sec 5307 State $8.2 $8.5 $8.8 $9.0 $9.1 $50.9 $60.5 $334.8 $473.5 $963.2

State Match for JARC $2.5 $2.6 $2.7 $2.7 $2.8 $15.5 $18.4 $102.1 $144.4 $293.8

Sec 5310 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $4.3 $5.1 $28.5 $40.3 $81.9

Sec 5339 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $6.0 $7.1 $39.5 $55.8 $113.6

Local Bus Operating (CTF) $101.3 $101.3 $101.3 $101.3 $101.3 $511.9 $521.1 $2,632.4 $3,318.1 $7,489.7

Total $113.6 $114.1 $114.6 $114.8 $115.0 $588.6 $612.2 $3,137.2 $4,032.1 $8,942.1

The third column, State Match for JARC-Type Projects, shows the maximum amount of match that the state will provide to transit agencies using some of their Section 5307 funding for projects eligible under the Job Access and Reverse Commute program, which has been folded into the Sec 5307 program under MAP-21. JARC projects are intended to connect persons without an automobile to job opportunities in many parts of the region.

Transit Financial Forecastâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Local Sources of Local Transit Funding Major sources of local funding for transit agencies include farebox revenues, general fund transfers from city governments, and transportation millages.

Base and Assumptions Used in Forecast Calculations of Local Transit Funds The base amounts for farebox, general fund transfers, and millages are provided by area transit providers. Area transit agencies (CATA, EATRAN and Clinton Transit) report the amount spent for capital and operations in the previous year. Presuming that transit agencies spend all money that they receive each year, these data can be used for revenue projections as well. In addition, the agencies provide data on other funding sources, such as advertising and contracts, if applicable. In response to questionnaires sent to each of the transit agencies, they provided their anticipated rates of change in these sources over time. Their responses are the basis for the next table. Since none of the agencies had projected rate increases, it was assumed that the amount of local funding would remain stable throughout FY 2014-17 and beyond.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

112

Table 5-8 Local Transit Revenue Projections for the 2040 Plan (Millions of Dollars)

FY 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2040 TOTAL

Amount $182.0 $182.0 $182.0 $182.0 $182.0 $910.0 $910.0 $910.0 $910.0 $7,644.0

Discussion of Innovative Financing Strategies--Transit

As with highway funding, there are alternative sources of funding available to operate transit service. Bonds can be issued and the federal government also allows the use of toll credits to match federal funds. 7 There are also federal and state funds available for economic development and environmental protection or monitoring activities that may be coordinated with a transit project to fund some activities that benefit both projects. In some cases, private businesses may establish partnerships with the transit agency, either on a short term or for a long term project. Examples of private funding contributions would include advertising, contributions of bus shelters or stops, communications services or support, or cost free leases for space.

Transit Capital and Operations Transit expenditures are divided into two basic categories, capital and operations. Capital refers to the physical assets of the agency, such as buses or vehicles, stations and shelters at bus stops, office equipment and furnishings, and certain spare parts for vehicles. Operations refers to the activities necessary to keep the system operating, such as driver wages and maintenance costs. Most expenses of transit agencies are operations expenses. Data on capital and operating costs were derived from TCRPCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the regional short term plan. The four year average split is 13.2 percent capital and 86.8 percent operations for the transit agencies in Mid-Michigan. It is assumed that this basic split will continue for the Plan duration. It is also assumed that the transit agencies are spending all available capital and operations funding, so that the amount expended on these items is roughly equal to the amount available. The next table shows the amounts estimated to be available for transit capital and operations during the Plan period. Table 5-9 Anticipated Amounts to be Expended on Transit Capital and Transit Operations (Millions of Dollars)

FY 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2040 TOTAL

Capital $10.4 $9.3 $9.5 $11.2 $11.9 $59.5 $76.0 $90.8 $131.3 $409.9

Operations $48.9 $50.6 $52.6 $52.8 $45.9 $304.9 $361.7 $429.8 $624.8 $1,972.0

Total $59.3 $59.9 $62.1 $64.0 $57.8 $364.4 $437.7 $520.6 $756.1 $2,381.9

FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/finance/tools_programs/federal_aid/matching_strategies/toll_credits.htm.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

113

Transit Commitments and Projected Available Revenue In this 2040 Plan, we anticipate federal funding for core transit programs such as Section 5307, Section 5339, Section 5310, and Section 5311 will be available as in the past. Likewise, we anticipate state funding from the Comprehensive Transportation Fund (CTF), and local sources of revenue such as fare box, general fund transfers, and millages will be available. Funds from our region from competitive programs are difficult to predict accurately. In these cases, we will amend projects into the Plan when they have a reasonable demonstration of funding availability, such as an award notice. We have not assumed funds from un-awarded federal competitive programs in our revenue forecasts. We consider projects programmed in the Plan as commitments. Commitments cannot exceed funds we reasonably expect to be available. Projects must also be programmed in year of expenditure dollars, meaning that they must be adjusted for inflation. The MTPA/Financial Work Group has decided on an annual inflation rate of 3.3 percent for projects over the next few years. This means that a project costing $100,000 in FY 2014 is expected to cost $103,300 in FY 2015, $106,709 in FY 2016, and $110,230 in FY 2017. Since the amount of federal funds available is only expected to increase by 3.75 percent per year, state match funds by only 3.75 percent per year, and state operating funds by 0.37 percent per year over the four-year TIP period, this means that funding will barely keep pace with inflation. Table 5-10 demonstrates financial constraint for transit. The table shows that the cost of planned projects does not exceed the amount of funding reasonably expected to be available. This is a summary. Table 5-10 Summary Fiscal Constraint Demonstration (Transit) for the 2040 Plan Thousands of Dollars)

FY 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2040 Net Balance

Amount Programmed 59.3 59.9 62.1 62.1 57.8 364.4 437.7 520.6 756.0

Amount Available 59.3 59.9 62.1 64.0 57.8 364.4 437.7 520.6 756.1 $0.00

Net Balance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0.00

MDOT Projected Available Revenue In this 2040 Plan, MDOT provided their anticipated funding amounts for the 2015-2040 years. The funding amounts have been separated into separate funding categories to show a summary of these funds may be used.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

114

Table 5-11 MDOT Trunkline Long Range Preservation Revenue Forecast 2015-2040

STP

CMAQ

NHS

Bridge

Other

TOTAL

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2040 TOTAL

$6,970,378.6 $6,571,385.0 $6,517,087.2 $6,057,197.6 $6,307,245.2 $8,283,990.8 $8,773,652.6 $10,638,451.2 $12,610,444.2 $225,510,178.8

34,851,893 32,856,925 32,585,436 30,285,988 31,536,226 41,419,954 43,868,263 53,192,256 63,052,221 1,127,550,894

Analysis of Funding and Needs Michigan’s Transportation Funding Challenges = Tri-County Region Challenges While the previous tables have shown fiscal constraint, the needs of the transportation system in our region substantially outweigh the funding available to address them. Our regional situation is similar to other areas of Michigan. A recent study showed that statewide we need approximately $1.4 billion in 2015 just to maintain the existing highway system. This is expected to increase in future years to approximately $2.6 billion annually by 2023.8 Michigan currently receives about $1 billion from the federal government for transportation and raises an additional $2 billion through the MTF. After MTF deductions for administrative services and the Comprehensive Transportation Fund (transit), the state is left with approximately $1.8 billion in state funds, so there is a total of $2.8 billion for highways and bridges. If an additional $1.4 billion is required to keep the system at a minimally acceptable level of service, this indicates that the state only has about two-thirds of the funding necessary just to maintain the existing infrastructure. New facilities would, of course, increase the costs of the system to higher levels. Michigan's trunkline highways are on the verge of rapid and serious decline. Since this region’s last long range plan update in 2010, pavement conditions have fallen and our bridges are in a long, steady decline that could return them to the deteriorated state last seen in the 1990s. A 2013 winter of the polar vortex has caused even more potholes and damaged facilities. Drivers are experiencing more miles of rough pavement and the Michigan Legislature has not passed any long term or comprehensive fixes for the transportation budget. A study by MDOT examined lessons learned about how to invest in Michigan's trunkline highways. The study concluded that the four-cent per gallon increase enacted in 1997 was not adequate to pay for both system-expansion projects and preserve existing pavements and bridges. Yet more than $900 million in new capacity projects desired by communities and businesses were funded in order to alleviate congestion and help the state's struggling economy. Only about a third of that increase for MDOT went to "capital" purposes. The rest went chiefly to make bond payments, 8 Rick Olson, State Representative, 55th District. Road and Bridge Funding Recommendations. Link in story in the Ann Arbor News entitled “Rick Olson hopeful Michigan Legislature will address $1.4B road funding gap in 2012,” 29 December 2011. Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

115

perform routine maintenance such as plowing snow, and address needs not eligible for federal highway funds. Only a portion was available to fund basic road repaving and the replacement of old bridges. Without adequate funds for pavement and bridge preservation, the department borrowed nearly $1.5 billion more for pavement and bridge preservation work. In fact, more than 28 percent of the pavement budget in recent years came from bonds or one-time federal economic-stimulus funds. Today, the department is just under the ceiling set on its debt limit and is un-able to continue borrowing. Gas tax revenue continues to decline, debt service costs MDOT more than $220 million in principal and interest annually, and additional bonding is no longer possible. MDOTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s serious drop in its pavement budgets will directly impact this regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transportation budget and the condition of area transportation facilities. Pavement and bridge budgets, when discounted for the effects of inflation, will be at their lowest levels since 1997. And, the long-term costs to restore bridges and pavements to good condition increase as they continue to deteriorate. And, accidents increase on poor pavements. As long range planning decisions are made, it is clear that substantial new revenue for the preservation of Michigan's basic highway conditions is needed. To ensure that Michigan has a highway network that is sustainable for the long term will require a substantial investment significantly greater than the last gas tax increase in 1997. It is also apparent that we have no clear assurance for additional federal funding. Our locally depressed economy indicates that there is no source of local revenues to fill the gaps between need and cost in our regional transportation network. So, we have focused our long term vision on reasonable anticipation of revenues and constrained it to those limited funding limits.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

116

“NEVER DOUBT THAT A SMALL GROUP OF THOUGHTFUL, COMMITTED, CITIZENS CAN CHANGE THE WORLD. INDEED, IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT EVER HAS.” -MARGARET MEAD

CHAPTER 6 The Regional 2040 Transportation Plan of Projects This chapter is the regional plan of federally funded and/or regionally significant surface transportation projects for the long term in the Lansing-East Lansing Metropolitan area. The lists of projects in this chapter are anticipated to be completed during the time of this Plan, between 2014 and 2040. They were identified through our public involvement processes and through technical analyses of our transportation network using an updated transportation demand model. The first three years of projects, those for 2014-17, are already programmed and listed in our regional â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;short rangeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; plan, the Transportation Improvement Program or TIP. Many of the projects listed for the later years of this plan, 2017-2040, were identified in the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s previous long range plans including the most recent, the 2035 LRTP. But, those longer term lists of projects have been carefully re-considered as part of our 2040 Plan development. Community leaders and transportation agencies staff at local, state, and federal levels all participated in identifying, prioritizing, scheduling, and estimating the costs of the projects. In some cases, they deleted or opted not to carry over projects from the 2035 Plan lists because the projects would no longer meet a need or resolve a transportation problem. With the assistance of Corradino Group, transportation consultants, TCRPC updated the regional transportation demand model with improved socio-economic data and current network conditions. Then, we analyzed the system for deficiencies and evaluated proposed projects for their potential to address transportation needs and deficiencies in our network. Finally, we returned these projects lists back to our regional transportation agencies, state and federal transportation agency partners, community leaders, and the general public for their review and approval. The projects have been identified in two general categories. Capacity changing projects are those projects that will affect the amount of traffic or use that the road or transportation facility will handle. Capacity change projects generally include improve or expand projects, constructing new roads, adding or removing lanes on roadways, changing roadways from one-way to two-way travel or from two-way back to one way. They may include adding turn lanes or round-abouts as well. They could include new transit routes or services. Preserve projects are those which replace and/or maintain the current surface transportation network. They are often resurfacing, or reconstruction or replacement of a roadway bed or a bridge. They can include replacing transit vehicles (buses) or equipment, including communications technology and traffic signals. Preserve projects in this list also include some maintenance operations of certain transportation systems such as transit. In keeping with the nature of long term and regional transportation planning, we have provided limited detail about the proposed projects in this Plan. We list a name, the agency or jurisdiction, estimated location, a short description of the project or transportation improvement, and an estimated project cost in year of construction dollars. Projects scheduled for completion within the short term, between 2014 and 2017, are listed in our regional TIP and have considerable more detailed information. As they are much closer to actual implementation, detailed funding sources and amounts are available along with engineering details on the type of work and specific locations. But, for a long range plan, those details have not been decided and, given the changes that can occur, such detail is likely to be inaccurate by the time the project is near to actual implementation or construction.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

117

Performance Measures are metrics used to evaluate the success a project or program has in accomplishing its goals. TCRPC has identified performance measures for the many types of projects or “program categories.” The following is a list of many of those performance measures:  Pavement condition and PASER ratings  Level of service  Crash rates  System connectivity and number of gaps filled or links completed  Sedimentation rates  Average speeds  Congestion  Number of critical, deficient, or functionally obsolete structures (i.e. Bridges)  Passenger trips; boarding/deboardings  Operating costs/revenues WHAT IS THE ILLUSTRATIVE LIST? The illustrative list is a collection of projects proposed or being considered for possible future implementation in our region. Illustrative lists are not a formal part of the regional TIP (short range plan) or of the Long Range Transportation Plan. They are an addition to each. Illustrative list projects do not have their funding committed and may lack engineering detail. Including them in the illustrative list, but not the TIP, recognizes that the project is being considered, that it is regionally significant, and that it may be eligible for federal funds. Amending or changing a project in the illustrative list offers a chance to consider how the project would fit with the regional transportation vision. WHY ADD TO THE ILLUSTRATIVE LIST? In lieu of a letter or other support for the transportation project proposed, the region can demonstrate its support by including the project in the TIP illustrative list. Showing that a project fits with our regional vision for transportation improvements is good planning and could improve a project’s competitiveness. DOES GETTING ON THE ILLUSTRATIVE LIST ASSURE THE PROJECT WILL BE FUNDED AND CONSTRUCTED? NO. The Illustrative list is just for planning purposes. If it is funded with state or federal funds, it can be added to the TIP. The project must have committed funding and show that it is part of the regional package of projects (TIP) that together meet regional financial constraints and air quality conformity requirements. This is the planning phase. Then, to move to a construction phase, the project must meet specific public notice and environmental reviews to continue. HOW DO PROJECTS GET AMENDED INTO THE ILLUSTRATIVE LIST? Additions or changes to the TIP illustrative list are submitted by the staff, departments, or officials of our region’s Act 51 designated transportation agencies including cities, villages, county road commissions, or the state department of transportation. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission’s advisory committees consider and issue recommendations to the full Commission board. The Capital Area Regional Transportation Study (CARTS) Committee offers a technical review, and the Transportation Review Committee (TRC) considers policy issues. With those recommendations, the full Tri-County Commission decides about amendments during its open public meeting. IF TCRPC ADDS OR CHANGES A PROJECT IN THE ILLUSTRATIVE LIST, IS THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY/IMPLEMENTING AGENCY REQUIRED TO FUND OR CONSTRUCT THAT PROJECT? NO. TCRPC does not control or direct local municipal funding. So, while the project may be considered in a regional plan, the local road agency or department will decide.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

118

Table 6-1 Capacity Adding Long Range Plan Projects Local Jurisdiction

Location

Termini

Length (miles)

Plan Option

Estimated Year of Construction Cost

Clinton County Road Commission Clinton County Road Commission Eaton Rapids

DeWitt Road

Airport to I-69

2.70

4,000,000

2040

State Road

DeWitt Road to US 127 BR

1.30

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (added 9/14/14 at CCRC request Widen from 2 to 4 lanes

4,500,000

2040

Eaton Rapids bridge and approaches

0.19

Construct 2 lane bridge and approaches, including bike lanes

7,328,916

2031

Eaton County Road Commission Eaton County Road Commission East Lansing

Nixon Road and bridge

Extensions of Grandview and Barnes Roads to serve as approaches to new bridge over Grand River; includes bike lanes Willow to North Highway

0.50

Construct new bridge and roadway

7,076,929

2040

St Joe Highway Bridge

at I-69/96

Widen bridge from 2 to 4 lanes

5,816,628

2035

Coleman Road

West to Wood

0.78

5,100,000

2020

Mason

Franklin Farms Drive

LaVonne Drive to Kipp Road

0.20

1,889,209

2024

Mason

W Columbia Street

Extension through Maple Grove Cemetery

0.25

3,878,260

2032

Michigan State University Michigan State University Michigan State University Webberville

Bogue Street

Service Road to Mount Hope

0.52

Construct 2 lane roadway including bike lanes Construct 2 lane extension from end of LaVonne Construct 2 lane road to connect with existing Columbia alignment Construct new 3 lane road

3,358,992

2023

N Shaw and S Shaw (two way pair) Wilson Road extension

Red Cedar to Farm Lane

0.25

4,060,333

2026

Wilson-Fee intersection to Hagadorn, connecting north to Shaw Grand River extending S .57 mile into existing business park.

0.50

Eliminate North Shaw; restore South Shaw to two way traffic Construct 4 lane boulevard connecting Wilson to Hagadorn Construct new 2 lane road

10,400,000

2017

1,309,977

2022

Webberville Road Extension

0.57

Table 6-2 Capacity Changing Management and Operation Treatments Local Jurisdiction

Location

Termini

Length (miles)

Plan Option

Clinton County Road Commission

from Clark Road to Herbison Road

0.04 miles

Right turn lane construction.

Eaton Rapids

Schavey Rd (Clark Rd to Herbison Rd) Improvements Right Turn Lane in Front of School State Street

JB Davidson to Greyhound

0.46

Grand Ledge

Jenne Street

South to Edwards

0.35

Reconstruct and add center left turn lane from Miller east .27 mile Reconstruct with curb and gutter;

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Estimated Year of Construction Cost 455,000

693,265

2019

433,393

2015

2016

119

Grand Ledge

Jenne Street

Edwards to M -43

0.20

Eaton County Road Commission Eaton County Road Commission Eaton County Road Commission Eaton County Road Commission Eaton County Road Commission Eaton County Road Commission Eaton County Road Commission Eaton County Road Commission Eaton County Road Commission Eaton County Road Commission Eaton County Road Commission East Lansing

Canal Road

Willow to Delta Commerce

0.64

Creyts Road

Lansing Road to Dimondale village limit

2.00

Mt. Hope Highway

Canal to Guinea

1.00

Mt. Hope Highway

Guinea to Nixon

1.00

Mt. Hope Highway

Nixon to M-100

2.00

Snow Road Bridge

at I-496

St Joe Highway

Canal to Marketplace

0.50

St Joe Highway

Broadbent to Nixon

1.00

St Joe Highway

Royston to M-100

1.00

St Joe Highway

Royston to Nixon

1.00

Willow Highway

M-100 to Canal

4.00

Coleman Road

West to Wood

0.78

East Lansing

Harrison Road

Saginaw Hwy to Lake Lansing

1.04

East Lansing

Lake Lansing Road

US 127 to Harrison

0.75

Lansing

Capitol Avenue

Malcolm X to Oakland

1.25

Lansing

Cedar Street

at Willoughby

Lansing

Cedar/Pennsylvania/Edgewood

Cedar at Pennsylvania/American; Pennsylvania

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

0.60

widen by 3 feet to add center turn lane Reconstruct with curb and gutter; widen by 3 feet to add center turn lane Add left turn lanes, bike lanes and sidewalk Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Widen bridge from 2 to 3 lanes and add non-motorized pathways Reconstruct; add left turn lane Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Add left turn lanes and paved shoulders Construct 2 lane roadway including bike lanes Reconstruct; reduce from 4 to 3 lanes; add non-motorized lanes Widen from 4 to 5 lanes; add intersection turn lanes; possible roundabout at Lake Lansing and Coolidge (AC in 2016; convert in 2017) Switch from one way to two way (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping) Add west bound right turn lane; convert south bound right turn lane to through/right turn lane Construct 3 roundabouts;

1,285,571

(revised termini) 2016 (revised termini) 2020

6,680,380

2025

2,015,361

2020

2,357,661

2025

5,737,072

2030

5,817,000

2035

567,145

2015

2,015,350

2021

2,868,576

2030

2,357,781

2025

11,474,228

2030

5,100,000

2020

868,000

2016

868,000

2016

9,663,396

2020

480,613

2020

8,700,000

2020

318,876

120

Complex

at I-96 ramps; Cedar at Edgewood

Lansing

E Grand River Avenue

Wood to Howard

0.60

Lansing

E Grand River Avenue

Railroad tracks E of Larch to Massachusetts

0.35

Lansing

Grand Avenue

Lenawee to Oakland

1.05

Lansing

Grand Avenue

St Joe to Lenawee

0.15

Lansing

Grand River Ave

Washington Avenue

Lansing

Jolly Road

Waverly to MLK

1.80

Lansing

Kalamazoo Avenue

Larch Street to Grand Avenue- City of Lansing, downtown

0.30

Lansing

Lake Lansing operations Improvements

Old 27 to High Street

0.30

Lansing

Michigan Avenue

Detroit Street to Clippert

0.25

Lansing

MLK Boulevard

Oakland to Queen

0.60

Lansing

MLK Jr. Boulevard

Queen to Grand River

0.50

Lansing

Mt. Hope Avenue

Pleasant Grove to Washington

1.60

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

reconstruct Cedar and Edgewood between roundabouts Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes and add bike lanes (striping & signage only) Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes and add bike lanes (grinding, striping, signage) Switch from one way to two way and add bike lanes (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping) Switch from one way to two way and add bike lanes (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping) Remove traffic signal and construct a roundabout Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes and add bike lanes (grinding, striping, signage) Reconfiguration of Kalamazoo Avenue from Larch Street to Grand Avenue to provide bike lanes. Addition of sharrows along Grand Avenue. Implementation of sharrows on Lake Lansing Road. Modernization of signal at High Street including removal of left turn overlap phase. Interconnection with signals at old 27 and North East Street. Boulevard reduced from 3 lanes to 2 lanes in each direction with the addition of bike lanes Mill and resurface, ADA ramp upgrades, 4 to 3 lane conversion with addition of bike lanes Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes with addition of bike lanes (grinding, striping, signage) Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes with addition of bike lanes (grinding, striping, signage)

