Genesee County

Metropolitan Alliance

Transportation Improvement Program

Fiscal Years 2014 - 2017

Prepared by the Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission staff.

GENESEE COUNTY METROPOLITAN ALLIANCE

1101 Beach Street, Room 223 Flint, Michigan 48502

Telephone: (810) 257-3010 Fax: (810) 257-3185

Robert Johnson, Chairperson Robert Cole, Vice-Chairperson

Marian Michalik, Treasurer

Trustees:

John Gilbert Bill Bain Dennis Heidenfeldt William Kovl Patricia Witte Gerry Masters

Participating Agencies: Genesee County Board of Commissioners City of Burton City of Clio City of Davison City of Fenton City of Flint City of Flushing City of Grand Blanc City of Linden City of Montrose City of Mt. Morris City of Swartz Creek Argentine Township Atlas Township Clayton Township Davison Township Fenton Township Flint Township Flushing Township Forest Township Gaines Township Genesee Township Grand Blanc Township Montrose Township Mt. Morris Township Mundy Township Richfield Township Thetford Township Vienna Township Gaines Village Goodrich Village Lennon Village Otisville Village Otter Lake Village

Federal Highway Administration Genesee County Drain Commission Genesee County Road Commission Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission Mass Transportation Authority Michigan Department of Transportation

GENESEE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Jamie Curtis (Chairperson) Mark Young Pegge Adams Omar Sims Ted Henry John Northrup Brenda Clack Archie Bailey Tony Brown

GENESEE COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION

1101 Beach Street, Room 223

Flint, Michigan 48502 Telephone: (810) 257-3010

Fax: (810) 257-3185

Alan Himelhoch, Chairperson Alexander H. Isaac, Vice-Chairperson

Gloria J. Nealy, Secretary

Mark Young Jamie Curtis Michael Lynch Cheryl Sclater Ted Henry Carl V. Arthur, III John Burt John Mandelaris

GENESEE COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF

Derek Bradshaw, Director-Coordinator Christine A. Durgan, Assistant Director

Jason Nordberg, Principal Planner

Sheila Taylor, Principal Planner Sharon Gregory, Associate Planner

Kristopher Kleinsmith, Associate Planner Anna King Pinter, Associate Planner Kelly Richardson, Associate Planner Carl Thompson, Associate Planner Krishina Welch, Associate Planner

Christine Pobocik, GIS Specialist

Greg Mitchell, Rehabilitation Inspector

Kim Stowell, Rehabilitation Intake Coordinator Andy Trudeau, Rehabilitation Inspector

Susan Schantz, Accountant

Julie Zinger, Accountant

Alberta Gunsell, Secretary Nichole Odette, Secretary

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 FINANCIAL PLAN ............................................................................... 11 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS .................................................... 28 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ................................................................ 32 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 46 2014-2017 PROJECT LIST ................................................................... 48 ASSURANCES, PROCEDURES AND POLICIES ................................... 59 FY 2012 PROJECT STATUS .................................................................. 74 MAP-21 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ................................................ 80 APPENDIX A Fiscal Constraint Demonstration - Highway APPENDIX B Fiscal Constraint Demonstration - Transit APPENDIX C Meeting Information and Public Comment Notices APPENDIX D FY 2014-2017 Application Packet APPENDIX E 2035 LRTP – Goals and Objectives APPENDIX F Glossary APPENDIX G Illustrative Project List

INTRODUCTION The Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission (GCMPC) functions as staff to the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance (GCMA), the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the Flint-Genesee County area. The GCMPC provides staff resources, technical support, and services to assist Genesee County Municipalities with the needs and demands of a rapidly urbanizing county. Service Area Within the MPO area, there are 33 local units of government. The following counts were provided by the 2010 U.S. Census. Genesee County, also our MPO boundary, has a population of 425,790.