20,000

2020

9,633

2016

750,000

2020

71,291

2020

450,000

2016

52,229

2018

100,000

2015

120,000

2018

18,664

2018; revised termini 2015

314,605

16,424

39,037

2018; revised termini 2022; revised termini

121

Lansing

Pine Street

Malcolm X to Shiawassee

0.82

Lansing

Pine Street

Shiawassee to Oakland

0.43

Lansing

Townsend Street

Elm to Malcolm X

0.25

Lansing

Walnut Street

Malcolm X to Shiawassee

0.82

Lansing

Walnut Street

Shiawassee to Oakland

0.43

Lansing

Willow Street

Sunset to MLK Boulevard

0.60

Ingham County Road Commission

Aurelius Road

Harper (west leg) to Holt Road

1.50

Ingham County Road Commission

Cedar Street

Holbrook Drive to U.S. 127

3.50

Ingham County Road Commission

Hagadorn Road

at Mt Hope

0.14

Ingham County Road Commission

Lake Lansing Road

Lac du Mont to Marsh

1.10

Ingham County Road Commission Ingham County Road Commission Ingham County Road Commission Ingham County Road Commission

Marsh Road

Central Park to Tihart

0.50

Okemos Road

Central Park to Haslett

1.50

Okemos Road

Sandhill to Jackson National Life

0.45

Willow Road

Waverly to Lansing city limit

0.95

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Switch from one way to two way (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping) Switch from one way to two way (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping) Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes (grinding, striping, signage) with addition of bike lanes Switch from one way to two way (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping) Switch from one way to two way (intersection improvements, signal upgrades, signing & striping) Reduce from 4 lanes (to 3 lanes from city limit to railroad track; to 2 lanes from railroad to MLK) Harper to Wilcox: widen from 2 to 3 lanes; Wilcox to Holt: reduce from 4 to 3 lanes; add possible roundabout at Holt-Aurelius intersection; bike lanes on both sides Reconstruct with wider median, indirect left turns and intersection improvements Geometric improvements to create head-up NB and SB left-turn lanes, which will allow additional SB Hagadorn Road through lane to relieve congestion. Resurface and restripe from 4 to 3 lanes with addition of nonmotorized lanes Widen from 4 to 5 lanes with intersection improvements Raise grade and install turn pockets Widen from 2 to 3 lanes

629,800

2020

314,900

2020

8,568-local

2022

540,000

2020

401,729

2020

87,335-local

2022

2,232,483

2018

20,000,000

2020

250,000

2020

800,000

2019

1,300,000

2025

12,000,000

2022

3,234,000-EDA

2015

Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes, includes bike lanes

750,000

2025

122

Eaton County Road Commission East Lansing

Jenne Street

South Street to Edwards

0.35

Abbot Road

Burcham to Saginaw

0.43

Grand Ledge

Jenne Street

M-43 to Edwards

0.20

East Lansing

Harrison Road (AC)

Saginaw Highway to Lake Lansing

1.04

East Lansing

Harrison Road (ACC)

Saginaw Highway to Lake Lansing.

1.04

Lansing

Washington Avenue

Oakland to North Grand River

0.27

Reconstruct with curb and gutter and add non-motorized lanes. Reconstruct; Whitehills to Saginaw reduced from 5 to 3 lanes Reconstruct with curb and gutter; widen by three feet to add center turn lane Reconstruct; reduce from 4 to 3 lanes; add non-motorized lanes Reconstruct' reduce from 4 to 3 lanes; add non-motorized lanes Reconstruct; reduce from four to 2 lanes

433,000

2015

267,000

2015

319,000

2016

259,000

2016

559,000

2017

595,000

2016

Table 6-3 Projects Added for the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Highways-Onlyâ&#x20AC;? Alternative Local Jurisdiction

Location

Termini

Length (miles)

Plan Option

MDOT

US 127

6.00

Clinton County Road Commission Clinton County Road Commission Clinton County Road Commission Clinton County Road Commission Clinton County Road Commission/ MDOT MDOT MDOT

Clark Road

Kinley to Gratiot County Line (continuing to Ithaca, outside our region; cost is for Clinton County portion) U.S. 127 B.R. to Wood

Expansion to limited access freeway Reduce from four lanes (road diet)

DeWitt Road

I-69 to State Road

2.30

Park Lake/Webster extension State Road extension

Webster to Coleman

Chandler Road

East Lansing East Lansing East Lansing Lansing Lansing Lansing Leslie

1.00

200,000 5,000,000

2.00

Construct roundabouts at Stoll and at Clark Construct connecting link

Webster to Chandler

1.80

Construct new road

3,000,000

I-69 to Ingham County line

2.50

Increase capacity and add I-69 interchange US 127 interchange at State Road Construct new interchange I-96 interchange at Meridian Road Construct new interchange New projects added to address modelled 2040 Wise Growth deficiencies as part of the Highways Only Alternative Collingwood Drive East Circle Drive to Albert Add northbound lane Hagadorn Road Grand River to East Shaw Add third southbound lane southbound Lake Lansing Road Kerry to Coolidge Add continuous right turn lane Cavanaugh Road Cedar to west of Wildwood Add west bound right turn lane Cedar Street Jolly to Armstrong Add continuous right turn lane (weaving lane) Miller Road Cedar to Orchard Court Add westbound right turn lane Bellevue Road U. S. 127 sb ramp to west of High Street Add continuous left turn lane

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Estimated Year of Construction Cost 456,777,580

5,000,000

67,909,091 100,000,000 67,909,091

123

MDOT MDOT MDOT MDOT MDOT

MDOT MDOT MDOT MDOT MSU MSU MSU MSU Williamston Williamston

Grand River Avenue (M43) Grand River Avenue (M43) wb Howard Avenue I-496 eb Saginaw Cutoff (M-43 eb)

Harrison to Michigan

Add west bound lane

Cutoff from Grand River to Howard (service road)

Add left turn lane

Grand River to Saginaw Ramp to U.S. 127 nb Cutoff to Grand River

U.S. 127 ramp nb U. S. 127 ramp nb U. S. 127 ramp nb U. S. 127 ramp sb Collingwood Drive Farm Lane Kalamazoo Street West Circle Drive Putnam Street/Williamston Road Putnam Street

Ramp approach to Homer (service road) Ramp approach to Saginaw Ramp approach to lake Lansing Ramp approach to I-496 wb East Circle Drive to Grand River (M-43) Auditorium Road to Shaw West Circle Drive eb to Chestnut West Circle wb to West Circle eb I-96 wb ramp to Linn

Add left turn lane Add lane Implement Capitol Corridor recommendation which includes addition of a civic plaza, including addition of a half roundabout for east-west flow Add lane Add lane Add lane Add lane Add northbound through lane Widen from 3 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Add continuous left turn lane

Grand River (M-43) to Church Street

Add continuous left turn lane and eliminate parking

Table 6-4 2015-2019 Preserve Projects (Costs shown in $1000s) FY

Project Name

Limits

Project Description

Federal Cost

State Cost

Local Cost

2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

Responsible Agency CCRC CCRC CCRC CCRC CCRC

Findlay Rd Grange Road Grange Road Island Rd Old U.S 27 Non-motorized pathway

Replace bridge Sealcoat (force account) Sealcoat (force account) Resurface Non-motorized pathway construction

312 80 68 328 430

59 20 9

2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

CCRC CCRC CCRC CCRC CCRC CCRC Clinton Transit Clinton Transit

Turner (ACC) Wacousta bridge Wacousta Road Wacousta Road Wacousta Road Wright Road New Freedom Operating program

Hayworth Creek Howe to Pratt Townsend to Colony Watson to Shepardsville Sheridan to Northcrest with slight eastward jog to Brock Clark to Herbison Over Looking Glass river Howe to Pratt Clark to Howe over Looking Glass River Howe to Pratt Countywide Countywide

Resurface and widen shoulders Local match for bridge project Sealcoat (force account) Resurface Replace bridge Sealcoat (force account) Operating assistance Operations

309

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

9 82 95

10 68 320 166 68 50 213

20 80 31 13 514

10 17 621

Total Cost 390 100 85 410 525

309 10 88 400 208 85 63 1,349

124

2015 2015 2015 2015

Clinton Transit MDOT MDOT Dimondale

RTAP operating program I-69BL US-127 Bridge Street

2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

EATRAN EATRAN ECRC ECRC ECRC ECRC MDOT

Operating program Seven medium duty buses Brookfield Rd Marshall Road St. Joe St. Joe Hwy M-100

2015

CATA

2015 2015 2015 2015

CATA CATA CATA CATA

A&E customer enhancement design CATA Clean Commute Expansion bus Facility improvements Facility improvements

2015

CATA

2015

CATA

2015

CATA

2015

CATA

2015 2015 2015

CATA CATA CATA

2015

CATA

2015

CATA

2015

CATA

2015 2015 2015

CATA CATA CATA

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Job Access Reverse Commute

Countywide at Marsh Rd at French Rd from Jefferson Street to East Street Countywide Countywide Battle Creek River Olivet VL to Nye Canal to Marketplace Sebewa Creek 3 bridges on M-100 in Eaton County Countywide

Operations New car pool lot New car pool lot Mill and resurface

4 189 143 102

1 47 36

Operations Purchase 7 medium duty buses Replace bridge Rehabilitate; add paved shoulders Reconstruct; add left turn lane Replace bridge Structure Replacement

386 712 542 1,177 464 478 7,592

928 178 102 343

Improve customer amenities along fixed route corridor CATA Clean Commute Options Purchase buses Facility improvements Facility improvements at CTC

100 142 80 80

49 20 20

100 191 100 100

IT third party contract

120

150

Countywide

IT hardware

100

Countywide

Purchase ITS software

231

288

Countywide

Enhanced communication equipment Purchase up to 7 40' hybrid buses Purchase maintenance equipment Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project development Operating buses

238

475

2,659 128 900

665 32 100

3,324 160 1,125

120

240

Purchase up to 10 paratransit vehicles Improve customer amenities along fixed route corridor Continue planning program Planning program Carry out preventative

342

428

518 268 612

130 67 153

648 334 765

Areawide Countywide Countywide CATA Transportation Center (CTC) Countywide

Large buses Maintenance equipment Michigan/ Grand River Corridor Study Operating service enhanced mobility of services and disabled Paratransit vehicles

Countywide Countywide Capitol to Marsh

Pedestrian access/walkways (concrete) Planning Planning Preventative maintenance

Countywide

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Countywide

Countywide Countywide Countywide

90 1,684

1,098 34 103 30

125

5 236 179 124 2,412 890 677 1,519 567 598 9,276

125

2015 2015 2015 2015

CATA CATA CATA CATA

Public Education campaign Rural operating Rural service buses Safety and security

Areawide Countywide Countywide Countywide

2015

CATA

Shelter

Countywide

2015

CATA

Signage

Countywide

2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

CATA CATA CATA CATA CATA East Lansing

Small buses Spare parts Support vehicle Transit vehicle additions Urban Operating Bogue Street

2015 2015 2015 2015

ICDTR ICDTR ICDTR ICDTR

Clark Rd Columbia Rd Hull Rd Kipp Road

Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Grand River Avenue to Shaw Lane (MSU) Deer Creek Doan Creek Sycamore Creek US-127 to Dexter Trail

2015 2015 2015

ICDTR ICDTR ICDTR

Marsh Rd Meech Rd Michigan Avenue

2015

ICDTR

Miscellaneous rural collectors

Canadian National RR Doan Creek Waverly to Lansing City limit Countywide

2015

ICDTR

Okemos Road (AC)

at Jolly Road

2015

ICDTR

Okemos Road

Jackson National Life to Jolly Oak

2015

ICDTR

Ram Trail

2015

Lansing

Bike Share

Holt Road from Eifert Road to Kahres Road Michigan Avenue and downtown

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

maintenance Public education/ozone action Rural operations Purchase up to 3 rural service buses Purchase safety and security equipment Improve customer amenities along fixed route corridor Improve customer amenities along fixed route corridor Purchase up to 8 small buses Purchase spare parts for buses purchase up to 6 support vehicles Purchase up to 2 40' hybrid buses Urban operations Reconstruct; spot curb and gutter replacements Preventative maintenance Preventative maintenance Replace bridge Reconstruct (funds to supplement TEDF-A) Rehabilitate bridge Preventative maintenance Reconstruct

125 372 157 55

31 550 39 14

527 120 111 525 612 344

132 30 28 131 10,578

658 150 139 656 42,345 421

109 122 268 782

20 23 50 400

7 8 17

136 153 335 1,182

1,000 100

188 19 1,700

63 6

1,250 125 1,700

Bituminous skin patching with chip seal resurfacing Construct dual left turn lanes on wb Jolly, right turn lanes on both Okemos Road approaches; reconstruct west approach on Jolly Widen from 2 to 3 lanes from Sandhill to Jackson National Life driveway; install traffic signal at southern Jackson National Life driveway; construct west bound right turn lame at Sandhill-Okemos intersection Non-motorized pathway

252

Install bike sharing stations at locations in downtown Lansing and

263

997

31,155 76

157 1,919 196 68

315 612

875

661

3,234

1,190

264

1,453

2,573

126

2015 2015

Lansing Lansing

Clippert Holmes

2015

Lansing

Traffic Operations Center

2015 2015

Mason MDOT

Cedar I-96

2015

MDOT

I-96

2015 2015

MDOT MDOT

I-96 I-96

Oak to Willow Creek 2 bridge locations along I96 EB & WB over Cedar Street, Lansing Six Bridges on I-96, Lansing Aurelius Road over I-96

2015

MDOT

Michivan-Tri-County

Areawide

2015 2015 2015

MDOT MDOT Webberville

US 127 NB US-127NB SRTS Webberville

2015 2015 2015

MDOT MDOT MDOT

2015

MDOT

2015

MDOT

2015

MDOT

2015

MDOT

2015

MDOT

2015

MDOT

2015

MDOT

2016

CCRC

Highway Safety Trunkline GPA Local Bridge Local Highway Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Local Livability and Sustainability Local Traffic Operations and Safety Trunkline Bridge Rehab and Reconstruct Trunkline Highway Preservation Trunkline Highway Resurfacing. Rehabilitation,and Reconstruction Trunkline Traffic Operations and Safety Trunkline Transportation Livability and safety Countywide preventative maintenance

Saginaw to Lake Lansing Saginaw to Lake Lansing Sidewalks in vicinity of Webberville High School, Middle School and Elementary Schools Region wide Regionwide Regionwide

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Saginaw to N. Grand River Deerfield to Pleasant Grove Citywide

along Michigan Avenue Reconstruct Reconstruct

213 720

47 160

260 879

Traffic Operations Center to coordinate signal operations Resurface Deep Overlay

367 1,273

81 141

449 1,415

Joint replace, steel repairs

1,110

123

1,233

Railing and bearing replace Deck replacement, shoulder widening Continuation of Ingham County Michivan New sound wall New sound wall Non-motorized pathway construction plus maps and promotional materials

1,717 2,595

191 288

1,908 2,883

80 3,300 416

20 744

814 4,397

91 824 400

275

905 5,496 400

Regionwide

Highway Safety Trunkline Local Bridge Local Highway Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Local Livability and Sustainability

2,644

490

3,165

Regionwide

Local Traffic Operations and Safety

Regionwide

Trunkline Bridge and Reconstruct

4,660

580

5,240

Regionwide

Highway Trunkline Preservation

1,385

307

1,692

Regionwide

Trunkline Highway Resurfacing, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction

Regionwide

Trunkline Traffic Operations and Safety Trunkline Transportation Livability and Safety Various chip seals, countywide

215

Regionwide Countywide

278

3,764 320

278 100 4,044 416

215 835

4,599 80

400

127

2016 2016 2016 2016

CCRC CCRC CCRC Clinton Transit

Francis Rd Herbison State Rd Bus replacement

Grand River to Stoll Rambling to BR 127 Little Lake Rd to M-100 Countywide

2016

Clinton Transit

Facility improvement

Administration building

2016

Clinton Transit

Facility improvement

Refueling and parking area

2016 2016 2016 2016 2016

Clinton Transit Clinton Transit Clinton Transit Clinton Transit Dewitt

Minivan replacement New Freedom Operating program RTAO operating policy Schavey Road

2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016

MDOT Charlotte Eaton Rapids EATRAN EATRAN EATRAN ECRC

US-127 Sheldon Street State Street Four small buses Operating program Security camera system Snow Rd

Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide north of Herbison to south of Howe at Price Road Carpool Lot Lawrence to Foote JB Davidson to Greyhound Countywide Countywide Countywide Intersections at St Joe and Michigan

2016

ECRC

St. Joe

Canal to Creyts

2016 2016

Charlotte CATA

Sheldon Street A & E design

Lawrence to Foote Countywide

2016

CATA

Countywide

2016 2016 2016 2016

CATA CATA CATA CATA

A&E customer enhancement design CATA Clean Commute Expansion bus Facility improvements Facility improvements

2016

CATA

Intelligent Transportation

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Areawide Countywide Countywide CATA Transportation Center (CTC) Countywide

Resurface Resurface and widen shoulders Resurface Replace 2 light duty diesel buses with 2 propane buses Purchase and install one generator for administration building; install existing generator in maintenance building Design and construct lighted canopy for a propane refueling station and a portion of the canopy for coverage of vehicle parking Replace 2 accessible minivans Operating assistance Operations Operations Resurface; localized reconstruction

240 139 488 180

31 122 45

300 170 610 225

113

90 63 1,390 5 340

Resurface lot Reconstruct Reconstruct Replace 4 small buses Operations Security camera system for buses Modernize existing signals, improve timing and provide interconnect to help improve traffic flow, install traffic detection equipment Resurface, correct unstable subgrade condition Resurface Architecture and engineering design Improve customer amenities along fixed route corridor CATA Clean Commute Options Purchase buses Facility improvements Facility improvements at CTC

74 375 375 276 388 68 208

IT third party contract

72 50 222 4 278

13 535 1

633 62

90 554 482 345 2,424 85 254

108

595

179 107 69 933 17

487

1,103

375 40

468 50

103 147 72 48

44 18 12

103 191 90 60

120

150

128

2016

CATA

2016

CATA

2016

CATA

2016 2016 2016

CATA CATA CATA

2016

CATA

2016

CATA

2016 2016 2016

System (ITS) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Job Access Reverse Commute

Countywide

IT hardware

100

Countywide

Purchase ITS software

191

238

Countywide

Enhanced communication equipment Purchase up to 6 40' hybrid buses Purchase maintenance equipment Operating buses

246

493

2,680 128 125

670 32 125

3,350 160 250

Purchase up to 12 paratransit vehicles Improve customer amenities along fixed route corridor Continue planning program Planning program Carry out preventative maintenance Public education/ozone action Rural operations Purchase up to 3 rural service buses Purchase safety and security equipment Improve customer amenities along fixed route corridor Improve customer amenities along fixed route corridor Purchase up to 8 small buses Purchase spare parts for buses purchase up to 8 support vehicles Purchase up to 2 40' hybrid buses Urban operations Reconstruct; reduce from 4 to 3 lanes; add non-motorized lanes Reconstruct

400

100

500

558 278 612

140 69 153

698 347 765

134 308 157 55

34 506 39 14

486 120 245 550 612 609

122 30 61 138 10,617

32,806 259

608 150 306 688 44,035 868

189

1,044

Bituminous skin patching with chip seal resurfacing Construct dual left turn lanes on wb Jolly, right turn lanes on both

752

Large buses Maintenance equipment Operating service enhanced mobility of services and disabled Paratransit vehicles

Countywide Countywide Countywide

Countywide

CATA CATA CATA

Pedestrian access/walkways (concrete) Planning Planning Preventative maintenance

2016 2016 2016 2016

CATA CATA CATA CATA

Public Education campaign Rural operating Rural service buses Safety and security

Areawide Countywide Countywide Countywide

2016

CATA

Shelter

Countywide

2016

CATA

Signage

Countywide

2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016

CATA CATA CATA CATA CATA East Lansing

Small buses Spare parts Support vehicle Transit vehicle additions Urban Operating Harrison Road (AC)

2016

ICDTR

Holt Road

2016

ICDTR

Miscellaneous rural collectors

Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Saginaw Hwy to Lake Lansing Rd Washington Road to Eifert Road Countywide

2016

ICDTR

Okemos Road (ACC)

at Jolly Road

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Countywide

Countywide Countywide Countywide

855

268

283

1,203

168 2,017 196 68

1,035 268

129

2016

ICDTR

Park Lake Road

2016 2016

Lansing Lansing

Aurelius Rd Grand River

Lake Lansing Road to County Line Jolly to Cavanaugh Washington Avenue

2016 2016

Lansing Lansing

Jolly Road Traffic Operations Center

Over Sycamore Creek Areawide

2016 2016

Lansing MDOT

Washtenaw Michivan-Tri-County

Pine to Capitol Areawide

2016 2016 2017

Williamston MDOT CCRC

Middle Street Highway Safety Trunkline GPA Clark Road

2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017

CCRC Clinton Transit Clinton Transit Clinton Transit Clinton Transit EATRAN EATRAN ECRC ECRC

Miscellaneous rural collectors New facility, Phase VI New Freedom Operating program RTAP operating program Operating program Three small buses Battle Creek Road Mt. Hope

2017 2017

ECRC MDOT

Willow I-69

Putnam to Mullett Region wide from Airport to I-69 overpass Various locations Clinton Transit office Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Carlisle to Kalamo Old Lansing Road to Creyts Road Elmwood to Waverly Vermontville Hwy to I-96

2017

CATA

2017 2017 2017 2017

CATA CATA CATA CATA

A&E customer enhancement design CATA Clean Commute Expansion bus Facility improvements Facility improvements

2017

CATA

2017

CATA

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Countywide Areawide Countywide Countywide CATA Transportation Center (CTC) Countywide Countywide

Okemos Road approaches; reconstruct west approach on Jolly Reconstruct

498

111

609

Mill and resurface Remove traffic signal and construct a roundabout Bridge replacement Traffic Operations Center to coordinate signal operations Reconstruct Continuation of Ingham County Michivan Resurface Highway Safety Trunkline Resurface and widen shoulders; all season access to businesses Sealcoat (force account) Facility construction Operating assistance Operations Operations Operations Replace 3 small buses Resurface Crack seal and slurry seal

187 450

228 450

26 9

514 49

131

723 284

Resurface; curb and gutter repair Reconstruct mainline I-96 pavement; rehabilitate interchange and rest area ramp pavement Improve customer amenities along fixed route corridor CATA Clean Commute Options Purchase buses Facility improvements Facility improvements at CTC

418 33,858

3,762

510 37,620

106 142 80 80

49 20 20

106 191 100 100

IT third party contract

120

150

IT hardware

100

411 40

592 284 375 2,099 423 320 12 50 231 4 390 208 640 139

415 233 94 80 3 13 556 1 938 52 160

644 1,109

31 93

2,332 517 400 15 63 1,432 5 2,436 260 800 170

130

2017

CATA

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Job Access Reverse Commute

Countywide

Purchase ITS software

191

238

2017

CATA

Countywide

265

530

Large buses Maintenance equipment Operating service enhanced mobility of services and disabled Paratransit vehicles

Countywide Countywide Countywide

Enhanced communication equipment Purchase up to 6 40' hybrid buses Purchase maintenance equipment Operating buses

2017 2017 2017

CATA CATA CATA

2,945 128 140

736 32 140

3,681 160

2017

CATA

400

100

500

Countywide

CATA CATA CATA

Pedestrian access/walkways (concrete) Planning Planning Preventative maintenance

558 268 612

140 67 153

698 421 765

2017 2017 2017 2017

CATA CATA CATA CATA

Public Education Campaign Rural operating Rural service buses Safety and security

Areawide Countywide Countywide Countywide

141 318 157 55

35 507 39 14

2017

CATA

Shelter

Countywide

2017

CATA

Signage

Countywide

2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017

CATA CATA CATA CATA CATA ICDTR

Small buses Spare parts Support vehicle Transit vehicle additions Urban Operating Aurelius Rd

Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide at Cedar Street

486 120 245 577 612 1,269

122 30 61 144 10,656

608 150 306 721 45,902

2017

ICDTR

Cedar Street

463

103

2017

ICDTR

Jolly Road

Reconstruct

855

189

2017

ICDTR

Miscellaneous rural collectors

Keller Road to Willoughby Road Dobie Road to Meridian Road Countywide

Purchase up to 11 paratransit vehicles Improve customer amenities along fixed route corridor Continue planning program Planning program Carry out preventative maintenance Public education/ozone action Rural operations Purchase up to 3 rural service buses Purchase safety and security equipment Improve customer amenities along fixed route corridor Improve customer amenities along fixed route corridor Purchase up to 7 small buses Purchase spare parts for buses purchase up to 10 support vehicles Purchase up to 2 40' hybrid buses Urban operations Reconstruction of existing intersection to provide a roundabout with two land entries with pedestrian crossings and splitter islands on all approaches. Resurface

2017

CATA

2017 2017 2017

598

2017

ICRD

Cedar Street

Keller to Willoughby

Bituminous skin patching with chip seal resurfacing Resurface

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Countywide

Countywide Countywide Countywide

463

1,278

34,633

109

176 2,103 196 68

1,044 706

103

566

131

2017 2017

Lansing Lansing

Michigan Ave Traffic Operations Center

Bingham to Clemens Areawide

2017

Mason

N. Jefferson Street

2017 2017

MDOT MDOT

I-69BL M-43

2017

MDOT

Michivan-Tri-County

from Royce to Howell Road at Marsh Rd Park Lake Road to Dobie Road Areawide

2018 2018 2018

CCRC CCRC St. Johns

Schavey Road Schavey Road Lansing Street

Clark to Herbison Clark to Herbison Higham to Lewis

2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018

Charlotte Dimondale ECRC ECRC ECRC ECRC ECRC ECRC Potterville

Harris Street East Street Kalamo Road Lacey Lake Road Marshall Road Michigan Avenue Otto Road St Joe Highway Dunbar Street

2018

CATA

2018

CATA

2018

ICRD

CATA Public Education/Clean Commute Commute alternatives/rideshare Elm Road

Cochran to Sheldon Bridge Street to Creyts Ainger to Battle Creek Battle Creek to Five Point Nye to Osborn Waverly Road to Creyts Vermontville to Doane Broadbent to Nixon Main Street to Lansing Road Areawide

2018 2018 2018 2018

ICRD ICRD Lansing Lansing

Hagadorn Road Lake Lansing Road Aurelius Rd Bear Lake Pathway

2018

Lansing

Forest Akers Pathway

2018

Lansing

Grand River Avenue

Grand River Avenue to I-96 overpass CSX RR to G. R. Bridge Hagadorn to I-69 BR Willoughby to Miller Cavanaugh to Forest(Consumers Energy ROW) Forest Road to Spartan Village Larch to Oakland

2018 2018

Lansing Lansing

Jolly Road Lake Lansing operations

Waverly to Wise Old 27 to High

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Areawide

Reconstruct Traffic Operations Center to coordinate signal operations Mill and resurface

1,479 0

328 40

1,807 40

154

188

Operational improvements HMA Cold Mill and Resurface

651 3,365

Continuation of Ingham County Michivan Construct 10 ft shared use pathway HMA right turn lane construction Reconstruct with curb and gutter; add non-motorized lanes Resurface Mill and resurface Chipseal Chipseal Resurface Crack seal and slurry seal Chipseal Resurface; correct subgrade Reconstruct

289

Educate public about ozone and alternatives to driving alone Market the community about the alternatives to driving alone Restore and rehabilitate

148

375

469

Resurface Resurface Mill and resurface Roadside facility

1,228 614 400 511

272 136 89 113

1,500 750 489 624

Roadside facility

317

387

Restripe from larch to Oakland to create bike lanes or sharrows Resurface Implementation of sharrows on

263 98

106 22

369 120

163 746

814 4,111 289

344 20 375

86 5 83

430 25 458

375 42 39 46 239 160 46 800 375

93 9 10 11 60 35 11 177 93

468 51 49 57 299 195 57 977 468

185

148

132

improvements

2018 2018

Mason TCRPC

Jefferson Modeling/Planning

Royce to Columbia Regionwide

2018 2019

Williamston St. Johns

Putnam Street Gibbs Street

East Riverside to Bismark Lansing Street to US 27 BR

2019 2019

Charlotte Dimondale

Lovett Street Jefferson Street

2019

ECRC

Mt. Hope Highway

Cochran to Clinton West village limit to Bridge Street Canal to Guinea

2019

ECRC

Mt. Hope Highway

Guinea to Nixon

2019

Potterville

Vermontville Highway

Lansing Road to Sunset Park

2019

CATA

Areawide

2019

CATA

2019

ICRD

CATA public education and clean commute Commute alternatives/rideshare Central Park Drive

2019

ICRD

Hagadorn Road

Okemos east to M43/Grand River at Mt Hope

2019 2019 2019 2019 2019

ICRD ICRD ICRD Lansing TCRPC

Haslett Road Meridian Road Okemos Road Jolly Road Modeling/Planning

GTW RR to Van Atta Jolly to Grand River (M-43) Mt Hope to M-43 Wise to MLK Regionwide

2019

Webberville

Main Street

2019 2015 2015

Williamston MDOT MDOT

Mullett Street I-69 M-188

Grand River to 150 ft south of Beech East Middle to Grand River I-96 to Airport Road M-50/M-99 to intersection

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Areawide

Lake Lansing Road. Modernization of signal at High Street including removal of left turn overlap phase. Interconnect with signals at Old 27 and North East Street Mill and resurface Transportation modeling and planning consultant services Reconstruct Reconstruct with curb and gutter; add non-motorized lanes Resurface Resurface

100 150

22 33

122 183

288 375

64 93

352 468

375 88

93 19

468 107

Reconstruct with paved shoulders; add left turn lane Reconstruct; add left turn lane; add paved shoulders Reconstruct with bike lanes and locally funded connector trail to Sunset Park Educate public about ozone and alternatives to driving alone Market the community about the alternatives to driving alone Resurface

720

160

880

1,000

222

1,222

375

295

670

749

166

915

Geometric improvements to create head-up NB and SB left turn lanes, which will allow additional SB Hagadorn through lane to relieve congestion Resurface Reconstruct Resurface Reconstruct Transportation modeling and planning consultant services Reconstruct

143

175

982 778 1,228 1,600 150

218 172 272 400 33

1,200 950 1,500 2,000 183

375

468

Reconstruct Reconstruct Multi-course chipseal

96 2,394

117 2,660 451

112

140

112

266 451

133

2015

MDOT

M-99

2015

MDOT

Lansing Road

2015

MDOT

I-496 wb

2015

MDOT

I-496

2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2017 2017

MDOT MDOT MDOT MDOT MDOT MDOT MDOT MDOT MDOT MDOT Potterville MDOT MDOT

2017

MDOT

2018 2018

ECRC ECRC

I-96 eb I-96 wb I-96 eb I-96 wb I-96 eb I-96 wb I-96 eb I-96 wb I-96 eb I-96wb Dunbar Street Price Road Looking Glass Watershed between Chandler and Park Lake Price Road along 127 between Alward and price Michigan Ave Creyts Road

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Jackson County line to Eaton Rapids i-496 WB over I-496/US 127 SB over i-46wb over I-496eb rampto i-96 EB I-496 and US127 sb overI96eb Over I-96 BL ramps Over I-96 BL ramps Over Cedar Street Over Cedar Street Over M-99 Over M-99 Over M-99 Over Sycamore Creek Over Conrail Over Conrail Main St to Lansing I-96 to I-496 Countywide

Mill and fill and ADA ramps

820

Signing

215

Miscellaneous rehab

Overlay-deep Overlay-deep Superstructure repair Superstructure repair Miscellaneous rehab Miscellaneous rehab Miscellaneous rehab Miscellaneous rehab Miscellaneous rehab Miscellaneous rehab Reconstruct Wetland mitigation Wetland mitigation

375 546 491

121 109

769 667 600

Countywide

Wetland mitigation

546

121

667

Theo to Creyts Dimondale to Lansing Rd

Resurface Resurface

240 280

394

60 70

300 350

134

Table 6-5 Clinton Area Transportation System Capital Program Year 2015

Item Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2016 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2017 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2018 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment TOTAL 2015‐2018 2019 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2020 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2021 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2022 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment Service Vehicle 2023 Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2024 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2025 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment TOTAL 2019‐2025 2026 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2027 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2028 Vans (up to 2)

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Federal Program Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309

Total Cost $83,200 $506,189 $20,000 $20,000 $86,528 $526,436 $20,000 $20,000 $89,989 $547,494 $20,000 $20,000 $93,589 $569,394 $20,000 $20,000 $2,662,818 $97,332 $592,169 $20,000 $20,000 $101,226 $615,856 $20,000 $20,000 $105,275 $640,490 $20,000 $20,000 $109,486 $666,110 $20,000 $20,000 $70,000 $692,754 $20,000 $20,000 $118,420 $720,464 $20,000 $20,000 $123,157 $749,283 $20,000 $20,000 $5,682,020 $128,083 $779,254 $20,000 $20,000 $133,206 $810,425 $20,000 $20,000 $138,535

Federal Share $66,560 $404,951 $16,000 $16,000 $69,222 $421,149 $16,000 $16,000 $71,991 $437,995 $16,000 $16,000 $74,871 $455,515 $16,000 $16,000 $2,130,254 $77,866 $473,735 $16,000 $16,000 $80,980 $492,685 $16,000 $16,000 $84,220 $512,392 $16,000 $16,000 $87,588 $532,888 $16,000 $16,000 $56,000 $554,203 $16,000 $16,000 $94,736 $576,372 $16,000 $16,000 $98,525 $599,426 $16,000 $16,000 $4,545,616 $102,466 $623,404 $16,000 $16,000 $106,565 $648,340 $16,000 $16,000 $110,828

State Share $16,640 $101,238 $4,000 $4,000 $17,306 $105,287 $4,000 $4,000 $17,998 $109,499 $4,000 $4,000 $18,718 $113,879 $4,000 $4,000 $532,564 $19,466 $118,434 $4,000 $4,000 $20,245 $123,171 $4,000 $4,000 $21,055 $128,098 $4,000 $4,000 $21,897 $133,222 $4,000 $4,000 $14,000 $138,551 $4,000 $4,000 $23,684 $144,093 $4,000 $4,000 $24,631 $149,857 $4,000 $4,000 $1,136,404 $25,617 $155,851 $4,000 $4,000 $26,641 $162,085 $4,000 $4,000 $27,707

135

Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2029 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2030 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment TOTAL 2026‐2030 2031 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2032 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment Service Vehicle 2033 Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2034 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment 2035 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment TOTAL 2031‐2035 2036 Small Buses (up to 2) Medium Buses (up to 2 ) Facility New Construction Facility New Construction Office Equipment 2037 Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment Facility New Construction Office Equipment 2038 Small Buses (up to 2) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment Service Vehicle Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility New Construction Office Equipment 2039 Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment Facility New Construction Office Equipment 2040 Vans (up to 2) Small Buses (up to 6) Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Facility Maintenance Equipment TOTAL 2036‐2040

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 CATA Urban Contract Small Urban Fundings STP EDF‐DS STP EDF‐DS Section 5309 Section 5309 STP EDF‐DS STP EDF‐DS Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 STP EDF‐DS STP EDF‐DS Section 5309 Section 5309 STP EDF‐DS STP EDF‐DS Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309

$842,842 $20,000 $20,000 $144,076 $876,555 $20,000 $20,000 $149,839 $911,617 $20,000 $20,000 $5,114,430 $155,833 $948,082 $20,000 $20,000 $162,066 $986,005 $20,000 $20,000 $98,000 $1,025,446 $20,000 $20,000 $175,290 $1,066,463 $20,000 $20,000 $182,302 $1,109,122 $20,000 $20,000 $6,108,609 $160,000 $250,000 $234,375 $10,000 $5,000 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 $156,000 $20,000 $20,000 $50,000 $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 $80,000 $486,720 $20,000 $20,000 $1,362,720

$674,273 $16,000 $16,000 $115,261 $701,244 $16,000 $16,000 $119,871 $729,294 $16,000 $16,000 $4,091,544 $124,666 $758,466 $16,000 $16,000 $129,653 $788,804 $16,000 $16,000 $78,400 $820,357 $16,000 $16,000 $140,232 $853,171 $16,000 $16,000 $145,841 $887,298 $16,000 $16,000 $4,886,887 $128,000 $200,000 $187,500 $8,000 $4,000 $16,000 $16,000 $8,000 $4,000 $124,800 $16,000 $16,000 $40,000 $16,000 $8,000 $4,000 $16,000 $16,000 $8,000 $4,000 $64,000 $389,376 $16,000 $16,000 $1,090,176

$168,568 $4,000 $4,000 $28,815 $175,311 $4,000 $4,000 $29,968 $182,323 $4,000 $4,000 $1,022,886 $31,167 $189,616 $4,000 $4,000 $32,413 $197,201 $4,000 $4,000 $19,600 $205,089 $4,000 $4,000 $35,058 $213,293 $4,000 $4,000 $36,460 $221,824 $4,000 $4,000 $1,221,722 $32,000 $50,000 $46,875 $2,000 $1,000 $4,000 $4,000 $2,000 $1,000 $31,200 $4,000 $4,000 $10,000 $4,000 $2,000 $1,000 $4,000 $4,000 $2,000 $1,000 $16,000 $97,344 $4,000 $4,000 $272,544

136

Table 6-6 EATRAN Transit System Capital Program YEAR FY 2018 FY 2019

FY 2020 FY 2021

FY 2022

FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025

FY 2026 FY 2027

FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032

FY 2033

FY 2034 FY 2035

FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 FY 2039

ITEM Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 1) Replace Small Buses (Up to 1) Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 1) Replace Small Buses (Up to 5) Replace Admin. Vehicle Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 1) Replace Phone System Replace Computers/Support Equip. Replace Service Vehicle w/Plow Medium Duty Buses (Up to 1 Expansion) Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 9) Replace/Update AVL System Replace Security Camera's for Buses Replace Small Buses (Up to 4) Replace Admin. Vehicle Replace Small Buses (Up to 3) Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 1) Replace Small Buses (Up to 1) Replace Bus Shelters (Up to 4) Replace Phone System Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 1) Replace Small Buses (Up to 5) Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 1) Replace Service Vehicle w/Plow Replace Admin. Vehicle Replace Maint. Equip./Hand Tools Replace/Update AVL System Replace Computers/Support Equip. Replace Security Camera's for Buses Small Buses (Up to 1 Expansion) Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 9) Replace Small Buses (Up to 4) Replace Phone System Replace Small Buses (Up to 3) Replace Admin. Vehicle Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 1) Replace Small Buses (Up to 1) Replace/Update AVL System Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 1) Replace Small Buses (Up to 5) Replace Service Vehicle w/Plow Replace Computers/Support Equip. Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 1) Replace Security Camera's for Buses Replace Admin. Vehicle Replace Bus Shelters (Up to 4) Replace Phone System Medium Duty Buses (Up to 1 Expansion) Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 9) Replace Small Buses (Up to 4) Replace/Update AVL System Replace Small Buses (Up to 3) Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 1) Replace Small Buses (Up to 1) Replace Service Vehicle w/Plow

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

COST $128,000 $86,250 $130,000 $435,000 $40,000 $132,000 $30,000 $40,000 $60,000 $132,000 $1,160,000 $90,000 $90,000 $355,000 $40,000 $270,000 $132,000 $88,750 $20,000 $30,000 $132,000 $443,750 $132,000 $60,000 $40,000 $50,000 $95,000 $40,000 $90,000 $88,750 $1,160,000 $355,000 $30,000 $270,000 $40,000 $132,000 $88,750 $95,000 $132,000 $443,750 $60,000 $40,000 $132,000 $90,000 $40,000 $20,000 $30,000 $132,000 $1,160,000 $355,000 $95,000 $270,000 $132,000 $88,750 $60,000

FEDERAL SHARE

STATE MATCH

TOTAL

$171,400

$42,850

$214,250

$484,000

$121,000

$605,000

$129,600

$32,400

$162,000

$185,600

$46,400

$232,000

$1,072,000

$268,000

$1,340,000

$316,000 $216,000

$79,000 $54,000

$395,000 $270,000

$216,600

$54,150

$270,750

$460,600

$115,150

$575,750

$333,600

$83,400

$417,000

$143,000 $928,000

$35,750 $232,000

$178,750 $1,160,000

$308,000

$77,000

$385,000

$248,000

$62,000

$310,000

$252,600

$63,150

$315,750

$540,600

$135,150

$675,750

$177,600

$44,400

$222,000

$177,600 $928,000

$44,400 $232,000

$222,000 $1,160,000

$360,000 $216,000

$90,000 $54,000

$450,000 $270,000

137

FY 2040

Replace Admin. Vehicle Replace Computers/Support Equip. Replace Maint. Equip./Hand Tools Replace Medium Duty Buses (Up to 1) Replace Small Buses (Up to 5) Replace Security Camera's for Buses Replace Phone System

$40,000 $40,000 $50,000 $132,000 $443,750 $90,000 $30,000

$328,600

$82,150

$410,750

$556,600

$139,150

$695,750

Table 6-7 Eaton County EATRAN FY 2015-2040 Operating Budget Long Range Plan Year FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020-FY 2024 FY 2025-FY 2029 FY 2030-FY 2034 FY 2035-FY 2040

Projected Total Annual Budget $2,418,045.00 $2,424,090.00 $2,454,391.00 $2,485,071.00 $2,516,134.00 $2,547,586.00