1

TRANSPORTATION IN GENESEE COUNTY

The Genesee County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) provides a summary of how transportation revenues in the program will be invested over a four-year period by the state and local agencies that have legal responsibility to build, operate, and maintain the state's highway, road, streets and public transit systems. Federally-funded expenditures are required by federal law to be consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan adopted in October 2009 and to be constrained to include only projects that we anticipated having enough revenue to complete. All of the projects proposed for Federal transportation funding have been evaluated according to the local policies and procedures identified in this document. In preparing plans, specifications and estimates for all federal transportation projects, all jurisdictions will utilize sound engineering procedures and will take into consideration not only safety and improvement of the roadway surface, but will also consider the following items when deemed appropriate:

• Drainage structures • Signs and markings • Traffic signals • Base improvements • Guardrail • Provision of adequate lateral clearance • Local input • American with Disabilities Act Requirements

Project estimates provided by jurisdictions for this TIP include costs for the previously identified factors, where feasible, and include reasonable adjustments for cost overruns and inflation.

2

Streets and Highways The major thoroughfare network system in Genesee County includes freeways, principal arterials and minor arterials. These systems connect Genesee County with the remainder of the State of Michigan and the nation. Route US-23 and I-75 are north-south thoroughfares and connect Genesee County to the recreational areas in northern Michigan and Canada and to the manufacturing and industry complexes south of Genesee County. Route US-23 connects the City of Toledo directly to the City of Flint and continues north to the City of Saginaw, Bay City, and along the Lake Huron shoreline. I-75 connects the City of Detroit, Michigan and several states to the south with the Genesee County community, proceeds northerly to the Saginaw, Bay City and Midland area, and on to the Mackinaw Bridge.

To the east, Genesee County is connected to the City of Lapeer, City of Port Huron and Canada by I-69. Westbound I-69 connects Genesee County with the City of Lansing and other areas to the west. I-69 is a major trade route between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. The Blue Water Bridge at Port Huron is the second busiest truck crossing between Canada and the U.S, and funnels a vast majority of the truck traffic to I-69.

The I-475 route forms a freeway loop within the urbanized area. This freeway also provides an alternate route when traveling through Genesee County and the City of Flint when traveling North or South. In addition, it allows easy access to one of the City of Flint's auto manufacturing areas. Local traffic demands are met by M-57 traversing the northern portion of the county, intersecting M-13 to the west and M-15 to the east. South of Grand Blanc, M-54 branches from I-75 and continues north through the City of Flint. M-54 allows direct travel into local commercial districts before exiting through the northern section of the county. The M-21 route assists consumers traveling to Flint by providing a direct route from the county's western boundary to Flint's Central Business District. Existing and proposed freeways in the county are limited access divided highways. Minimum pavement width is four 12-foot lanes. I-75 is a six-lane facility. The predominant road pattern in the county, excepting freeways and some local streets in new subdivisions, is based on the common gridiron principle. Pavement widths vary on many of the existing non-freeway roads. Independent design and coordination efforts, varying dedication of rights-of-way, inconsistencies associated with land development policies, and changing construction standards contribute to the lack of uniformity.

3

The principle and minor arterial roads within the urbanized areas generally have right-of-way widths with capacity to provide four-lane traffic movement. However, many local streets do not have sufficient right-of-way for two moving traffic lanes when parking is permitted on both sides.

4

Genesee County Local Jurisdictions Map

Figure 1

5

Public Transportation The Mass Transportation Authority (MTA) serves public transportation needs within the Flint-Genesee County area. The MTA was created in 1971 as a public authority under the provisions of Act No. 55 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1963. This authority was then granted the ability to own, maintain and operate a mass transportation system by the Flint City Council by City Ordinance #2297. Service to the City of Flint and its urbanized area was instituted with local business encouragement, help from the Michigan Department of Transportation, and financial aid from the Flint City Council in December 1971. In 1996, the MTA was reorganized as a countywide authority. The eleven-member board includes representatives of the City of Flint Administration, Flint City Council, Genesee County Board of Commissioners, the townships, small cities, educational institutions and residents of Flint and Genesee County.