Table 6-8 Ingham County CATA Transit System Capital Program YEAR

REQUEST

FY 2018

Replace/Expand Large Buses 40' Hybrid (Up to 8) Replace/Expand Small Buses (Up to 6) Replace/Expand Medium Duty Buses (Up to 2) Replace/Expand Support Vehicles (Up to 12) Replace/Expand Paratransit Vehicles (Up to15) Facility Improvements Maintenance Equipment Preventive Maintenance Spare Parts Customer Enhancement Safety and Security ITS Planning Clean Commute Options Public Education Operating Service Total Replace/Expand Large Buses 40' Hybrid (Up to 6) Replace/Expand Small Buses (Up to 11) Replace/Expand Medium Duty Buses (Up to 2) Replace/Expand Paratransit Vehicles (Up to 12) Facility Improvements Maintenance Equipment Preventive Maintenance Spare Parts Customer Enhancement Safety and Security ITS Planning Clean Commute Options Public Education Operating Service

FY 2019

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

FEDERAL SHARE

STATE MATCH

TOTAL

$ 10,306,754

8,245,403

2,061,351

138

FY 2020-2024

FY 2025-2029

FY 2030-2034

FY 2035-2040

Total Replace/Expansion 40' Hybrid Buses (up to 40) Replace/Expansion 60' Hybrid Buses (up to 5) Replace/Expand Small Buses (up to 9) Replace/Expand Medium Duty Buses (Up to 2) Replace/Expand Paratransit Vehicles (up to 75) Replace/Expand Support Vehicles (Up to 38) Maintenance Equipment Facility Improvements Preventive Maintenance Spare Parts Customer Enhancement Safety and Security ITS Planning Clean Commute Options Public Education Operating Service Total Replace/Expansion 40' Hybrid Buses (up to 30) Replace/Expansion 60' Hybrid Buses (up to 17) Replace/Expand Small Buses (up to 17) Replace/Expand Medium Duty Buses (Up to 2) Replace/Expand Paratransit Vehicles (up to 75) Replace/Expand Support Vehicles (Up to 42) Maintenance Equipment Facility Improvements Preventive Maintenance Spare Parts Customer Enhancement Safety and Security ITS Planning Clean Commute Options Public Education Operating Service Total Replace/Expansion 40' Hybrid Buses (up to 36) Replace/Expansion 60' Hybrid Buses (up to 10) Replace/Expand Small Buses (up to 17) Replace/Expand Medium Duty Buses (Up to 2) Replace/Expand Paratransit Vehicles (up to 75) Replace/Expand Support Vehicles (Up to 38) Maintenance Equipment Facility Improvements Preventive Maintenance Spare Parts Customer Enhancement Safety and Security ITS Planning Clean Commute Options Public Education Operating Service Total Replace/Expansion 40' Hybrid Buses (up to 38) Replace/Expansion 60' Hybrid Buses (up to 15) Replace/Expand Small Buses (up to 23)

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

8,488,641

2,122,160

$ 10,610,801

$ 45,691,335

$ 11,422,834

$ 57,114,169

$ 54,740,503

$ 13,685,126

$ 68,425,629

$ 65,581,860

$ 16,395,465

$ 81,977,325

139

Replace/Expand Medium Duty Buses (Up to 2) Replace/Expand Paratransit Vehicles (up to 90) Replace/Expand Support Vehicles (Up to 46) Maintenance Equipment Facility Improvements Preventive Maintenance Spare Parts Customer Enhancement Safety and Security ITS Planning Clean Commute Options Public Education Operating Service Total

$ 96,061,023

$ 24,015,256

$ 120,076,279

Table 6-9 CATA’s Operating Budget Year FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020-FY 2024 FY 2025-FY 2029 FY 2030-FY 2034 FY 2035-FY 2040

Projected Total Annual Budget $49,226,896 $51,219,654 $285,797,649 $342,399,873 $410,212,167 $600,858,231

Table 6-10 CATA’s Illustrative List YEAR FY 2014-2017 FY 2014-2017 FY 2017

REQUEST BRT Planning (Fiscally Constraint) BRT Planning BRT Construction

FEDERAL SHARE $3,368,226 $4,631,774 $160,000,000

STATE MATCH $842,057 $1,157,943 $40,000,000

TOTAL $4,210,283 $5,789,717 $200,000,000

Capital Region Airport Authority Ten-Year Capital Improvement Program for the Capital Region International Airport and the Mason Jewett Airport Table 6-11 Capital Region Airport Authority Ten-Year Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) FY 2015-2026 Development Year 2015 2015

2016 2016 2016

Project Description Runway 6-24 Runway Safety Area Improvements Taxiway Turning Improvements (Design & Construction) Phase 1 Totals Complete EA & Preliminary Engineering for Runway 6-24 Taxiway Turning Improvements (Design & Construction) Phase 2 Taxiway J-1 (Project Design)

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Federal Entitlements

Federal Discretionary

State

Local

Total

1,150,000

650,000

100,000

2,000,000

750,000

$711,600

81,200

$81,200

$1,624,000

1,900,000

1,361,600

181,200

3,624,000

37,000

814,000

78,000

1,716,000

11,100

222,200

740,000 960,000 200,000

600,000

140

2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2025 2025 2025 2026 2026

Totals Acquire Land & Buildings for Runway 6-24 Carryover Funds for FY-2018 Totals Taxiway J-1 (Construction) Taxiway Turning Improvements (Design & Construction) Phase 3 Totals Airfield Electrical Vault (Design & Construction) Acquire ARFF Truck Totals Construct RWY 6-24 Phase 1 Totals Construct RWY 6-24 Phase 2 Totals Construct RWY 6-24 Phase 3 Totals Construct RWY 6-24 Phase 4 Totals Expand Cargo Ramp Phase 3 Totals Conduct New Terminal Feasibility Study Complete Environmental Assessment and Begin Preliminary Design For Replacement Airline Passenger Terminal Building Master Plan and Noise Plan Updates Carryover of Sponsor Entitlements to FY-2026 Totals Acquire ARFF Truck Carryover of Sponsor Entitlements to FY-2027 Totals Grand Totals

1,900,000 900,000 1,000,000 1,900,000 2,000,000

600,000

126,100 45,000 50,000 95,000 137,500

2,752,200 990,000 1,100,000 2,090,000 2,750,000

50,000

1,100,000

187,500 173,250 55,000 228,250 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 202,500 202,500 16,250

3,850,000 3,811,500 1,210,000 5,021,500 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 4,455,000 4,455,000 325,000

900,000

50,000

1,000,000

540,000 367,500 2,100,000 1,100,000 1,367,500 2,467,500 25,867,500

30,000 18,375 114,625 55,000 50,000 105,000 3,540,175

600,000 404,250 2,329,250 1,210,000 1,467,500 2,677,500 76,799,450

475,000

1,000,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 292,500

475,000 2,465,000 0 2,465,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 1,950,000 1,950,000

Table 6-12 Capital Region Airport Authority Ten-Year Mason Jewett Field Airport Capital Improvement Program FY 2015-2021

Year

Project Description

2015 2015

Construction - Rehab Twys 3, 5, & perimeter road Construction - Runway 10-28 Surface Treatment Carryover NPE funds to 2016 Design - Fuel Farm Improvements Carryover NPE funds to 2017 Construction - Fuel Farm Improvements Carryover NPE funds to 2018 Acquire SRE - Displacement Plow Carryover NPE funds to 2019 Rehabilitate Entrance Road & Parking Lot Carryover NPE funds to 2020 Design - Reconstruct Runway 10-28 & Parallel Taxiway Carryover NPE funds to 2021 Construction - Reconstruct Runway 10-28 & Parallel Taxiway

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

2021 TOTAL

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

Federal Entitlement s 198,000 103,500 9,480 27,000 132,480 229,500 52,980 162,000 40,980 171,000 19,980 90,000

Federal Apportionment

State

Local

Total

11,000 5,750

220,000 115,000

1,500

30,000

12,750

255,000

9,000

180,000

9,500

190,000

5,000

100,000

79,980 229,980

585,420

45,300

906,000

1,546,860

585,420

99,800

1,996,000

141

“OUR UNITY AS A NATION IS SUSTAINED BY FREE COMMUNICATION OF THOUGHT AND BY EASY TRANSPORTATION OF PEOPLE AND GOODS..." - DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

CHAPTER 7 Environmental Impacts Environmental Justice Policies and Requirements Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 12898 and the U.S. DOT Order on Environmental Justice in the April 15, 1997 Federal Register require benefits of federally funded plans, programs and projects be equitably distributed and not result in disproportionate adverse impacts on protected classes. Per the regulations, protected classes include:  Black/African Americans  Hispanics  Asian/Pacific Islanders  Native Americans/Eskimos  Persons over ages 65 and over  Persons with incomes below the Poverty Level TCRPC revised and readopted an improved Public Participation Plan in 2014. It describes the region’s public involvement processes, which expanded to reflect environmental justice participation requirements. In accord with the regional planning processes in place, the Capital Region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) evaluates equitable distribution of benefits and disproportionate adverse impacts. TCRPC implements a proactive public involvement process to assure opportunities are provided to protected classes to participate in the analysis, in the development of the public participation plan, as well as in developing plans, programs, and projects. Public involvement efforts specific to this Regional 2040 Transportation Plan are summarized in Chapter 2, which also identifies steps by TCRPC to proactively engage protected classes in plan development.

Public Participation Summary: Engagement Environmental Justice and LEAF Approach The TCRPC Public Participation Plan identifies special efforts to involve low income, minority residents, and interest groups in the transportation planning process. TCRPC’s public participation and outreach efforts were comprehensive and included numerous special efforts to engage protected classes in developing this plan. TCRPC’s proactive engagement is just one focus of TCRPC’s compliance with the spirit and intent of federal Environmental Justice requirements. TCRPC uses a four part approach to meet these requirements summarized with the acronym “LEAF” or Locate, Engage, Analysis and Findings.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

142

Location TCRPC used a Geographic Information System (GIS) and 2010 Census data to locate concentrations of protected classes. Staff generated Base maps were generated separately for each protected class using a variety of index values to locate concentrations. TCRPC looked at census block data and calculated regional average percentages for Black/African Americans, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans. All census blocks exceeding the average percentage for each group were highlighted and a map showed any areas that exceeded the regional average. These steps were repeated using urban and county averages and repeated using 2010 Census block group data for families and households below the poverty level. We used data the track or block level as appropriate since the Census suppresses some data for confidentiality concerns. Data was normalized based on regional and county averages. The result was a map base for minority groups that are shown. For poverty data, urban averages were not compiled since block groups do not coincide with the urban boundary. For families and households below the poverty level, maps show percentages by group by geographic area. The map following shows a base map for a composite of all minority groups based on Tri-County regional averages. The map shows all census blocks that where any one of the four separate groups exceed its regional average. Differences are determined by reviewing results of the four individual group maps. It is significant to note the broad dispersion pattern of concentrations of protected classes throughout the region. In developed parts of the urbanized area, nearly all developed blocks with residential population exceed the regional average for one or more protected class of minority population. Areas without these concentrations are the Lansing central business district and the Michigan State University farms.

Engagement TCRPC raises “Engagement” efforts to the top of the list, since it is a cornerstone of all of TCRPC’s planning efforts. The TCRPC core mission emphasizes this important focus of our regional planning organization. “Mission Statement: To actively engage the citizens of the region to examine the implications for regional land use and other growth trends on the region’s future …” In the development of this 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, the TCRPC used the following engagement activities:         

Updated TCRPC’s contacts databases to assure that members of protected classes and their advocates are notified and invited to opportunities to participation in transportation Posted invitations, announcements, documents, maps, and lists on our website www.mitcrpc.org; copied and shared them on related websites including www.midmichigansustainability.org; and shared them on social media- on the TCRPC Facebook page and through a twitter account. Sent out and posted e-mail blasts using Constant Comment, a mass distribution service Maintained a Toll free hotline: 1-800-619-6676; Sent direct mail by US Post and email; Personal phone calls, visits, and presentations at community meetings, and other outreach activities; Placed Plan documents in publicly accessible locations including public libraries, municipal offices, and schools; Published and distributed notices and invitations in area newspapers, magazines, and local newsletters especially including those with targeted audiences that include the protected classes of population Location mapping, using the latest census data, a GIS and multiple measures to identify locations and/or concentrations of protected classes. Examples of these maps follow in this section;

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

143

  

Customized information, media plans and directed outreach strategies, Presentations with slides posted and distributed; brochures, flyers, handouts, and other summary materials which could also be made available in languages other than English Other techniques per the TCRPC Public Participation Plan.

Analysis TCRPC analyzed the data and information available about protected classes from the US Census and other sources including our transportation-modelling consultants, to analyze and assess the environmental justice conditions in our region. Each base map used to locate concentrations of low income and minorities and to analyze patterns of concentrations of protected classes. The dominant result for this composite was a broad dispersion or all groups throughout the region. Individual results show some interesting non-specific patterns. For example, the largest clusters of concentrations of Asian population are in the East Lansing/MSU and Meridian Township areas. The largest concentrations of Black/African American and Hispanic populations are in Lansing. TCRPC staff also overlaid elements of this transportation plan on land use and accessibility analyses. Transportation features mapped and evaluated included:  Capacity deficiencies;  All road projects (improve/expand, preserve and others) Maps follow in this chapter to demonstrate and illustrate the analyses that TCRPC conducts to review and evaluate the transportation projects planned over next 20 years for their potential impact or effect on the human and natural environment in our region. The expected projects are identified along with buffers or areas around each that are areas of potential impact or concern. The buffer size and extent varies for different types of projects and by their potential for impact. Please consider the maps and tables following. More detailed information and analyses are often available from the local transportation agency and/or TCRPC as the time of the project is closer. TCRPC does not attempt to display all of the information and data in this document. In this section we provide a general summary and highlight some key analysis results of Environmental Justice factors for this Long Range Plan. A review of capacity-adding projects, often called “improve-expand” projects are very limited in our Plan. And, there is no discernable pattern shown in relation to concentrations of protected population classes. It also should be pointed out that in the Urban Area lane reductions, sometimes called road diets, are recognized to improve safety and livability. Conversions of streets between one way and two-way can have a similar impact. This plan includes a variety of those proposed projects, but they do not appear disproportionately affect areas with concentrations of protected classes. As noted, a large number of urban road diets or two lane conversions are in proximity to poverty households, which in fact improves walkability and livability in those neighborhoods. Our analyses indicate equitable distribution of benefits and no disproportionate adverse impacts.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

144

Findings When results of accessibility analysis based on land use patterns is also considered, analysis of location and transportation projects and modes support the our findings. The net results of our location, engagement and analysis steps provides substantive basis for the following findings of fact by the TriCounty Regional Planning Commission. 1. The Commission finds that based on Location, Engagement, and Analysis, the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan has no disproportionate adverse impact on protected classes. 2. The TCRPC finds, also based on Location, Engagement, and Analyses, that the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan offers an equitable distribution of benefits of federal transportation programs and projects for Michiganâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Capital region area encompassed by Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties. 3. And, therefore, the TCRPC finds this Regional 2040 Transportation Plan is consistent with requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 12898 and the U.S. D.O.T. Order on Environmental Justice.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

145

Map 7-1 Tri-County Population by Race

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

146

Map 7-2 Greater Lansing Population by Race

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

147

Map 7-3 Tri-County Population of Ages 65 and Over

Map 7-4 Map 7 4 Tri-County Population of Ages 65 and Over

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

148

Map 7-5 Families below Poverty Level

Environmental Mitigation Requirements and Compliance In accord with federal and state laws and requirements, and because it is important for quality planning practice, the TCRPC carefully considers environmental impacts and potential impacts as well as mitigation activities in developing regional transportation plans. Per the Metropolitan planning regulations 23 CFR 450.322 (f.) (7), this section of our 2040 Transportation Plan includes a discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by our regional metropolitan transportation plan. The discussion focuses on policies, programs or strategies and includes some mention of projects. However, additional data and more detailed information is often available at the local transportation agency or at the TCRPC offices near to the time of a project implementation. We have developed this discussion of environmental mitigation in consultation with Federal, State and Tribal land management, wildlife and regulatory agencies that serve the Lansing-East Lansing three county metropolitan areas. Our interactions with these partners are ongoing. For this Plan document, we conducted consultation meetings throughout 2014. TCRPC’s scenario planning initiative report “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” project served as a basis for this Plan development and its themes and principles guided the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan development. That regional planning framework included an unprecedented volume of data and analysis of land use, transportation alternatives, and was tightly tied to environmental and land use considerations. Since 2012, TCRPC has added to and expanded the data, information, and participation in regional transportation planning through its Mid-Michigan Program for Greater Sustainability (MMPGS). Funded by a Sustainable Communities grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, MMPGS provided the tri-county area with opportunities to meaningfully apply new and expanded community outreach techniques. In addition, it helped us to expand and enhance environmental protection planning and coordination in our region. Reports of the MMPGS planning will be released in 2015. However, work guided our development of this 2040 Long Range Plan. The TCRPC adopted a significant overarching theme, the Wise Growth alternative, as its base for long term planning. A map of that vision for this region is in Chapter 1 of this document. Each year, during the project selections and review process, proposed projects are evaluated relative to that guiding vision. The TCRPC, its commissioners, committees, partners, and the public reviewed and discussed this region’s themes and principles regularly throughout the Long Range Transportation Plan development. Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

149

TCRPC’s regional land use vision offers significant and substantial environmental mitigation benefits including Water quality benefits-reduced consumption and lower runoff; mitigation of impacts on wildlife and habitat loss; and Energy benefits that accrue from a high density growth patterns with attendant reductions in greenhouse gases and our regional carbon footprint. Further, demand reductions and transit system improvements implemented as part of the plan will also mitigate environmental impacts. In summary a fully implemented vision will:  Reduce congested lane miles on regional roads by approximately 50 percent and save taxpayers between 1.6 and 4.8 billion dollars in road improvement costs over an unrestricted program.  Save the equivalent of more than 100 square miles, about three townships’ worth, of agricultural land and open space.  Significantly reduce air pollutants leading to public health benefits and lower costs.  Improve the region’s quality of life and economic competitiveness in an increasingly global economy greater than would occur under current public policies.

Air Quality Constraints and Conformity for Tri-County Region On May 12, 2012, the US Environmental Protection Agency revoked the 1997 8-hour 0.080 ppm Ozone standard requirement for regional transportation conformity. On May 21, 2012, they issued designations for the new ozone standard and the Lansing East Lansing metropolitan area was designated as “in attainment’ under the 2008 standard. As a result, effective July 21, 2013 the region is no longer required to demonstrate regional transportation conformity of our Plans with Air Quality constraints. This effectively ended TCRPC’s need to model and review all transportation projects and balance the entire Long Range Plan on conformity with the standard. At this time, the region continues in attainment for air quality standards under a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The regional plans for transportation development are integrated with and highly influenced by our concern for the environment. As such, even though it is not required, TCRPC continues to be prepared to evaluate projects for their air quality impacts. We also include a number of projects in this Plan that access Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding to continue and improve our projects planned and selected for their contributions to improving air quality. Further, the TCRPC remains current with the tools and technologies to assess and evaluate projects for their impacts on air quality. This includes particularly the MOVES model, an air quality impact analysis tool developed by US EPA.. Recent updates with new data ensure MOVES is a state-of-the science model to estimate motor vehicle emissions. The EPA added new control programs and suggests that most users will see emission reductions in the future as a result. They have made other improvements based on user feedback, some from TCRPC over the past few years. TCPRC maintains its ongoing commitment to continue to collect and analyze data and use tools like the MOVES2014 as appropriate or required to meet air quality constraints in transportation planning. Environmental Mitigation TCRPC has conducted extensive consultation and system level analysis of the relationship between Regional 2040 Transportation Plan projects and various natural features and resources. TCRPC completed this 2040 long range plan section on environmental considerations in close consultation with local, state and federal agencies who are involved in the plan development and projects development process directly. Consultations or contacts with these agencies were substantive and meaningful. The formats of the interactions included direct telephone or email communications, data sharing, meetings, presentations, document and project reviews, formal and informal discussions, and formal Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

150

transmissions of documents, project proposals, and progress reports. In addition to ongoing interactions, the TCRPC held two general consultation meetings which were publicly posted, the public was invited, and TCRPC issued special direct invitations to these agencies and organizations. Example notices, agendas, and meeting dates and locations are included in Chapter 2 and its related appendix to demonstrate our consultation activities. Consultation included, but was not limited to, direct contact with the following agencies and community organizations:  Michigan State Historic Preservation Office;  Michigan Center for Shared Solutions and Technology;  Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (Air and Water Quality Divisions);  Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Land and Water Management Division, Fisheries Division, and Statewide Trails Coordinator);  Michigan Department of Agriculture;  U.S. Geological Survey  Michigan State Police, Emergency Management and Statewide Planning divisions;  Federal Emergency Management Agency;  Michigan Department of Transportation (Heritage Routes Manager, Environmental Section, Historic Bridges);  County Road Commissions;  U.S. Department of Agriculture; Natural Resource Conservation Service, Rural Development  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;  Regional Groundwater Management Board;  Greater Lansing Area Clean Cities Coalition  Greater Lansing Regional Committee for Stormwater Management  Middle Grand River Organization of Watersheds  Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council  Local Brownfields Redevelopment Authorities  Capital Area Heath Alliance The TCRPC used GIS with a large collection of data compiled from local, regional and state sources to evaluate the region’s environmental features and assess the potential impacts of transportation projects on those features. TCRPC analyzed the following Environmental features and natural resources directly:  Lakes, rivers, streams, and recognized drains;  Flood plains and Wellhead Protection Areas,  Wetlands using indicators from the National Wetlands 1989 Inventory; land use cover; MDEQ final wetland inventory; and US Soil Conservation District maps of hydric soils;  Leaking Underground Storage Sites (LUST);  Woodlands;  Protected farmland;  Parks and recreation areas;  Historic sites and bridges;  Cemeteries;  Heritage routes and natural beauty roads;  Non-motorized facilities; and  Potential Conservation Areas.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

151

TCRPC’s role in examining issues related to environmental mitigation is to scan system level issues – this is not a project level environmental impact document and does not attempt to offer specific analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The regional analysis for this Plan looks at cumulative effects of all projects, not those of individual projects. The analyses may provide an early warning of issues to consider. The analysis assures that the Plan considers long-term environmental mitigation issues. TCRPC evaluated the projects proposed in the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan. The entire region was mapped in GIS for each of these features and each type of project. This report does not include map views of areas without data nor of areas where projects were not in proximity to the natural features examined. Since some types of projects, such as bridge projects may be either capacity changing or preserve, and may have direct potential impact on our natural environment, they were analyzed as well. This Plan provides summary information. TCRPC can make additional information available. For each environmental feature listed above, sets of GIS maps were prepared to evaluate Regional 2040 Transportation Plan projects proximity to each resource. The remainder of this chapter offers discussion of environmental mitigation for environmental features and offers maps, summaries, and some system level mitigation measures. There is also a discussion of potential cumulative social, cultural and economic effects of all projects

Lakes, Streams and Drains For the 2040 Long Range Plan, TCRPC applied and mapped buffers of one-quarter mile around projects near water bodies (lakes, streams, and drains). And 2150 feet buffers were used for bridge projects since the potential impacts must be mitigated for bridges are point specific. Our evaluation considered that corridor construction projects may have broader potential impacts to be mitigated on one or more watersheds. Source of lake, stream and drain information is the Michigan Center for Shared Solutions and Technology Framework file version 14a, 2014. Our review of planned projects’ potential environmental mitigation issues for lakes, streams and drains show some concentrations of capacity changing projects generally located in Delta, DeWitt, Meridian and Delhi Townships in areas of potential impact on the Red Cedar, Looking Glass and Grand River watersheds. Bridge projects generally are isolated and point specific, and mitigation is assured by the permit and project level analysis. Preserve projects in the plan show a broad distribution pattern, with large clusters of projects in the DeWitt Township area, throughout the rural areas of the region, East Lansing, Lansing downtown and South Lansing. There are projects close to Lake Lansing and Park Lake and some span the Grand River. Mitigation of potential impacts are addressed in permits. Our review shows no obvious areas of concern. Proposed construction activities may need permits in several areas. Impact on bodies of water such as lakes, streams, drains, and wetlands may require permits under:

Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended Part 31, Water Resources Protection of Act 451 Part 55, Air Pollution Control Act of Act 451 (see Section M) Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams of Act 451 Part 303, Wetlands Protection of Act 451 Part 323, Shorelands Protection and Management of Act 451 Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands of Act 451 Part 365, Endangered Species Protection Act of 451

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

152

Federal Environmental Legislation Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 Water Quality Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit under the Clean Water Act of 1972 as amended. Section 10 of Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 Executive Order 11990 Permit application requirements reduce impacts on water quality during and after construction. Bridge and culvert work at river, stream and drain locations will require construction staging and additional protection Adequate soil erosion and sedimentation control measures will be implemented on all projects, runoff will be diverted promote infiltration and reduce potential impact on streams from pollutants, including deicing salts, heavy metals, and pesticides. The actual soil erosion and sedimentation control measures to be carried out in accord with permit requirements are available from the Michigan Department of Transportation and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. TCRPC encourages local road agencies and construction contractors to use the most recent and directed policies from the state. For Trout Streams and aquatic habitats, there are small designated reaches of the Maple Rapids watershed in the far northeastern corner of Clinton County and some reaches of the Grand River watershed in the northwest corner of Eaton County near Mulliken and Sunfield which are in proximity to preserve projects in the Plan. Similar mitigation measures to those just cited are appropriate to mitigate projects in vicinity to these small segments.

Wetlands TCRPC used four separate sources of wetlands and wetland indicators in its review of long-range plan projects. First, the National Wetland Inventory, compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service interpretation of aerial photographs and topography is a nationally recognized source. Projects are mapped using quarter mile buffers around projects, and 250 feet buffers for bridge and preserve projects. In assessing potential environmental mitigation issues associated with Plan projects, all sources of information on wetlands should be considered. A second general indicator of wetlands is land use/cover information that classifies wetland areas by vegetation type. Source material for this GIS layer is the Michigan Inventory Resource Information System (MIRIS). Third is the MDEQ Final Wetland Inventory layer. Fourth, soil maps from the U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service were used to identify areas of hydric soils recognized by soil scientists as indicators of wetlands. Quarter mile buffers for projects reflect their broader potential for adverse impacts along corridors and potential need for new right of way outside of existing alignments. Smaller buffers for bridge projects reflect their obvious potential for impacts. Mitigation measures discussed for water bodies are also appropriate to mitigating adverse impacts on wetlands. Before construction, final mitigation measures are developed in consultation with the appropriate agencies and will be included in the permit application. Similarly, disposal of surplus materials must be done per regulations and with permits. The combination of typical mitigation measures, other required offsets, along with project level analysis and the permit process are intended to avert mitigation of adverse impacts of roadway projects on wetlands. Please note that the accuracies of various GIS layers must be factored into consideration in the system level views we provide. Most resource inventories are only accurate to within 50 feet. Since most Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

153

Michigan local road right of ways are typically 66 feet for a two lane road, they may not align exactly. This GIS features analysis should stand as is and represents a good faith effort to permit a system level view, as required by the planning regulations but should not be used to identify specific impacts or offsets best left to the project level review and permit process. Maps are illustrative and may be useful in looking at overall systemic impacts.

Flood Zones Regional maps show several proposed preserve projects in marginal proximity to flood prone areas in Clinton County along the Looking Glass or Maple River. In Ingham County, numerous projects on Marsh, Okemos and Lake Lansing Road in Meridian Township, Holt Road, Mason, Hagadorn, Burcham, M-43 and various other spot locations have some portions that lie on or in proximity to areas in the 100 or 500 yard flood lines. However, our regional Hazard Mitigation Plans (www.mitcrpc.org/landuse) note that major flood prone rivers and low lying areas prone to flooding require that we consider and address safety/security issues. This includes the coordination needed to avoid flood evacuation and emergency response problems. Projects in the short-range transportation plans are more carefully evaluated for community land use/design standards to assist in minimizing potential flood damage.

Wellhead Protection Wellhead protection areas were identified with assistance from Tri-county Regional Groundwater Management Board. Substantial potential adverse impacts to the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s groundwater supply and public and private wells could occur if toxic materials are allowed to penetrate these wellhead protection areas and exceptional care should be taken in construction management, drainage controls and project designs in these areas to prevent wellhead contamination.

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Sites LUST sites based on Michigan Department of Environmental Quality data were examined during project identification and analysis for this Plan. While many transportation projects may only have a single contaminated site in their buffered proximity, several projects do occur where LUST sites cluster, such as in downtown Mason, St. Johns, Grand Ledge or M-43 in Delta Township or Lansing. Common mitigation practices for hazardous/contaminated sites include a project area contamination survey (PACS) and coordinating with MDOT, MDEQ and local Brownfields programs is encouraged as well.

Woodlands 2040 Long Range transportation projects were evaluated for their potential impact on woodlands. TCRPC maintains woodlands data from MIRIS land use/cover data and from satellite imagery. A visual inspection permits identification of areas where continuous stands of woodlands should be considered. Examples include the regional Airport and Upton Road corridors in Clinton County, Farm Lane in Ingham, and Canal Rd in Eaton County. Roadside trees adjacent to residences will be saved wherever possible or with appropriate notice to property owners. Replacement tree species, size, and numbers will be determined by the MDOT

Agricultural Lands Preservation and Part 361 Lands Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

154

The TCRPC works with the state of Michigan Department of Agriculture and our counties to maintain maps of agricultural lands preserved through contracts and Purchase of Development Rights programs. Parcels were digitized by TCRPC with data from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and are updated regularly. Our Plan encourages minimizing impacts on these parcels and shares this data to support decision making.

Parks and Recreation Plan projects are considered relative to parks and recreational lands with TCRPC’s inventory. The inventory includes regional, county, community and neighborhood parks, Public and private golf courses, and some school play yards. Privately held preserves or land management areas were not included. Analysis at the regional level does not reveal no broad, adverse cumulative effects requiring mitigation.

Historic and/or Archeological Sites Sites which are listed either on the National Register of Historic Places, the State Register of Historic Places or Michigan Historical Markers per data from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) demonstrate projects in relation to historic sites which may be impacted. Due to the sensitive nature of historic sites, 250 feet buffers are shown for all projects. Visual inspection does not suggest any broad system level cumulative environmental impacts on known historic resources. A significant cluster of historic sites and markers is noted for downtown Lansing projects, where there are many projects planned.

Cemeteries Transportation projects were mapped in relation to a local inventory of cemeteries using 250 foot buffers for all projects. Depending on local jurisdiction preference, some cemeteries may be considered “open space” or may be managed by the parks and recreation or grounds division. An inventory was updated based on recent digital orthoimagery. Visual inspection shows no substantial system level cumulative effects. Non-Motorized Facilities This plan calls for including non-motorized facilities in all proposed projects based on the Michigan Manual of Unified Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines and consistent with the regional growth and nonmotorized facilities plans. This Plan provides more information in Chapters 4 and 6. Our analysis shows no adverse cumulative impacts of planned projects. The Plan encourages all projects to consider nonmotorized treatments. We have also noted in the approved Congestion Management process for this region. With support from the Mid-Michgian Program for Greater Sustainability, TCRPC has begun development of a Green Infrastructure Plan that will further guide the protection of our regional green infrastructure. Maps with buffers demonstrate areas to closely review before construction. Example of spot locations where roadway improvements may need to consider a Stage II site analysis and early consultation process might include proposed projects on Willow, the Webberville road extension, Holt Road, Hagadorn and the MSU South Campus area.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

155

Social, Cultural and Economic (SCE) Effects This section briefly assesses system level environmental mitigation issues on social, cultural and economic factors. Major factors considered include community character, demographics, aesthetics, and economic effects. Answers to some of these questions may be qualitative and subjective, particularly at the system level. They may be more appropriately quantified at the project level. Accordingly, these next sections discuss how SCE categories were considered in the plan.

Demographic Analyses TCRPC has continued to collect and analyze demographic data regarding protected classes of persons and potential disproportionate impacts of development projects in our region. Studies including scenario analysis and build-out analysis of the region show no disproportionate adverse impacts on special populations and no substantial displacement of populations as a result of 2040 Plan projects. The plan projects do not result in any increase or decrease in population. The projects do support increased density in the urban core and village centers and the maps and data used for the Plan development identify focused and clustered growth areas to mitigate environmental and transportation impacts of sprawl. Sprawl mitigation is done by directing growth and encouraging infrastructure development within the region’s urbanized area, mostly already served by utilities of water and sewer.

Aethetics and Community Placemaking The plan strongly addresses system level aesthetics and choices, including investment strategies and performance measures for projects that improve community aesthetics. In short, this regional plan enhances community connectivity region wide, promote increased social relationships and patterns (through measures such as providing non-motorized and other mobility options, by way of example) which supports community cohesion on a regional basis. The Plan identifies sound wall construction in some locations and supports required noise pollution and vibration mitigation measures for all projects. TCRPC staff note that MDOT has completed an aesthetic and scenic inventory of the entire regional trunkline system. While digital files of this inventory are not available to the MPO, the scenic and aesthetic inventory maps also were reviewed and show no expected adverse cumulative environmental impacts.

Safety and Emergency Response The updated Hazard Mitigation Plan will be completed and approved/accepted by FEMA and the Michigan State Police in early 2015.The tenants of that effort have carried over and been embedded in the project selection and prioritization process for this Plan. TCRPC works with the Michigan State Police, the areas’ emergency responders, and coordinates is general project plans with local law enforcement agencies. Representatives of the sheriff’s departments participate in annual county-wide traffic summits TCRPC hosts each year. The MSP funded and work closely to identify our hazards and develop response routes. An analysis of the region’s non-emergency medical transportation network, conducted by Smart Growth America, Inc. in 2013, is available at www.mitcrpc.org and has informed this Plan development. Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

156

Safety is improved in our region’s “wise growth” or density development approach. Projects that change capacity are focused in higher density areas and will not cause increased exposure at intersections not suited to higher congestion. Further, the plan proposes corridor management and operations strategies which maximize benefits of Intelligent Transportation systems (ITS) like emergency responders signaling. The net result is a system managed to reduce response times and improve safety.

Business, Employment, and Tax Base Projects in this Plan, at the system level, provide and enhance business development in our region. While there may be some negative tax base impacts related to a specific parcel needed for right of way acquisitions or due to a specific project, the more likely outcome at the system level is enhanced tax base in village and community centers and focused or clustered growth areas. The region has committed resources to developing and expanding regional transit projects which will also improve and expand our regional economic prosperity, supporting business development and attraction and creating new jobs. Walkability improvements also enhance business and property values. At the system level, there are no business visibility losses, or business losses – the plan enhances access and visibility to improve regional economic competitiveness. The plan supports community development, redevelopment and reemployment when considered at the system level, as a result of enhanced access.

Mobility and Access As documented throughout the plan, at the system level, mobility is enhanced by increased access to transit, increased transit services and increased non-motorized facilities. This further enhances connectivity between residential areas and nonresidential areas, as do higher density land use patterns and impacts of plan projects on travel times and congestion at regional buildout. The 2040 plan concentrates development in proximity to transit, includes transit service improvements, regional transit coordination efforts, improvements in modal choices and management and operations improvements. Special populations, protected or disadvantaged classes and the public all should benefit by mobility enhancements.

Land Use and Relocation Effects As noted throughout this Plan, the region’s local jurisdictions adopted a regional land use vision which is the basis for transportation project development reflected in this Plan. While some projects have the potential to cause displacements, basis for this plan supports strengthening existing residential neighborhoods and employment centers. None of the 2040 Plan projects are expected to clearly require relocation.

Endangered Species and Unique Habitat Michigan Natural Features Inventory data and analyses provided useful data to the region and area transportation agencies to make preliminary assessments. TCRPC contracted with the MNFI to provide an analysis of species and habitat focused on the region’s main corridor, Michigan Avenue-Grand River Avenue. Mitigation measures for the Threatened and Endangered species and Migratory Birds are considered and that report was used in development of corridor vision plans during 2013-14. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts coordinated project reviews under the provisions of Section 7 of the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

157

Endangered Species Act of 1973 and programmatic consultation guidance. They do these reviews are using applicable plans to design projects that avoid or minimize any adverse impacts on federally listed, proposed and candidate species, and to reduce “incidental take” of these species. On projects that involve work on structures over watercourses, MDOT reviews potential impacts to migratory bird nests. Coordination between MDOT, MDEQ and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will occur on projects where migratory birds, as listed in 50 CFR 10.13, are identified. A “Special Provision” that describes procedures for dealing with migratory birds is included on these projects.

Greenways The region does not have an adopted greenways plan, but it has adopted The Greening Mid-Michigan Green Infrastructure plan which offers a map of the urban core area’s green spaces, park ways and pathways with recommended connections to develop. The Greening Plan is in development, supported through the Mid-Michigan Program for Greater Sustainability and is used and relied upon in evaluating the long range plan projects, particularly those in the non-motorized plans.

Conclusion Based on materials in this chapter and throughout the Plan, TCRPC believes that compliance with environmental mitigation requirements have been documented. Map 7-6 2040 Projects, Lakes & Streams

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

158

Map 7-7 2040 Projects, Trout Lakes & Streams

Map 7-8 2040 Projects, National Wetlands

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

159

Map 7-9 2040 Projects, Land Use Wetlands

Map 7-10 2040 Projects, Flood Zones Areas

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

160

Map 7-11 2040 Projects, Wellhead Protection Areas

Map 7-12 2040 Projects, Woodland Areas

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

161

Map 7-13 2040 Projects, Park Areas

Map 7-14 2040 Projects, Existing Non-Motorized Facilities

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

162

Map 7-15 2040 Projects, Potential Conservation Areas

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

163

“A PLAN IS THE TRANSPORT MEDIUM WHICH CONVEYS A PERSON FROM THE STATION OF DREAMS TO THE DESTINATION OF SUCCESS. GOALS ARE THE TRANSPORT FEES.” ― ISRAELMORE AYIVOR

CHAPTER 8 Next Steps and Other Programs Based on local knowledge of other transportation problems, issues and concerns in the region, the following items and special studies are included as part of the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan and are recommended for completion. 1. Lansing to Detroit Passenger Commuter Rail Study: A preliminary feasibility study and analysis indicated that sufficient demand warranted phased implementation of the minimum operating segment between Ann Arbor and Detroit. TCRPC supports further study and possible development of service on to Grand Rapids and/or beyond. 2. Freeway Modernization Study: Consideration should be given to conducting a freeway modernization study which also considers the needs of alternate modes in the Tri-County region. 3. Region-wide Access Management Studies: As funding becomes available, access management studies, such as those previously done for M-43/M-52 or in the DeWitt area for old US 27, should be considered and are consistent with this plan. 4. The current TDP should be updated, as well as a Coordinated Human Services Plan. 5. Cedar, Edgewood and American Drive: Lansing has completed a feasibility study for redesign of this complex set of interconnected roadways, which also connect to Pennsylvania ramps with I96. 6. Numerous community meetings and discussion in Eaton Rapids and at their local council of governments with the adjacent townships have focused on the need for a second river crossing in that community. This project is in the plan as a locally funded project. However, if funding for planning, location/design, environmental work, engineering or construction is made available, the study and construction of this project would be consistent with the plan. 7. Further studies of reconfiguring Cedar Street in Delhi or construction (if funded is awarded) of this project would be consistent with this plan. 8. Additional operational studies of ITS should be completed as funding becomes available. These include ITS integration studies to create a system of shared regional transportation information, a framework for regional operational collaboration and implementing a Regional Weather Information System (RWIS). 9. The estimated $550 million Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB) is under construction on the MSU campus will open in 2017, stimulating an estimated $1 billion in regional economic development. A study of transportation and economic development impacts in relation to the FRIB has been suggested to address traffic circulation, access needs and other sub-regional impacts in proximity to MSU. Such a study would be consistent with this Plan if funding is obtained.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

164

Plan Implementation and Monitoring This Regional 2040 Transportation Plan was developed through an active process of public engagement on regional transportation goals and objectives. Transportation issues, problems and needs were identified and discussed. A regionally agreed upon set of Goals and Objectives were adopted. Projects and programs were proposed to address those needs. The proposed projects were analyzed and evaluated through technical transportation modelling and were revisited with the public. The projects were prioritized, tentatively scheduled, and they were considered relative to their cost in order to develop a financially constrained listing of potential projects. This regional plan focuses on roadway preservation projects to improve system condition, on management and operations treatments to improve safety, on access and mobility improvements via enhanced public transportation, on demand reduction and on transportation system management measures. This Plan prioritized projects and programs so that they would contribute to our regional efforts to reduce congestion, mitigate environmental impacts reduce emissions, enhance community and economic development, improve quality of life and promote placemaking. This Plan implements our regionally agreed upon Goals and Objectives. This Plan follows the themes and principles we have set for that adopted as our framework for planning in the Lansing East Lansing Metropolitan area. Intermodal connections are improved and our system of non-motorized travel is systematically improved through this Plan’s projects. And, this Plan applies intelligent transportation System technology to improve traffic flow and operations. Parking demand is mitigated by use of other modes. Per this Plan, the TCRPC is committed to continuing and expanding its proactive approaches to community and public participation in transportation planning. Per this Plan, TCRPC is committed to maintaining and improving the accessibility of data and information about our region so that all areas of the community can contribute to regional planning. In addition, with this Plan we commit to continued and expanded integration of this Plan with other plans in the region including the Tri-County region’s Prosperity Plan, its Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, its Groundwater Management and Stormwater Management, and watershed protection plans as well as area land use and development, and redevelopment plans. TCRPC will also make Information broadly available on our web site and in various formats. TCRPC staff will also be available to present the Plan or information contained within. This Long Range Plan includes and is a continuation of our regional short range Plan, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). We will continue to maintain the program planned through our short term TIP with regular and well thought out amendments that reflect our region’s long term goals. In fact once this plan is adopted, we will begin again in earnest working towards the next update for the Regional 2045 Transportation Plan, tentatively due in December 2019. In the next few months, many of the same materials developed during this plan update and summarized in the Plan will also be used to complete a formal update to the region’s Congestion Management process for subsequent Commission adoption. TCRPC will continue to develop and implement improved approaches to transportation planning that follow the guidance and rules coming from MAP-21. Consistent with MAP-21 requirements, TCRPC will actively engage our state and federal partners in developing performance measures, targets and reports on our progress.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