The MTA is a public corporation established to own and operate a public transportation system for the citizens of Genesee County. Funding for MTA operations is generated from a combination of revenues from passenger fares, local transportation millages and state resources. Capital funds for buildings and equipment are provided by federal and state grants. The Mission of the Mass Transportation Authority is to transport all people that desire public transportation services within Genesee County through an integrated

system that is safe, efficient and responsive. Public transit provides approximately 6 million trips annually. This number reflects an increase in Regional Transit Services and Your Ride services through the following five service types: 1. A fleet of line haul buses service a network of primary, peak hour and

suburban routes in the most highly populated areas. The MTA currently operates 14 primary routes, 56 peak hour routes and 14 regional routes. (See Figure 1). Figure 1 does not show the downtown/campus route map.

Thirteen of the primary routes depart from the terminal located at the Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC). These routes radiate out into the City of Flint and selected locations in Genesee County. Crosstown North, primary Route #13, provides direct east-west transportation across the north end of Flint, and does not go through the ITC. Primary fixed routes operate from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. at thirty-minute intervals and on one-hour intervals until 11:30 p.m. Saturday service operates from 6:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. at one-hour intervals and Sunday service from 9:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at one-hour intervals.

6

Figure 2

7

The Regional Route Services are provided to six counties surrounding

Genesee County. The services are scheduled to meet the needs for work related transportation. Services are provided seven days a week to meet the transportation needs of Genesee County residents and those utilizing reverse commute opportunities from the adjoining counties.

2. The MTA also provides a demand-response, curb-to-curb transportation

service known as "Your Ride". This service supplements fixed routes and serves those sectors of the public who cannot effectively use the regular, fixed route services due to disability or lack of access to a nearby fixed route. Within the City of Flint fixed route service area, eligibility is limited to persons who have mobility restrictions. Outside of the fixed route area, any Genesee County resident can use the Your Ride service. The MTA has Service Centers for Your Ride Operations in Grand Blanc, Fenton, Flushing, Swartz Creek, Clio, Otisville, Davison, Mt. Morris, Burton, West Flint and East Flint. (See Figure 2) The hours of operation for "Your Ride" is the same schedule as the fixed route services.

3. The MTA provides funding to the Jewish Community Services to provide

transportation services for Genesee County residents for medical appointments outside the county to areas of, but not limited to, Ann Arbor, Detroit, Lansing, Saginaw and Bay City. Transportation services are available Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, except holidays when Jewish Community Services may not be operating.

4. Through a State of Michigan Department of Transportation, (MDOT),

Specialized Services grant program, the MTA provides various community agencies with funding assistance for those populations with specialized transportation needs, such as the elderly and persons with disabilities. The availability of these specialized services makes daily activities possible for many elderly and disabled citizens in various communities throughout Genesee County.

8

9

Figure 3 Mass Transportation Authority - Documentation of Financial Capacity

The Federal Transit Administration's Financial Capacity Policy defines financial capacity as having two aspects: 1) the overall current financial condition of the organization; and, 2) the future financial capability of the organization to meet operating and capital costs. The Mass Transportation Authority has management systems in place to insure its financial integrity. The Planning-Programming-Budgeting System (PPBS) is used to set organizational direction and goals. The elements of the PPBS are: 1. The Five Year Plan, which is updated annually, to describe the level of services

which will be provided by the MTA throughout a five year planning period;

2. The Five Year Program, which identifies the operating and capital resources required to provide the services described in the Five Year Plan; and

3. Budget projections, which cost out the operating and capital resources

described in the Five Year Plan. Expense budgets must meet the constraints defined by revenue budgets.

The PPBS procedure ensures that financial capability is a factor in decisions about services and capital investments. Current financial capacity is reviewed monthly; an annual performance summary is included in the Five Year Plan, and an annual audit is performed in accordance with OMB circular A-128. The MTA's financial capacity was reviewed during the Triennial Review conducted during the summer of 2012 and no exceptions were noted. Passage of millages dedicated to public transportation in the City of Flint and Genesee County in 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2012 strengthen the MTA's future financial capability. Millage revenues are an important and necessary source of local revenue to sustain transit services designed to meet local needs. They are a property tax subject to voter approval and the amount of revenue received varies as property values fluctuate. This will be further augmented by a state funding formula that is based in part on local contributions, so that increased local financial commitment is rewarded with increased state financial commitment.