165

APPENDIX A Glossary of Terms 1 Hour Ozone NAAQS – The 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard codified at 40 CFR 50.9. 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS – The 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard codified at 40 CFR 50.10. Access Management – Process of providing and managing access to land development while preserving flow of traffic in terms of safety, capacity and speed. Act 51 – Michigan Public Act 51 of 1951 as amended, which establishes and governs distribution of funding for maintenance, preservation and improvement of transportation facilities for the state, counties and cities and establishes legal responsibilities for transportation systems. Advance Construct (AC) – Funding techniques, as programmed in a TIP or long range plan, whereby a local agency designates a project for future federal aid reimbursement but starts the project with local funds. Often used when a federal aid category is financially constrained in the short term. Advance Construct Conversion (ACC) – Used in conjunction with advance construct (AC) the “conversion” occurs in a subsequent year when the federal aid is available to reimburse the local agency. Air Quality Conformity Analysis – Process of documenting transportation plans and projects do not prevent or delay an area from meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This involves estimating emissions for a specific geographic area during a defined time period. In areas in violation of air quality standards, the conformity process demonstrates future transportation projects are consistent with the State Implementation Plan developed to show how the area will attain these standards. All-Season Roads – Roads not subject to seasonal weight limitations during the spring thaw. Alternative – For the purpose of transportation studies, an alternative is a particular package or set of transportation projects. Different alternatives are typically modeled and otherwise assessed to allow for comparison between alternatives and eventually to select a recommended alternative. Alternatives Analysis Study (AA) – Alternatives analysis is about serving local decision making. An effective alternatives analysis answers the questions: What are the problems in a corridor? What re their underlying causes? What are viable options for addressing these problems? What are their costs? What are their benefits? An AA is a locally managed study process that relies to a large extent on the information on regional travel patterns, problems and needs generated by Tri-County Regional Planning. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – Federal law requiring disabled persons (as defined by the Act) must have equal access to employment, public services, public facilities or telecommunications. As it Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

166

relates to transportation facilities and services, this includes removal of physical barriers in public facilities like rest areas, buses, trains, pedestrian facilities and intermodal passenger facilities. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) – Total number of vehicles passing a given location on a roadway over of one year, divided by 365 days. Area Source – Small stationary and non-transportation pollution sources that are too small and/or numerous to be included as point sources but may collectively contribute significantly to air pollution (i.e. dry cleaners). Asset Management – Process of strategically managing the transportation system in a cost-effective, efficient manner. It consists of five major elements: developing policy goals and objectives; data collection; planning and programming; program delivery and monitoring/reporting results. The asset management approach emphasizes preservation, upgrading and timely replacement of highway and other transportation assets through cost-effective planning and resource allocation decisions. Attainment Area – An area considered to have air quality that meets or exceeds U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) health standards used in the Clean Air Act. An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a nonattainment area for others. Nonattainment areas are areas considered not to have met standards for designated pollutants. Bicycle Lane – A portion of street that is designated by striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicycles. These lanes are generally located on the outside of through traffic lanes and are 4-8 feet wide, depending on design. Bike Paths – See Shared Use Paths Bikeway – Any road, path or way open to bicycle travel, regardless of whether it is designated for exclusive use of bicycles or shared with other modes, as defined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Bridges – Highway bridges carry automobiles and trucks. Non-highway bridges carry pedestrians and trains. Bridges are 20 feet or more in length. Culverts are less than 20 feet. Bus Lane, Dedicated Transit Lane and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane – A bus lane, also called a dedicated transit lane, is a lane in a street or highway intended primarily for use by bus transit or light rail transit, either all day or during specified periods. A high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane is a traffic lane reserved either all day or during specified periods for HOV, which includes any transit vehicles, and passenger vehicles that have more than one person riding in them. Capacity – Maximum number of vehicles a road can be reasonably expected to carry at expected speeds under normal conditions. Capital Assistance – Funds to purchase structures and equipment such as roads, bridges, maintenance facilities, buildings, equipment and vehicles.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

167

Capital Expenses (also, expenditures, or costs) – Non-recurring or infrequently recurring costs for longterm assets such as buses, stations or buildings and often including related expenses. Capital funding is financial assistance from federal, state or local sources to finance public highway or transit capital related projects. Carbon Monoxide (CO) – A colorless, odorless, tasteless gas formed in large part by incomplete combustion of fuel. Human activities (i.e. transportation or industrial processes) are largely the source for CO contamination in ambient air. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 – Federal legislation which reduces emissions from vehicles, factories and other pollution sources in areas having the worst air pollution. Commuter Rail – Local and regional passenger train operations between a central city, suburbs and/or another central city using diesel-electric or electrically propelled trains operating over existing railway trackage. Riders typically board trains at a suburban station and go to a central city work location. Commuter rail is typically characterized by heavy inbound traffic in morning to the central business district and heavy outbound traffic in late afternoon. Service may be either locomotive hauled or selfpropelled and is characterized by multi-trip tickets, specific station-to-station fares, railroad employment practices and usually only one or two stations in the central business district. Complete Streets – Community policy whereby a municipality or road agency requires all road construction and improvement projects to begin by evaluating how the right-of-way will serve all who use it, regardless of mode of travel. Such policies are generally set community-wide as opposed to being on a project-by-project basis. Comprehensive Transportation Fund (CTF) – Fund derived from state gas tax, vehicle registration and other fees authorized by Act 51 and allocated to provide public transportation services. Concurrency – Policies or programs within a community or other municipal unit that require provision of appropriate urban services, including streets, sewer and other infrastructure at the time that a development is approved for inhabitance. Conformity – Process to assess compliance of any transportation plan, program or project with air quality implementation plans. The conformity process is defined by the Clean Air Act and regulated by the conformity rule. Congestion – What occurs when road capacity is exceeded and vehicles are forced to travel slower than the roads designated speed. Congestion can be recurring congestion (happening often, even daily) or non-recurring (caused by random forces, such as a traffic crash). Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) – A categorical funding program under the Federal Aid Highway program. Directs funding to projects that contribute to meeting or maintaining national air quality standards in nonattainment and maintenance areas. CMAQ funds generally may not be used for projects that result in construction of new capacity for (through lanes) SOVs (single-occupant vehicles).

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

168

Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) – Process of incorporating an increased sensitivity to the adjacent environment while completing roadway engineering. Corridor – A linear road or path which typically serves a grouping of metropolitan areas and markets that, by their proximity and configuration, lend themselves to efficient service by ground transport. County Roads – Roads under jurisdiction of a county road agency. Includes all non-state trunklines outside of cities and villages. Townships have no jurisdiction over roads. Delay – The amount of time spent not moving due to a traffic signal being red, or being unable to pass through an unsignalized intersection. Demand Response Transit – Non-fixed route transit service using vans or buses with passengers boarding and alighting at pre-arranged times at any location in the system=s service area. Emissions Inventory – A complete list of sources and amounts of pollutant emissions in a specific area and time interval. Enhancements – Activities that assist communities in reach social, cultural, aesthetic, and/or environmental goals; and harmonizing the transportation system with the community. Enhancements make projects fit better into the community and can include context-sensitive solutions, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, streetscape renovations, scenic beautification, historic preservation related to transportation, and wetland and wildlife protection. Environmental Justice – Based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 12898 of 1994, there are three basic principles of environmental justice – to avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionate negative effects on low-income and minority populations; to enable meaningful public participation in decision making; and to assure equitable distribution and no denial of benefits to persons regardless of race, color or national origin. Environmental Protection Agency – Federal regulatory agency responsible for administering and enforcing federal environmental laws including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and others. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – Federal agency responsible for administering aviation funds. Oversees aviation service, safety, regulation and federal-aid eligible airport construction nationwide. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Federal agency responsible for distributing highway funds; oversees maintenance and construction of federal-aid eligible roads, street, highways, bridges and nonmotorized facilities. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) – Federal agency responsible for railroad safety enforcement and assistance to local freight railroads. Federal Surface Transportation Legislation – Federal laws that authorize funds and programs for highway, transit, and other surface transportation programs. These funds historically have been derived through fuel taxes. Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

169

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) – Federal agency responsible for distributing transit funds. Oversees maintenance, operation and construction of federal-aid eligible transit systems including local and intercity bus and rail passenger infrastructure. Financial Constraint – Federal regulations require the Plan and TIP be financially constrained, i.e., all projects must have identified sources of funding. Fixed Route Transit – Transit service on a repetitive, fixed-schedule basis along specific routes with vehicles picking up and discharging passengers at designated stops. Freight – All cargo being transported. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) – A computerized database management system for capture, storage, retrieval, analysis and display of data related to a location (using coordinates or other physical or linear reference systems) and displayed spatially or geographically. High Occupancy Vehicles – Generally, vehicles carrying three or more people. Freeways, expressways and other large volume roads may have lanes designated for use by carpools, vanpools and buses. The term HOV also sometimes refers to high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Highway – Term applies to roads, streets and parkways and also includes rights-of-way, bridges, railroad crossings, tunnels, drainage structures, signs, guardrails and protective structures in connection with highways. Hydrocarbons (HC) – Colorless gaseous compounds originating from evaporation and incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Infrastructure – As it relates to transportation, physical systems or facilities such as highways, bridges, railroads, ports, airports, buses, bikeways, pedestrian facilities, rest areas, welcome centers and intermodal facilities. Inspection and Maintenance Program (I/M) – An emissions testing and inspection program to ensure catalytic or other emissions control devices on in-use vehicles are properly maintained over time. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) – Integrated application of advanced information, electronics, communications and other technologies to improve efficiency and safety of surface transportation systems. Intermodal – Movement of people or goods between means of transportation; can apply to passenger or freight transportation. Planning, infrastructure and operations that focuses on connectivity between modes (such as trucks, planes, trains) as a means of facilitating tripmaking. Intermodal Connectivity – Linkages among modes that ensure ability of people or goods to move easily from one mode to another.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

170

Jurisdiction – Agency with authority or responsibility for construction, operation or maintenance of part of the transportation system. Just-In-Time – A method of inventory control and information exchange that minimizes warehousing. Cargo must arrive Ajust-in-time@ for the receiver=s use. Land Use – Refers to manner in which portions of land or structures on them are used (i.e., commercial, residential, retail, industrial, etc.). Level of Service (LOS) – Term used to indicate quality of service on a road under a given set of operating conditions, or frequency of intercity passenger service. For roads, level of service describes degrees of congestion or travel delay with AA@ being uncongested and AF@ being completely stopped. Light Rail Transit (LRT) – An electric railway with a “light volume” traffic capacity compared with heavy rail (rail used for high volume, high speed freight traffic). Examples of LRT systems include streetcars, trolleys and tramways, and can either be built into lanes in a street shared with automobile traffic or on separate right-of-way. Locally Preferred Alternative – Locally preferred alternative that best meets a corridor’s long-term transportation needs. Long Range Transportation Plan – A document resulting from a regional or statewide process of collaboration and consensus regarding a region or State’s transportation system. This document serves as the defining vision for the region’s or State’s transportation systems and services. In metropolitan areas, the plan covers all of the transportation improvements scheduled for funding over the next 20 years. Maintenance Area – Any geographic region of the United States previously designated nonattainment pursuant to the CAA Amendments of 1990 and subsequently redesignated to attainment subject to requirements to develop a maintenance plan under section 175A of the CAA, as amended. Mass Transportation – A transportation service, either public or private, that transports people on a regular and continuing basis in an urban area from home to work, recreation, shopping and other destinations. MDOT – Michigan Department of Transportation – State agency overseeing operation of state roads and distribution of state transportation funds. Median – An island in the center of a street or intersection to protect pedestrians and provide landscaping. Medians prevent passing, and left turns, separate opposing travel lanes and provide visual enhancement. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) – An organization of local officials representing governmental units, transportation providers and other agencies in any urbanized area with a population of 50,000 or more and a contiguous area expected to become urbanized in 20 years. An MPO develops transportation plans and programs for the metropolitan area necessary to satisfy federal transportation planning requirements to be eligible for federal funds. Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

171

Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) – Fund derived from state fuel taxes, vehicle registrations and other fees authorized by Act 51, which are used for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of county roads, city streets and state highways. Mitigation – A means of avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, or reducing an impact, and, in some cases, compensating for an impact. Mobile Source – Mobile sources include motor vehicles, aircraft, seagoing vessels and other transportation modes. Mobile source related pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (Nox) and small particulate matter (PM-10 or PM 2.5). Mode Split – The proportion of people that use each of the various modes of transportation. Also descried the process of allocating the proportion of people using modes. Frequently used to describe the percentage of people using private automobiles as opposed to the percentage using public transportation. Modes – Form, means or manner of transportation including motorized and non-motorized conveyances. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget – Portion of total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or approved control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further progress milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. Multi-modal – Planning, infrastructure or operations that consider more than one mode to serve transportation needs. NAAQS – National Ambient Air Quality Standards – National standards for criteria pollutants set by the Clean Air Act to protect human health and the environment. National Highway System (NHS) – Federally designated interconnected highway system serving major population centers, international border crossings, specific modal and intermodal facilities, other major travel destinations, meet national defense requirements and serve interstate and interregional travel. Consists of 155,000 miles of highway nationally. Approximately 5,800 miles are in Michigan. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Major legislation that requires federal actions to address potential environmental impacts. Network – A general term which refers to a multiple number of pathways joined together. Nitrogen Oxides (Nox) – A group of highly reactive gases that contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Many nitrogen oxides are colorless and odorless. Nox is formed when oxygen and nitrogen in

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

172

air react with each other during combustion. Primary sources of nitrogen oxides are motor vehicles, electric utilities and other industrial, commercial and residential sources that burn fuels. No-Build Alternative – A No-Build Alternative includes all highway and transit facilities and services of the existing transportation system plus highway and transit improvements from a financially constrained long range transportation plan and TIP. Non-Motorized Transportation – Any method of transportation not using a motor vehicle (usually bicycling or walking). Operating Expenses (also, expenditures, or costs) - Expenses necessary to provide transportation service, to plan and coordinate improvements or to maintain safe conditions, including both direct costs (such as wages and fuel) and indirect costs (computer expenses and advertising). Operating Funds - Financial assistance from federal, state or local sources to finance public highway or transit operating expenses. Oxygenated Gasoline – Gasoline enriched with oxygen bearing liquids to reduce CO production by permitting more complete combustion. Ozone (O3) – Ozone is a colorless gas with a sweet odor. Ozone is not a direct emission from transportation sources. It is a secondary pollutant formed when HC and Nox combine in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is associated with smog or haze conditions. Although ozone in the upper atmosphere protects us from harmful ultraviolet rays, ground-level ozone produces an unhealthy environment in which to live. Ozone is created by human and natural sources. Particulate matter (PM), (PM-10), (PM-2.5) – Any material that exists as solid or liquid in the atmosphere. Particulate matter may be in the form of fly ash, soot, dust, fog, fumes, etc. Small particulate matter is too small to be filtered by the nose and lungs. PM-10 is particulate matter less than 10 microns in size. PM-2.5 is particulate matter that is less than 2.5 microns in size. A micron is one millionth of a meter. Parts per million (ppm) – Measure of air pollutant concentrations. Peak Hour – The hour of greatest traffic flow at an intersection or on a road segment. Typically broken down into AM and PM peak hours. For purposes of modeling, peak hours are assumed to be 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 3:00-6:00 p.m. Pedestrian – An individual traveling by foot (or wheelchair). Pedestrian Countdown Signals – Pedestrian Countdown Signals are similar to traditional crosswalk signals in that they show when it is safe to cross the street, but also include a timer that displays how many seconds remain to cross before the cross-traffic will have a green light. Plans – Plans may be generally defined as a city, county, region or state document for integration of issues affecting its physical development, including examples like land use, housing, transportation or open space. Plans are established public policy decisions that require periodic updates. Content of Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

173

some plans may be defined very broadly, or they may be very specific and/or may even have specific elements which are defined by law. There are many types of plans which vary in their level of specificity. A comprehensive land use plan defines the future land use and growth policies for a community. Similarly, a policy plan may define current and future policies for how any area is going grow and change to achieve a desired end-state without necessarily detailing specific developments or projects to be accomplished to implement those policies. A system plan may generally define a future system (i.e. for transportation or water supply), which represents a future desired end state and policies to achieve that end, but does not necessarily define individual projects or stages by which that end state is reached. On the other hand, corridor plans could define very specific improvements, projects or phasing and timelines to achieve a desired end state in that corridor. In contrast, a project plan is even more specific still and would include detailed design drawings, a construction schedule, a traffic maintenance and work zone safety plan, specific costs and construction quantities, etc. In short, there is a hierarchy to various types of plans ranging from the very broad to the very specific. However, one common element to all Plans is that they represent adopted public policy documents developed with public input and which are adopted by public officials. Project Development – The phase a proposed project undergoes once it has been through the planning process. The project-development phase is a more detailed analysis of a proposed project’s social, economic, and environmental impacts and various project alternatives. During this phase, all affected parties, including the public, reach a decision through negotiation. After a proposal has successfully passed the project-development phase, it may move to preliminary engineering, design, and construction. Public Comment – Feedback from the community as part of any public involvement process. Public Hearing – A formal event held prior to a decision for the purpose of gathering community comments and positions form all interested parties. Comments are entered into public record and, as appropriate, incorporated into decisions. Public Involvement – Public involvement includes techniques targeting the entire community (including ethnic, minority and low-income groups) and assures the public has opportunity to help shape substance of plans and projects. This includes public participation events, activities, committees and special Avisioning sessions. Public Meeting – A formal or informal event designed for a specific issue or community group during which planners present information and receive input from community residents. Public Transit – Passenger transportation service operating on established schedules along designated routes or lines with specific stops and designed to move large numbers of people at one time (e.g., buses and subways). Could involve dial-a-ride, subscription or demand responsive services. Also known as mass transit, public transportation, mass transportation and transit. As used in this plan it typically means service by rubber-tired buses or other similar vehicles used to convey the general public. Purpose and Need Statement – A statement of a proposed project’s Purpose and Need is based on background information and forecasted future conditions. This Purpose and Need statement identifies the purpose of the proposed action and why improvements are needed (i.e., the transportation

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

174

problems that the proposed project is intended to address). The Purpose and Need statement may be refined from input received from the public, stakeholders and agencies. Railroad Grade Crossing – General location where a railroad and road or pedestrian path cross at the same level. Rails-to-Trails – Nationwide program to preserve abandoned railroad right-of-way for future transportation use and conversion to trails for public use. Some 1,000 miles have been converted in Michigan. Reformulated gasoline (RFG) – Gasoline specifically developed to reduce undesirable combustion products. Right-of-Way – Entire width between ownership boundary lines of roadways (publicly-owned) and railroads when any part of it is open for transportation purposes. Road Commission - The agency overseeing county roads. Clinton, Eaton and Ingham counties each have road commissions. Road Diet – Treatment given to an urban roadway in which the number of lanes is reduced, and the freed space converted to bike lanes, parking, landscaping, walkways or medians. Roundabout – An unsigned intersection with a circulating roadway around a control island with all entering vehicles yielding to the circulating traffic. Roundabouts frequently have been found to reduce frequency and severity of intersection crashes by slowing traffic and minimizing potential conflict points. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU): National legislation reauthorizing the nation’s surface transportation programs signed into law August 10, 2005. SAFETEA-LU replaces and modifies TEA-21 transportation programs and provides federal transportation funding for road and public transit projects for 2005 through 2009. Shared Use Paths – Bike paths are wide pathways located away from a street intended soley for bicycle use. They are often asphalt pavement and found parallel to a sidewalk, which is intended for pedestrian use. State Implementation Plan (SIP) – A plan mandated by the CAA and developed by the State that contains procedures to monitor, control, maintain and enforce compliance with the NAAQS. Stationary Source – Relatively large, fixed sources of emissions (i.e. chemical process industries, petroleum refining and petrochemical operations, or wood processing). Service Standards – Criteria established by agreement of parties to define intended functions and levels of service of transportation facilities, according to specific objectives. State Long Range Plan (SLRP) – A document required by SAFETEA-LU with a 20-year planning horizon to provide statewide transportation policy and guide future transportation investment. It is revised every three to five years. Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

175

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) – A three-year program of road and transit transportation projects using federal funds, required by SAFETEA-LU to be financially constrained, meet air quality conformity guidelines and be consistent with policies of the State Long Range Plan. For metropolitan areas, the portion of the STIP is Transportation Improvement Program as approved by the MPO and Governor. Streetscape – The space between the buildings on either side of a street that defines it. The elements of a streetscape include building frontage/façade, landscaping, sidewalks, street paving, street furniture, signs, awnings and street lighting. Streetscape Amenities – Streetscape refers to physical features in and around a street – streetscape amenities are features that contribute to a more inviting pedestrian environment, such as textured pavers in the sidewalk, street furniture such as benches and garbage cans, pedestrian lighting and flora. TEDF – Transportation Economic Development Fund – Legislatively-established program in Michigan to provide funding for road and transit projects to support economic growth. Telecommuting – Substitution (either partially or completely) for transportation to a conventional office or job through use of computer and telecommunications technologies (e.g., telephones, personal computers, modems, facsimile machines, electronic mail). TIP – Transportation Improvement Program - TCRPC=s (or other MPO=s) document listing transportation projects programmed for federal transportation funds over a three-year period. To be eligible for federal funding, a project must be in the TIP. For metropolitan areas, this document in its entirety constitutes the STIP (above) for the metropolitan area. TMA – Transportation Management Area – An urbanized area typically with a population over 200,000. TMA designation is requested by the governor and MPO and is officially designated by FHWA and FTA. TCRPC is a designated TMA. Traffic Count – A tabulation of the number of vehicles passing a certain point over a specified time period. This is often a twelve or twenty-four hour period. Traffic Generator – A land use in particular areas that attracts or produces a substantial volume of traffic. Transit – Generally refers to passenger service provided to the general public along established routes with fixed or variable schedules at published fares. Related terms include: public transit, mass transit, public transportation, urban transit and paratransit. Transit Operating Assistance – Funds to transit agencies to supplement farebox revenues and pay costs of operating the transit system. Operating assistance can be provided at federal, state or local levels. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) – Transit-Oriented Development is generally characterized by multiple-unit housing and mixed use projects that support the public investment in rapid transit service.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

176

These investments tend to preserve, enhance or contribute to creating active pedestrian districts within walking distance of transit which leads to a increase in the density of people near transit. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) – Any measure specifically identified and committed to in a State Implementation Plan that is either listed in section 108 of the CAA, or any other measure to reduce emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion conditions. Notwithstanding the first sentence, vehicle technologybased, fuel-based and maintenance-based measures which control emissions from vehicles under fixed traffic conditions are not TCMs for purposes of transportation conformity. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) – Programs designed to maximize the people-moving capability of the transportation system by increasing the number of persons in a vehicle, or by influencing the time of, or need to, travel. Transportation Enhancement Program – Competitive program administered by MDOT and authorized by Congress with a 10% set aside of state Surface Transportation Program funds for specific authorized Transportation Enhancement activities such as landscaping, bicycle paths, historic preservation and highway storm water run-off mitigation. Transportation Infrastructure – The physical underpinnings of society at-large, including, but not limited to, roads, bridges, transit, sidewalks and bikeways.