10

Section 2: Financial Plan

11

GENESEE COUNTY TIP FINANCIAL PLAN Introduction The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the list of road and transit projects that communities and agencies plan to implement over a four-year period. That list is required to be fiscally constrained; that is, the cost of projects programmed in the TIP cannot exceed the amount of funding “reasonably expected to be available” during that time. The financial plan is the section of the TIP that documents the method used to calculate funds reasonably expected to be available and compares this amount to proposed projects to demonstrate that the TIP is fiscally constrained. The financial plan also identifies the costs of operating and maintaining the transportation system in Genesee County. Sources of Transportation Funding The basic sources of transportation funding are motor fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees. Both the federal government and the State of Michigan tax motor fuel, the federal government at $0.184 per gallon on gasoline and $0.244 per gallon on diesel and Michigan at $0.19 per gallon on gasoline and $0.15 per gallon on diesel. Michigan also charges sales tax on motor fuel, but this funding is not applied to transportation. The motor fuel taxes are excise taxes, which means they are a fixed amount per gallon. The amount collected per gallon does not increase when the price of gasoline or diesel fuel increases. 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. Currently, roughly half of the transportation funding collected by the state is in the form of vehicle registration fees. Cooperative Revenue Estimation Process Estimating the amount of funding available for the four-year TIP period is a complex process. It relies on a number of factors, including economic conditions, miles travelled by vehicles nationwide and in the State of Michigan, and federal and state transportation funding received in previous years. Revenue forecasting relies on a combination of data and experience and represents a “best guess” of future trends. The revenue forecasting process is a cooperative effort. The Michigan Transportation Planning Association (MTPA), a voluntary association of public organizations and agencies responsible for the administration of transportation planning activities throughout the state, formed the Financial Working Group (FWG) to develop a statewide standard forecasting process. FWG is comprised of members from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), transit agencies, and metropolitan planning organizations, including GCMPC. It represents a cross-section of the public agencies responsible for transportation planning in our state. The revenue assumptions in this financial plan are based on the factors formulated by the FWG and approved by the MTPA. They are used for all TIP financial plans in the state.

12

PART I. HIGHWAY FUNDING FORECAST--FEDERAL Sources of Federal Highway Funding Federal transportation funding comes from motor fuel taxes (mostly gasoline and diesel). Receipts from these taxes are deposited in the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). Funding is then apportioned to the states. Apportionment is the distribution of funds through formulas in law. The current law governing these apportionments is Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). Under this law, Michigan receives approximately $1 billion in federal transportation funding annually. This funding is apportioned through a number of programs designed to accomplish different objectives, such as road repair, bridge repair, safety, and congestion mitigation. A brief description of the major funding sources follows. National Highway Performance Program (NH): This funding is used to support condition and performance on the National Highway System (NHS) and to construct new facilities on the NHS. The National Highway System is the network of the nation’s most important highways, including the Interstate and US highway systems. In Michigan, most roads on the National Highway System are state trunk lines (i.e., “I-,” “US-,” and “M-“roads). , However, MAP-21 expanded the NHS to include all principal arterials (the most important roads after freeways), whether state- or locally-owned. As a result of this change, Genesee County will receive approximately $0.924 million through NH in FY 2014. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Local – STU, STL, & Flex; MDOT – ST & STG): Funds for construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, preservation, or operational improvements to federal-aid highways and replacement, preservation, and other improvements to bridges on public roads. Michigan’s STP apportionment from the federal government is evenly split, half to areas of the state based on population and half that can be used in any area of the state. In FY 2014, Michigan’s STP apportionment is estimated to be $269.8 million. Genesee County will receive approximately $6.5 million in FY 2014 which will be used by cities, villages, and the Genesee County Road Commission. STP can also be flexed (transferred) to transit projects. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ – CM & CMG): Intended to reduce emissions from transportation-related sources. MAP-21 has placed an emphasis on diesel retrofits, but funds can also be used for traffic signal retiming, actuations, and interconnects; installing dedicated turn lanes; roundabouts; travel demand management such a ride share and vanpools; transit; and nonmotorized projects that divert non-recreational travel from single-occupant vehicles. The State of Michigan has allocated funding to Genesee County based on population. MDOT uses half of the funding for CMAQ-eligible projects on the state trunk line system; the other half is distributed by GCMPC to eligible projects based on a scoring system. Traditionally, GCMPC has divided the local funding as follows: 40% for road projects; 40% for transit projects; 15% for non-motorized projects; and 5% for Ridesharing, vanpooling and carpooling programs. Changes brought about by MAP-21 may require a reexamination of the distribution formulas. Michigan’s apportionment of CMAQ funding for FY 2014 is estimated to be $71.5 million. Genesee County’s share of this funding is estimated to be approximately $1.57 million, based on funding targets issued by MDOT.

13

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAU): Funds can be used for a number of activities to improve the transportation system environment, including (but not limited to) nonmotorized projects, preservation of historic transportation facilities, outdoor advertising control, vegetation management in rights-of-way, and the planning and construction of projects that improve the ability of students to walk or bike to school. The statewide apportionment for Transportation Alternatives is estimated to be $26.4 million in FY 2014. The funding will then be split, 50 percent being retained by the state and 50 percent to various areas of the state by population, much like the STP distribution. Genesee County’s share of this funding is approximately $425,945 in FY 2014, and will be distributed to local agencies on a competitive basis. Base and Assumptions Used in Forecast Calculations of Federal Highway Funds Each year, the targets (amount Genesee County is expected to receive) are calculated for each of these programs, based on federal apportionment documentation and state law. Targets can vary from year to year due to factors including how much funding was actually received by the Highway Trust Fund, the authorization (the annual transportation funding spending ceiling), and the appropriation (how much money is actually approved to be spent). Targets for fiscal year 2013, as provided by MDOT, are used as the baseline for the forecast. The Financial Work Group of the MTPA developed a two percent per year federal revenue growth rate for the FY 2014 through FY 2017 TIP period. If targets for each of fiscal years 2014-2017 are known (such as CMAQ), those amounts were used without adjustment. 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-MPG 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. Tables 1 A & B contain the federal transportation revenue projections for the 2014-2017 TIP. Table 1A. Federal Highway Transportation Revenue Projections for the 2014-2017 TIP – Genesee County Locally Administered Funds (Millions of Dollars).

FY STU Flex STL NH

CMAQ CM & CMG TAU TOTAL

2014 $4.80 $1.17 $0.569 $0.924 $2.07 $0.425 $9.46 2015 $4.89 $1.19 $0.580 $0.943 $1.57 $0.434 $9.61 2016 $4.99 $1.21 $0.592 $0.961 $1.57 $0.443 $9.77 2017 $5.09 $1.24 $0.604 $0.981 $1.57 $0.452 $9.94

TOTAL: $19.77 $4.81 $2.35 $3.81 $6.28 $1.75 $38.77 MDOT receives funds in many of the same categories as Genesee County. The table below lists MDOT funding in the following categories.

14

Table 1B. Federal Highway Transportation Revenue Projections for the 2014-2017 TIP – MDOT Administered Funds (Millions of Dollars).

FY STP

ST & STG NH CMAQ TOTAL 2014 $0.552 $8.17 $0.461 $9.18 2015 $1.44 $8.33 $1.36 $11.13 2016 $1.19 $8.50 $1.01 $10.70 2017 $0.077 $8.67 $3.18 $11.93