Transportation Management System (TMS) – Six systems mandated by ISTEA to measure performance of transportation systems and evaluate alternatives. They consist of management systems for pavements, bridges, safety, congestion, public transportation and intermodal facilities. In 1993, Congress removed requirements for all of these except a Congestion Management System in Transportation Management Areas. MDOT developed an integrated and automated decision support tool called the Transportation Management System (TMS). In the context of transportation asset management, TMS provides capability to identify condition, analyze usage patterns and determine deficiencies of transportation infrastructure. In addition, Michigan initiated two other management systems for construction and maintenance. Transportation Model – An analytical tool (often mathematical) used by transportation planners to assist in making forecasts of land use, economic activity and travel activity. Transportation Plan – A long range plan that identifies facilities that should function as an integrated transportation system developed pursuant to Title 23 USC (United States Code) and the Federal Transit Act. It gives emphasis to facilities that serve important national and regional transportation functions and includes a financial plan that demonstrates how the long range plan can be implemented. Transportation Planning – A collaborative process of examining demographic characteristics and travel patterns for a given area. This process examines how these characteristics will change over a given period of time, and evaluates alternatives for the area’s transportation system as well as the most effective use of local, State, and Federal transportation funding. Long-range planning is typically done over a period of 20 years; short-range planning of specific projects usually covers a period of 4 years.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

177

Transportation System – Intermodal system containing all forms of transportation in a unified, interconnected manner, including highways, transit, non-motorized pathways, aviation, marine ports, etc. Travel Speed – The speed at which a vehicle travels between two points including all intersection delays. Trip – Travel from specific origin to specific destination by a person involving a motorized vehicle, walking (five minutes or more) or bicycle. Walking for exercise, neighborhood strolling and recreational biking are not typically considered trips. Trunkline System – Highways under jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Transportation consisting of US and AM designated routes. Urbanized Area - Metropolitan area with 50,000 or more people surrounded by a closely settled incorporated area, which meets specific criteria for population and density. Lansing and surrounding cities are an urbanized area. USDOT – United States Department of Transportation USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) – Generally an area wide travel measure. Calculated by summing data on a link basis or by multiplying average trip length by total number of vehicle trips. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) – VOCs come from vehicle exhaust, paint thinners, solvents and other petroleum-based products. A number of exhaust VOCs are also toxic, with potential to cause cancer. Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio – The result of dividing the counted or estimated traffic volume in a corridor by the estimated corridor/intersection capacity for a similar increment of time. Walkways – Pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, overpasses and skywalks.

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

178

List of Abbreviations AA AC ACC ADA AVL AVMT BMS BRRP CAA CARTS CATA CATS CBD CCRC CM CMAQ CO CRAA CTPP ECRC FAA FAR FHWA FTA GHG GIS GMMP HPP IAWG ICRC ILIR IM IMS ISTEA ITS LEAP LEED LIAA LOS MAB MAC MCD MDOT

Alternatives Analysis Advance Construct Advance Construct Conversion Americans with Disabilities Act Automatic Vehicle Locators Annual Vehicles Miles Traveled Bridge Management System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program Clean Air Act Capital Area Regional Transportation Study Capital Area Transportation Authority Clinton Area Transit System Central Business District Clinton County Road Commission Congestion Management Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Carbon Monoxide Capital Region Airport Authority Census Transportation Planning Package Eaton County Road Commission Federal Aviation Administration Floor Area Ratio Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Greenhouse Gas Geographic Information System Greening Mid-Michigan Project Congressional High Priority Projects Interagency Work Group Ingham County Road Commission Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations Interstate Maintenance Intermodal Management System Transportation Efficiency Act Intelligent Transportation System Lansing Economic Area Partnership Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Land Information Access Associationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Level of Service Metropolitan Area Boundary Michigan Aeronautics Commission Minor Civil Division Michigan Department of Transportation

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

179

MESA MNFI MOU MPO MTGA NAAQS NHS PAL PDF PDR PMS PTMS PUMS REMI SAFETEA-LU SEV SLRP SMS SOV STP TAZ TCRPC TDM TDR TEA-21 TEDF TIP TMA TOD TSC U of M USRD/USB VHT VMT

Michigan Employment Security Agency Michigan Natural Features Inventory Memorandum of Understanding Metropolitan Planning Organization Michigan Trails and Greenways Alliance National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Highway System People and Lands Portable Document Format Purchase of Development Rights Pavement Management System Public Transportation Management System Public Use Micro Sample Regional Economic Models, Incorporated Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users State Equalized Value State Long Range Transportation Plan Safety Management System Single Occupant Vehicle Surface Transportation Program Traffic Analysis Zones Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Transportation Demand Management Transfers of Development Rights Transportation Efficiency Act for the Twenty-First Century Transportation Economic Development Fund Transportation Improvement Program Transportation Management Association Transit Oriented Development Michigan Department of Transportation Service Center (TSC) University of Michigan Urban and Rural Service Districts/Boundaries Vehicle Hours of Travel Vehicle Miles of Travel

Table of Tables Table 2-1 Steps in Long Range Plan Development...................................................................................... 13 Table 2-2 Goals & Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 15 Table 3-1 CATA Ridership ............................................................................................................................ 20 Table 3-2 EATRAN Ridership, 2000-2013 .................................................................................................... 24 Table 3-3 Clinton Transit System Ridership, 2010-2013 ............................................................................. 24 Table 3-4 East Lansing Rail Boardings/Deboardings, 2000-2013................................................................ 26 Table 3-5 Passenger Enplanement Summary, Capital Region International Airport, 2000-2013 .............. 28 Table 4-1 Tri-County Population Forecast .................................................................................................. 34 Table 4-2 Tri County Employment Forecast................................................................................................ 35

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

180

Table 4-3 Percent Change in Socioeconomic Variables for Trend and Wise Growth Scenario .................. 35 Table 4-4 Historical Trend for Person/Household ...................................................................................... 36 Table 4-5 Clinton County Wise Growth Population Forecast in Five Year Increments............................... 39 Table 4-6 Eaton County Wise Growth Population Forecast in Five Year Increments ................................. 39 Table 4-7 Ingham County Wise Growth Population Forecast in Five Year Increments .............................. 40 Table 4-8 Tri-County Socioeconomic Input Data ........................................................................................ 46 Table 4-9 Trip Generation Trip End Summary ............................................................................................ 47 Table 4-10 2010 Average Trip Length Summary ......................................................................................... 48 Table 4-11 Mode Choice Calibration Summary .......................................................................................... 49 Table 4-12 Vehicle Occupancy Factors for Shared Ride 3+......................................................................... 49 Table 4-13 Freight to Passenger Car Conversion ........................................................................................ 49 Table 4-14 Estimated vs. Observed Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by Facility Type .................................. 51 Table 4-15 Estimated vs. Observed Volume by Facility Type ..................................................................... 51 Table 4-16 Ridership Comparison for Major Routes in the Region ............................................................ 51 Table 4-17 Tri-County Screenline/ Cutline Analysis .................................................................................... 52 Table 4-18 AM Peak Period Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) ........................................................................ 55 Table 4-19 Modeled Unlinked Transit Ridership for each Alternative ....................................................... 55 Table 4-20 Transportation Network Alternatives Summary ....................................................................... 63 Table 4-21 Proposed Headways for Medium Transit Scenario................................................................... 64 Table 4-22 Proposed Headways for High Transit Scenario ......................................................................... 64 Table 4-23 Capacity Expanding Projects in Potential Highway Options Alternative .................................. 68 Table 4-24 Capacity Expanding Projects (Management & Operations) in Potential Highway Options Alternative .................................................................................................................................................. 68 Table 4-25 Capacity Expanding Projects in Highway Only Alternative ....................................................... 71 Table 4-26 Strategic Demand reduction by Geographic Area .................................................................... 72 Table 4-27 AM Deficient Links - Results of Network Alternative Model Runs on Deficient Links .............. 76 Table 4-28 AM Near Deficient Links - Results of Network Alternative Model Runs on Deficient Links ..... 77 Table 4-29 PM Deficient Links - Results of Network Alternative Model Runs on Deficient Links .............. 79 Table 4-30 PM Near Deficient Links - Results of Network Alternative Model Runs on Deficient Links ..... 80 Table 4-31 Modeled Unlinked Transit Ridership for each Alternative ....................................................... 83 Table 4-32 Truck Trip Generation Rates ..................................................................................................... 87 Table 4-33 I-E Zonal Truck Attraction Rates................................................................................................ 88 Table 4-34 Truck Trip Generation Summary ............................................................................................... 88 Table 4-35 Freight to Passenger Car Conversion ........................................................................................ 89 Table 4-36 Key Elements of the Alternativesa ............................................................................................ 92 Table 5-1 Federal Highway Transportation Revenue Projections for the 2040 Plan (Thousands of Dollars) .................................................................................................................................................................. 104 Table 5-2 Projected MTF Distribution to Act-51 Agencies for Highway Use (Millions of Dollars) ............ 105 Table 5-3 Projected Transportation Economic Development Fund (Millions of Dollars) ......................... 106 Table 5-4 Projected Available Highway Operations & Maintenance Funding (Millions of Dollars) ......... 109 Table 5-5 Summary Highway Fiscal Constraint Demonstration FY 2015 through FY 2040 Plan Period (Thousands of Dollars) .............................................................................................................................. 110 Table 5-6 Federal Transit Revenue Projections for the 2040 Plan (Millions of Dollars) ........................... 111 Table 5-7 State Transit Revenue Projections for the 2040 Plan (Millions of Dollars) ............................... 112 Table 5-8 Local Transit Revenue Projections for the 2040 Plan (Millions of Dollars) ............................... 113 Table 5-9 Anticipated Amounts to be Expended on Transit Capital and Transit Operations (Millions of Dollars) ...................................................................................................................................................... 113

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

181

Table 5-10 Summary Fiscal Constraint Demonstration (Transit) for the 2040 Plan Thousands of Dollars) .................................................................................................................................................................. 114 Table 5-11 MDOT Trunkline Long Range Preservation Revenue Forecast 2015-2040 ............................. 115 Table 6-1 Capacity Adding Long Range Plan Options for Alternatives Analysis ....................................... 119 Table 6-2 Capacity Changing Management and Operation Treatments .................................................. 119 Table 6-3 New Hypothetical or Potential Options Added for the “Highways Only” Alternative .............. 123 Table 6-4 Draft 2015-2019 Preserve Projects (Costs shown in $1000s) ................................................... 124 Table 6-5 Clinton Area Transportation System Capital Program .............................................................. 135 Table 6-6 EATRAN Transit System Capital Program .................................................................................. 137 Table 6-7 EATRAN FY 2015-2040 Operating Budget Long Range Plan ..................................................... 138 Table 6-8 CATA Transit System Capital Program ...................................................................................... 138 Table 6-9 CATA’s Operating Budget .......................................................................................................... 140 Table 6-10 CATA’s Illustrative List ............................................................................................................. 140 Table 6-11 Capital Region Airport Authority Ten-Year Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) FY 2015-2026 .................................................................................................................................................................. 140 Table 6-12 Capital Region Airport Authority Ten-Year Mason Jewett Field Airport Capital Improvement Program FY 2015-2021.............................................................................................................................. 141 Table 0-1 2015-2019 Preserve Projects, Clinton County .......................................................................... 184 Table 0-2 2015-2019 Preserve Projects, Eaton County ............................................................................ 185 Table 0-3 2015-2019 Preserve Projects, Ingham County.......................................................................... 186 Table 0-4 2015-2019 Preserve Projects, Tri-County Region ..................................................................... 187 Table 0-5 2015-2040 Capacity Projects, Clinton ....................................................................................... 188 Table 0-6 2015-2040 Capacity Projects, Eaton County ............................................................................. 189 Table 0-7 2015-2040 Capacity Projects, Ingham County .......................................................................... 190 Table 0-8 2015-2040 Capacity Projects, Tri-County Region...................................................................... 191

Table of Maps Map 1-1 Urbanized Area Boundary .............................................................................................................. 4 Map 1-2 Metropolitan Area Boundary: TCRPC Regional 2040 Transportation Plan Area (Tri-County Region and Portion of Shiawassee Co.) ........................................................................................................ 8 Map 1-3 Adopted Regional Land Use Policy Map ......................................................................................... 8 Map 3-1 Main Transportation Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 19 Map 3-2 CATA System ................................................................................................................................. 21 Map 3-3 Airport Inventory .......................................................................................................................... 27 Map 4-1 Model Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) and Area Types ................................................................... 31 Map 4-2 2010 Base Year Population Dot-Density Map .............................................................................. 32 Map 4-3 2010 Base Year Households Dot-Density Map ............................................................................. 33 Map 4-4 Base Year Retail Employment Dot-Density Map .......................................................................... 33 Map 4-5 2010 Base Year Non-Retail Employment Dot-Density Map ......................................................... 34 Map 4-6 TAZ Population Growth 2010 – 2040 Wise Growth ..................................................................... 41 Map 4-7 TAZ Household Growth 2010 – 2040 Wise Growth ..................................................................... 42 Map 4-8 TAZ Retail Growth 2010 – 2040 Wise Growth.............................................................................. 42 Map 4-9 TAZ Non Retail Growth 2010 – 2040 Wise Growth ...................................................................... 43 Map 4-10 Tri-County Model Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) ......................................................................... 45 Map 4-11 Screenline Locations in Tri-County Travel Demand Model ........................................................ 53 Map 4-12 Cutline Locations in Tri-County Travel Demand Model.............................................................. 53 Map 4-13 2010 AM Base Year Deficiencies ................................................................................................ 57

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

182

Map 4-14 2010 PM Base Year Deficiencies................................................................................................. 58 Map 4-15 2015 AM Adopted Trend Deficiencies ........................................................................................ 59 Map 4-16 2015 PM Adopted Trend Deficiencies ........................................................................................ 60 Map 4-17 2040 AM Adopted Wise Growth Deficiencies ............................................................................ 61 Map 4-18 2040 PM Adopted Wise Growth Deficiencies ............................................................................ 62 Map 4-19 Proposed Routes for the medium transit alternative ................................................................ 66 Map 4-20 Proposed Routes for the High Transit Alternative ..................................................................... 66 Map 4-21 2012 PASER Ratings .................................................................................................................... 84 Map 4-22 2013 PASER Ratings .................................................................................................................... 85 Map 4-23 Freight Volume along 2040 Wise Growth Deficient and Near Deficient Links .......................... 89 Map 4-24 LPA Station Map - West .............................................................................................................. 93 Map 4-25 LPA Station Map - East ............................................................................................................... 93 Map 4-26 Existing Non-Motorized .............................................................................................................. 96 Map 4-27 Proposed Non-Motorized ........................................................................................................... 96 Map 4-28 River Priority Corridor ................................................................................................................ 97 Map 4-29 Roadway Priority Corridors ........................................................................................................ 97 Map 4-30 Bridges as Potential Barricades to be Evaluated ........................................................................ 98 Map 4-31 Tri-County Sidewalk Inventory ................................................................................................... 98 Map 4-32 Tri-County Sidewalk Inventory â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Greater Lansing ...................................................................... 99 Map 4-33 Tri-County Sidewalk Inventory â&#x20AC;&#x201C; East Lansing .......................................................................... 100 Map 7-1 Tri-County Population by Race ................................................................................................... 146 Map 7-2 Greater Lansing Population by Race .......................................................................................... 147 Map 7-3 Tri-County Population of Ages 65 and Over ............................................................................... 148 Map 7-4 Map 7 4 Tri-County Population of Ages 65 and Over ................................................................. 148 Map 7-5 Families below Poverty Level ..................................................................................................... 149 Map 7-6 2040 Projects, Lakes & Streams ................................................................................................. 158 Map 7-7 2040 Projects, Trout Lakes & Streams ....................................................................................... 159 Map 7-8 2040 Projects, National Wetlands ............................................................................................. 159 Map 7-9 2040 Projects, Land Use Wetlands ............................................................................................ 160 Map 7-10 2040 Projects, Flood Zones Areas ........................................................................................... 160 Map 7-11 2040 Projects, Wellhead Protection Areas .............................................................................. 161 Map 7-12 2040 Projects, Woodland Areas .............................................................................................. 161 Map 7-13 2040 Projects, Park Areas ........................................................................................................ 162 Map 7-14 2040 Projects, Existing Non-Motorized Facilities .................................................................... 162 Map 7-15 2040 Projects, Potential Conservation Areas ........................................................................... 163

Table of Figures Figure 1-1 MPO Forum Transportation Plan Development Process ............................................................. 7 Figure 1-2 TCRPC Coordination of Commission, Committees and Task Forces ............................................ 8 Figure 2-1 Diagram of Partner Relationships .............................................................................................. 14 Figure 4-1 Tri-County Regional Population Forecast .................................................................................. 35 Figure 4-2 Tri-County Employment Forecast .............................................................................................. 35 Figure 4-3 Clinton County MCD Population Forecast ................................................................................. 37 Figure 4-4 Eaton County MCD Population Forecast ................................................................................... 37 Figure 4-5 Ingham County MCD Population Forecast................................................................................. 38 Figure 4-6 Tri-County Travel Demand Model Flowchart ............................................................................ 44

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

183

APPENDIX B Project Maps, see Chapter 6 Table 0-1 2015-2019 Preserve Projects, Clinton County

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

184

Table 0-2 2015-2019 Preserve Projects, Eaton County

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

185

Table 0-3 2015-2019 Preserve Projects, Ingham County

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

186

Table 0-4 2015-2019 Preserve Projects, Tri-County Region

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

187

Table 0-5 2015-2040 Capacity Projects, Clinton

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

188

Table 0-6 2015-2040 Capacity Projects, Eaton County

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

189

Table 0-7 2015-2040 Capacity Projects, Ingham County

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

190

Table 0-8 2015-2040 Capacity Projects, Tri-County Region

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

191

APPENDIX C

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan

192

TCRPC Transportation Committee Meetings Meeting/Group

Date/Time

Location

Capital Area Regional Transportation Study Technical Committee

2-4-2014 / 9:30 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Review Committee

2-12-2014 / 4:00 p.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Economic Development Fund Rural Task Force

3-4-2014 / 9:00 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Capital Area Regional Transportation Study Technical Committee

3-4-2014 / 9:30 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Review Committee

3-12-2014 / 4:00 p.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Economic Development Fund Rural Task Force

4-1-2014 / 9:00 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Capital Area Regional Transportation Study Technical Committee

4-1-2014 / 9:30 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Economic Development Fund Rural Task Force

5-6-2014 / 9:00 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Capital Area Regional Transportation Study Technical Committee

5-6-2014 / 9:30 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Review Committee

5-12-2014 / 4:00 p.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Work Program/Budget Subcommittee

6-3-2014 / 9:00 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Capital Area Regional Transportation Study Technical Committee

6-3-2014 / 9:30 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Review Committee

6-11-2014 / 4:00 p.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Capital Area Regional Transportation Study Technical Committee

7-1-2014 / 9:30 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Review Committee

7-9-2014 / 4:00 p.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Economic Development Fund Rural Task Force

8-5-2014 / 9:30 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Economic Development Fund Rural Task Force

9-2-2014 / 8:30 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Capital Area Regional Transportation Study Technical Committee

9-2-2014 / 9:30 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Review Committee

9-10-2014 / 4:00 p.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Capital Area Regional Transportation Study Technical Committee

10-7-2014 / 9:30 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Review Committee

10-15-2014 / 4:00 p.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Non-Motorized Task Force

10-16-2014 / 9:00 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Economic Development Fund Rural Task Force

11-4-2014 / 9:30 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Capital Area Regional Transportation Study Technical Committee

11-4-2014 / 9:30 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Interagency Consultation on Transportation

11-4-2014 / 11:00 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Review Committee

11-12-14 / 4:00 p.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Capital Area Regional Transportation Study Technical Committee

12-2-2014 / 9:30 a.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Transportation Review Committee

12-10-2014 / 4:00 p.m.

3135 Pine Tree Road, Suite 2C, Lansing MI 48911

Capital Area Regional Transportation Study (CARTS) Technical Committee Alternates & Delegates Company Associated Government Services Bath Charter Township Capital Area Transportation Authority Capital Area Transportation Authority Capital Area Transportation Authority Capital Area Transportation Authority Capital Region Airport Authority Capital Region Airport Authority City of DeWitt City of DeWitt City of East Lansing City of East Lansing City of East Lansing City of East Lansing City of East Lansing City of Grand Ledge City of Lansing City of Lansing City of Lansing City of Lansing City of Lansing City of Lansing City of Lansing City of Lansing City of Mason City of Mason Clinton Area Transit System Clinton Area Transit System Clinton County Clinton County Board of Commissioners Clinton County Road Commission Clinton County Road Commission Clinton County Road Commission Delhi Charter Township Delhi Charter Township Delta Charter Township Delta Charter Township DeWitt Charter Township DeWitt Charter Township Dimondale Village Dimondale Village Eaton County Eaton County Board of Commissioners Eaton County Road Commission Eaton County Road Commission EATRAN EATRAN Federal Aviation Administration Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration

Contact Mr James N Foulds VACANT Ms. Lane Masoud Ms Debra Alexander Mr. Joe Fedewa Ms Nicole Wilson Mr Keith Kaspari Mr Bob Selig, AAE Mr Dan Coss Mr Rich Miller Scott House Mr Ron Lacasse Mr Robert F Scheuerman PE Ms Darcy C. Schmitt Mr Tim Schmitt, AICP Mr Larry LaHaie VACANT Mr Chad Gamble Mr Bob Johnson Mr Dean Johnson Mr Andrew Kilpatrick Mr Bill Rieske VACANT Mr Mitch Whisler Mr Martin A Colburn Mr Don Heck Ms Christine Helmer Ms Dawn Benson Mr Gerald Jaloszynski, CPRP Mr David Pohl Mr Daniel R Armentrout Mr. Tim Cleaver Mr Joseph Pulver, P.E. Mr John Elsinga Ms Tracy Miller Mr Gary Bozek Mr Chris Gruba Mr Tory Niewiadomski Mr Rod Taylor Mr Jerry Hilliard Ms Denise Parisian Ms Claudine Williams Mr Dale Barr Mr Blair Ballou Mr Matt Hannahs Mr David Martin Ms Donna Webb Detroit Airports District Office Ms Andrea Dewey Mr Andy Pickard PE, AICP

City East Lansing Bath Lansing Lansing Lansing Lansing Lansing Lansing DeWitt Dewitt East Lansing East Lansing East Lansing East Lansing East Lansing Grand Ledge Lansing Lansing Lansing Lansing Lansing Lansing Lansing Lansing Mason Mason St Johns St Johns St Johns Fowler St Johns St Johns St Johns Holt Holt Lansing Lansing DeWitt DeWitt Dimondale Dimondale Charlotte Olivet Charlotte Charlotte Charlotte Charlotte Romulus Lansing Lansing

Federal Transit Administration Ingham County Ingham County Ingham County Ingham County Board of Commissioners Lansing Charter Township Lansing Charter Township Meridian Charter Township Meridian Charter Township Meridian Charter Township Meridian Charter Township Michigan Department Of Environmental Quality Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Michigan Department Of Transportation Michigan Department Of Transportation Michigan Department of Transportation Michigan Department of Transportation Michigan Department of Transportation Michigan State University Michigan State University Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Tri-County Regional Planning Commission

Mr R Stewart McKenzie, AICP Mr William Conklin, P.E. Mr Jared Cypher Mr Robert H Peterson PE Ms Dianne Holman Ms Kathleen Rodgers VACANT Mr Younes Ishraidi Mr Mark Kieselbach Ms Gail Oranchak Mr Raymond Severy VACANT Mr Robert Irvine Mr Chris Gulock Ms Elyse Lower, PE Ms Kari Martin Mr Steve Palmer, PE Mr Tom Doyle Mr Jeff Kacos Ms Stephanie O'Donnell, E.I.T. Mr Paul Hamilton Ms Susan M.C. Pigg

Chicago Mason Mason Mason Okemos Lansing Lansing Okemos Okemos Okemos Okemos Lansing Lansing Jackson Lansing Jackson Lansing Lansing East Lansing East Lansing Lansing Lansing

Transportation Review Committee (TRC) Company Capital Area Transportation Authority Board Representative City of East Lansing City of Lansing City of Lansing Clinton County Board of Commissioners Clinton County Road Commission Eaton County Board of Commissioners Eaton County Board of Commissioners Eaton County Road Commission Ingham County Board of Commissioners Meridian Charter Township

Contact

City

Mr Ralph Monsma The Honorable Nathan Triplett Ms Carol Wood Ms Jessica Yorko Mr David Pohl Mr Russel Bauerle Mr Roger A. Eakin Mr James Osieczonek Ms. Dorothy E. Maxwell Ms Dianne Holman Mr John Veenstra

East Lansing East Lansing Lansing Lansing Fowler Dewitt Dimondale Lansing Lansing Okemos Haslett

Michigan Department of Transportation

Mr Dalrois McBurrows

Lansing

public forums

Long Range 2040 Transportation Plan Update June 24 East Lansi ng Hannah C enter 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

June 25 Delhi Charter Township Hall 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

June 26 Clinton ad u Co nty Ro n o si Commis to . 1p.m 3 p.m.

AGENDA Registration & Lunch Buffet/Networking

Buffet by Grand River Catering- Vegetarian options available

Welcoming Remarks June 24 — Nathan Triplett, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission June 25 — Brian McGrain, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission June 26 — Dave Pohl, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (5 min)

Overview of Transportation Planning

Presentation by Paul Hamilton, TCRPC Chief Transportation Planner (20 min)

Table Exercises

Discuss Goals and Objectives – Record proposed changes (20 min) Select Most Important Goals and Vote (10 min)

Rank Capacity Changing Projects & Suggest Changes to Projects Visit stations to give opinions on capacity changing projects (45 min) Available stations: • transit • non-motorized • other

Closing Remarks

TCRPC is committed to open and accessible events. Please contact us in advance if you need special accommodations to attend any of our meetings at (517) 393-0342.Se Habla Espanol

Regional 2040 Transportation Plan Goals and Objectives June 2014 Public Comments Venue

Likes

Dislikes

Modifications

Thoughts/Priorities

Information/More detail

Cabstand - Intermodal not reflected

Transit Access for seniors and disabled

Too may units of gov't for cohesive plan

Intercity Buses

Financial Goal

Lack of efficiency

E. Lansing Hannah Center Bicycling & Walking

Different Mobility Transit Convenience

County Boundaries transit and transfers difficulty Outreach/education programs needed

Lack of public involvement Emissions reduction versus cost

Management System Max System

Delhi Township Hall

Economic Climate Change (incorps. Development goal similar to management Non-motorized) systems Intermodal air-rail goal limited passenger Comm. Env. Design service Safety

Financial goals give ability to prioritize

Management Systems

Ride Quality (add)

Economic Development/Resource Allocation & Development

Non-motorized (include engineering techniques, paving shoulders)

Think about cost constraints

Intermodal (delete last bullet Financial (need more point) detail for 2nd objective) Pursuing balanced regional Sidewalks along Grand funding for Cap. City Airport River by airport is not complete Spectran should run later so people can go to athletic events & other things in the evening

Public Involvement

Having to take a bus from Eaton Rapids to Delta to get to Charlotte

Add an express route to Dansville to help people connect with the Lakeland trails

Grand River by the airport needs better crossings - Peckham employees struggle everyday (10 ppl die per year)

A connection between Capital City Blvd & Eaton Rapids & Charlotte Grand River need is critical (Peckham improvement employees) Jurisdictions can be Preservation of existing insular - Don't buy into infrastructure/system this Are some Land Use Focus areas/priorities conflicting? Projected growth Goals already well-vetted numbers are low (selfdetecting?) Conflicting policies & Intermodal (Including too many gov't units Rail) emphasis make these goals difficult to implement Softâ&#x20AC;Ś

C. C. Road Commission

Evaluating land-use plan to Tri-County involvement integrate with transportation in clean fuel (How at community level (ex: TCRPC) commercial movements) Clean commute (Carpools, Management efficiency park & ride locations), ride Rail Development on traffic planning share support like michivan, destination (ITS?) community support Integrate transportation Economic Development Transit (Blue Bus) planning with land use, Provide transport to decrease it economic development & support econ. Dev. environment Financial (life cycle cast, Climate change on Emphasize on land use (FLU) fiance resource to increasing carpools, maintain) etc.. Transit Development

Land use, minimize Cost vs. emissions disruption on open space short term/long term Developing Attention to funding transportation to preserve land use Public Involvements very Attention to connectivity important All of Goals Transit Intermodal sustainability Multi-modal technology

Public Involvements - Church groups?

Need for reg. cooperation How do we influence/encourage policy change beyond our control? (i.e. in rail policy & with land use?)

Example of Forum Voting (full results available upon request). 45. Minimize disruptions to open space, farm land, wetlands and natural areas. Encourage urban high density development. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent I Oppose It

70.00%

Count 5.56%

It Needs Improvement

5.56%

I Am Neutral

16.67%

It Is Adequate

5.56%

I Support It

66.67%

Totals

100%

60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

46. Strengthen the metropolitan center, discourage sprawl and encourage efficient use of existing infrastructure. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent I Oppose It

70.00%

Count 11.11%

It Needs Improvement

2.78%

I Am Neutral

11.11%

It Is Adequate

13.89%

I Support It

61.11%

Totals

100%

60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

47. Develop transportation infrastructure and services consistent with the Regional Growth plan, local land use and Greening Mid-Michigan plans. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent

70.00%

Count

I Oppose It

5.88%

It Needs Improvement

0.00%

I Am Neutral

8.82%

It Is Adequate

20.59%

I Support It

64.71%

Totals

100%

60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

48. Encourage and incentivize transit-oriented development. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent

60.00%

Count

I Oppose It

5.71%

50.00%

It Needs Improvement

2.86%

40.00%

I Am Neutral

17.14%

30.00%

It Is Adequate

17.14%

20.00%

I Support It

57.14%

10.00%

Totals

100%

0.00%

49. Transit:Develop, maintain, connect and expand the region’s public transportation system to provide convenient transportation. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent I Oppose It

70.00%

Count 5.56%

It Needs Improvement

5.56%

I Am Neutral

16.67%

It Is Adequate

11.11%

I Support It

61.11%

Totals

100%

60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% I Oppose It

50. Increase public transit’s modal share in the region. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent

60.00%

Count

I Oppose It

11.43%

50.00%

It Needs Improvement

5.71%

40.00%

I Am Neutral

5.71%

30.00%

It Is Adequate

20.00%

I Support It

57.14%

10.00%

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

Totals

100%

0.00% I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

51. Develop and maintain the most cost effective regional public transit system possible. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent

70.00%

Count

I Oppose It

2.94%

It Needs Improvement

8.82%

I Am Neutral

8.82%

It Is Adequate

14.71%

I Support It

64.71%

Totals

100%

60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% I Oppose It

52. Increase intermodal linkages between transit, auto, rail, air, and non-motorized travel modes. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent

Count

I Oppose It

8.33%

It Needs Improvement

0.00%

I Am Neutral

11.11%

It Is Adequate

8.33%

I Support It

72.22%

Totals

100%

80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

53. Provide high capacity rapid transit services in priority corridors such as Michigan/Grand River Avenues and Lansing to Detroit. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent I Oppose It

Count 13.51%

It Needs Improvement

8.11%

I Am Neutral

32.43%

It Is Adequate

8.11%

I Support It

37.84%

Totals

100%

40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

54. Provide stronger connections between all transit services. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent

60.00%

Count

I Oppose It

0.00%

It Needs Improvement

2.86%

I Am Neutral

20.00%

It Is Adequate

20.00%

I Support It

57.14%

Totals

100%

50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%

55. Intermodal: Better integrate Aeronautics and Rail facilities and services into the regional transportation network. Increase intermodal passenger and freight transportation connections. (Multiple Cho Responses Percent

60.00%

Count

I Oppose It

7.69%

It Needs Improvement

5.13%

I Am Neutral

12.82%

It Is Adequate

17.95%

I Support It

56.41%

Totals

100%

50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

56. Encourage passenger and freight facilities and services that provide multi-modal connections. Encourage efficiency in freight movement. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent I Oppose It

70.00%

Count 8.11%

It Needs Improvement

0.00%

I Am Neutral

18.92%

It Is Adequate

8.11%

I Support It

64.86%

Totals

100%

60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% I Oppose It

It Needs

I Am Neutral It Is Adequate

I Support It

Improvement 57. Support Airports and Rail station services and improvements. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent I Oppose It

Count 13.51%

It Needs Improvement

2.70%

I Am Neutral

27.03%

It Is Adequate

8.11%

I Support It

48.65%

Totals

100%

50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% I Oppose It

It Needs Improvement

I Am Neutral It Is Adequate

I Support It

58. Prioritize projects that improve access to intermodal facilities. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent I Oppose It

Count 14.29%

It Needs Improvement

8.57%

I Am Neutral

20.00%

It Is Adequate

20.00%

I Support It

37.14%

Totals

100%

40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

59. Improve intermodal access to the region’s air and rail facilities. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent

70.00%

Count

I Oppose It

5.88%

It Needs Improvement

5.88%

I Am Neutral

8.82%

It Is Adequate

11.76%

I Support It

67.65%

Totals

100%

60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%

60. Pursue balanced regional funding for Capital Region International Airport. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent

60.00%

Count

I Oppose It

14.29%

It Needs Improvement

11.43%

I Am Neutral

11.43%

It Is Adequate

8.57%

I Support It

54.29%

Totals

100%

50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%

61. Non-Motorized:Encourage pedestrian and bicycle modes as viable, healthy, safe and enjoyable alternatives. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent

Count

I Oppose It

8.11%

It Needs Improvement

0.00%

I Am Neutral

13.51%

It Is Adequate

8.11%

I Support It

70.27%

Totals

100%

80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

62. Provide and maintain economical bicycle, pedestrian and multi-use path facilities in rural, suburban and urban areas that meet engineering standards. (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) Responses Percent

60.00%

Count

I Oppose It

9.38%

It Needs Improvement

3.13%

I Am Neutral

9.38%

It Is Adequate

21.88%

I Support It

56.25%

Totals

100%

50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% I Oppose It

It Needs I Am Neutral It Is Adequate Improvement

I Support It

DRAFT LRTP 2040 Capacity Project List

Green Dot Cnt

Red Dot Cnt

Results From Public Forum Meeting ‐ Interest/Dot Count Off of Working Maps

Source ID

LRP-2035

Limits

Clinton MDOT

Kinley to Gratiot County Line (continuing to Ithaca, outside our region; cost is for Clinton County portion)

US 127

451

CMAQ-20142017

1 1

Respo n-sible Map County Project Name Agenc Key y

Clinton

CCRC

950

428

2 1

457

469

LRP-2035

Added project from meeting Added project from meeting Added project from meeting Added project from meeting

Clinton

CCRC

Length Project Description

6.00

Expansion to limited access freeway

Schavey Rd (Clark Rd to Herbison from Clark Road to Herbison Rd) Improvements Road - Right Turn Lane in Front of School

0.04 Right turn lane construction. miles

State Road

1.30

DeWitt Road to US 127 BR

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes

Clinton

DeWitt Rd

Clinton

I-69

At Chandler Rd

Add highway interchange

Webster Rd

State Rd and Chandler Rd

Connect Webster to the west and connect to State Rd at Chandler Rd

I-96

At Meridian Rd

Add highway interchange

Ingham Lansing

Jolly Road

Waverly to MLK

1.80

LRP-2035

Ingham

Michigan Avenue

Waverly to Lansing city limit

1.00

Green Dots‐ Likes Red Dots ‐ Dislikes

2040

4,141,200

Interpretation: At State Road-Eliminate road offset, maybe roundabouts?

LRP-2035

ICRD

375,437,875

2016

Interpretation: At State Road-Eliminate road offset, maybe roundabouts?

Ingham

Est. Total Phase Year Cost Open

Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes (grinding, striping, signage) Restripe portion from Rosemary to city limit from 4 to 3 lanes; includes bike lanes

39,690

638,150

2018

DRAFT LRTP 2040 Capacity Project List

Green Dot Cnt

Red Dot Cnt Dot locati on Btwe n Prj. 64 & 61

Results From Public Forum Meeting ‐ Interest/Dot Count Off of Working Maps

Source

Respo n-sible Map County Project Name Agenc Key y

Limits

LRP-2035

Ingham Lansing

Center to Grand Avenue Dot location Btwen Prj. 64 & 61

478

486

Inghamast Lansin 38

Ingham Lansing

Lake Lansing Road US 127 to Harrison

0.75

Lake Lansing operations Improvements

Old 27 to High Street

0.30

LRP-2035

Ingham Lansing

E Grand River Avenue

Railroad tracks E of Larch to Massachusetts

0.35

LRP-2035

Ingham Lansing

Saginaw Street

Larch to Merrill

1.60

LRP-2035

Ingham

MSU

N Shaw and S Shaw (two way pair)

Red Cedar to Farm Lane

0.25

LRP-2035

Ingham

MSU

Wilson Road

Wilson - Fee intersection to Hagadorn

0.28

LRP-2035

Ingham

ICRD

Jolly Road

Collins to Hagadorn

2.10

LRP-2035

Ingham

ICRD

Okemos Road

Central Park to Haslett

1.50

494 427

Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes (striping & signage only)

23,143 Revised termini

383

0.20

444

Illustrative

Saginaw Street

Est. Total Phase Year Cost Open

485

LRP-2035

Length Project Description

446 495

Green Dots‐ Likes Red Dots ‐ Dislikes

Widen from 4 to 5 lanes; add intersection turn lanes; possible roundabout Lake Lansing and Coolidge Implementation of sharrows on Lake Lansing Road. Modernization of signal at High Street including removal of left turn overlap phase. Interconnection with signals at old 27 and North East Street. Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes (grinding, striping, signage) Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes (striping & signage only) Eliminate North Shaw; reduce South Shaw to emergency and bus access only Construct 4 lane boulevard connecting Wilson to Hagadorn Widen from 2 to 4 lanes; possible roundabout at College and Jolly intersection; bike lanes on both sides. Raise grade and install turn pockets

2,210,400 2025

120,000

2016 10,452 23,890

4,780,800

13,273,000

5,925,860

24,861,000

2016 2020

DRAFT LRTP 2040 Capacity Project List

Green Dot Cnt

Red Dot Cnt

Source ID

426

463

Results From Public Forum Meeting ‐ Interest/Dot Count Off of Working Maps Respo n-sible Map County Project Name Agenc Key y

Limits

I-69 BL (Saginaw) to Lac du Mont

LRP-2035

Ingham

ICRD

Lake Lansing Road

LRP-2035

Ingham

ICRD

Lake Lansing Road at Okemos

LRP-2035

Ingham

ICRD

Lake Lansing Road Lac du Mont to Marsh

467

Green Dots‐ Likes Red Dots ‐ Dislikes

Length Project Description

0.70

1.10

I-69 BL to Lac du Mont: widen from 2 to 3 lanes; Lac Du Mont to Marsh: reduce from 4 to 3 lanes; add roundabout at Okemos-Lake Lansing intersection; bike lanes on both sides Add possible roundabout at Okemos-Lake Lansing Resurface and restripe from 4 to 3 lanes with addition of nonmotorized lanes

Est. Total Phase Year Cost Open

1,723,005

1,215,600

650,000

Maria Habba Subject:

RE: Mid-Michigan Program for Greater Sustainability Topic Summary Report / Top Transportation Goals

Subject: Mid-Michigan Program for Greater Sustainability Topic Summary Report / Top Transportation Goals

Topic Summary Report A topic has closed on Mid-Michigan Program for Greater Sustainability Topic: Top Transportation Goals

Rate these transportation goals on how important they are to you. Your feedback will help us prioritize how we address transportation needs in the Tri-county area. Surveys Submitted

Comments

Survey Results QUESTION 1

Maintaining mobility for low income elderly citizens Important but not a top priority

Top Priority

Slightly important

Not a priority

QUESTION 2

Repairing and maintaining roads and bridges Top priority

Important but not a top priority

Slightly important

Not a priority

QUESTION 3

Reducing congestion and improving traffic flow through major streets and intersections Important but not a top priority

Slightly important

Top priority

Not a priority

QUESTION 4

Improving sidewalks and pathways for pedestrians and bicycles Top priority

Important but not a top priority

Slightly important

Not a priority

QUESTION 5

Providing adequate parking for commuters and for shoppers Not a priority

Slightly important

Important but not a top priority

Top priority

QUESTION 6

Improving public transportation services Top priority

Important but not a top priority

Slightly important

Not a priority

QUESTION 7

Improving options for carpooling and vanpooling Important but not a top priority

Slightly important

Top priority

Not a priority

QUESTION 8

Providing passenger rail service to other communities Important but not a top priority

Top priority

Slightly important

Not a priority

QUESTION 9

Paving gravel roads Not a priority

Slightly important

Important but not a top priority

Top priority

QUESTION 10

Making airport improvements Not a priority

Slightly important

Important but not a top priority

Top priority

QUESTION 11

Building new roads Not a priority

Slightly important

Important but not a top priority

Top priority

QUESTION 12

Widening existing roads Not a priority

Slightly important

Important but not a top priority

Top priority

8% of people participated (28 of 334 total participants) 211% More than your average and 4% More than the MindMixer average

Gender Breakdown