TOTAL: $3.26 $33.67 $6.00 $42.93

PART II. 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 Like the federal motor fuel tax, this is also an excise tax that doesn’t increase as the price of fuel increases, so over time, inflation erodes the purchasing power of these funds. Approximately $855.9 million in additional revenue is raised through vehicle registration fees when motorists purchase their license plates or tabs each year. 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, approximately $1.9 billion was raised through motor fuel taxes, vehicle registrations, heavy truck fees, interest income, and miscellaneous revenue in FY 2011. The state law governing the collection and distribution of state highway revenue is Public Act 51 of 1951, commonly known as “Act 51.” All revenue from these sources is deposited into the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF). Act 51 contains a number of complex formulas for the distribution of the funding, but essentially, once funding for certain grants and administrative costs are removed, 10 percent of the remainder is deposited in the Comprehensive Transportation Fund (CTF) for transit. The remaining funds are then split between the State Trunkline Fund, administered by MDOT, county road commissions, and municipalities in a proportion of 39.1 percent, 39.1 percent, and 21.8 percent, respectively.2 MTF funds are critical to the operation of the road system in Michigan. Since federal funds cannot be used to operate or maintain the road system (items such as snow removal, mowing grass in the right-of-way, paying the electric bill for streetlights and traffic signals, etc.), MTF funds are local communities’ and road commissions’ main source for funding these items. Most federal transportation funding must be matched with 20 percent non-federal revenue. In Michigan, most match funding comes from the MTF. Finally, federal funding cannot be used on local public roads, such as subdivision streets. Here again, MTF is the main source of revenue for maintenance and repair of these 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).

15

Funding from the MTF is distributed statewide to incorporated cities, incorporated villages, and county road commissions, collectively known as “Act 51 agencies.” The formula is based on population and public road mileage under each Act 51 agency’s jurisdiction. Base and Assumptions Used in Forecast Calculations of State Highway Funds The base for the financial forecast of state funding is the FY 2011 distribution of MTF funding as found in MDOT Report 139. This report details distribution of funding to each eligible Act 51 agency in the state. Adding all of the distributions to cities, villages, and the Genesee County Road Commission in Genesee County provides an overall distribution total for the region. That amount was just over $33.1 million in FY 2011. The Financial Work Group predicted an increase of 0.4 percent in state revenues for fiscal years 2014 through 2017. Table 2 shows the amount of MTF funding cities, villages, and the road commission in Genesee County is projected to receive during the four-year TIP period, based on the agreed-upon rates of increase. Table 2. Projected MTF Distribution to Act-51 Agencies for Highway Use, FY 2014 through FY 2017 (Millions of Dollars)

2014 2015 2016 2017 Total $33.54 $33.68 $33.81 $33.95 $134.98

State funding is projected to grow much more slowly than federal funding during the four-year TIP 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.

PART III. HIGHWAY FUNDING FORECAST—HYBRID STATE/FEDERAL FUNDING Sources of Hybrid State/Federal Funding Michigan has a number of programs that use both state funding and federal funding. These programs are collectively known as the Transportation Economic Development Fund (TEDF). The TEDF is split into a several categories, depending on what that particular category is designed to accomplish. These are:

• TEDF Category A: Highway projects to benefit targeted industries; • TEDF Category C: Congestion mitigation in designated urban counties (including

Genesee County); • TEDF Category D: All-season road network in rural; • TEDF Category E: Forest roads; and • TEDF Category F: Roads in cities that are located in rural counties.

TEDF Category B no longer exists. Categories A and F are awarded on a competitive basis, and Categories D and E are not awarded in Genesee County. Therefore, this discussion will be limited to Category C.

16

Category C funding is a blend of state and federal funding. Act 51 specifies that $36.8 million of each year’s MTF receipts be directed to the Transportation Economic Development Fund. The federal portion of TEDF was formerly derived from the Equity Bonus program, but this was discontinued under MAP-21. The State of Michigan has instead funded the TEDF Category C and D program with additional Surface Transportation Program funding. Genesee County receives only TEDF Category C state funds. Base and Assumptions Used in Forecast Calculations of Hybrid State/Federal Highway Funds The base year used to calculate the TEDF Category C funding is FY 2013 and is a fixed amount set in Act 51. The forecast assumes no change in Act 51 during the four-year TIP period, so the funding is not increased. Table 3 provides a summary of expected TEDF funding over the 2014-2017 TIP period. Table 3. Projected Transportation Economic Development Funds, Category C, FY 2014 through FY 2017 – Genesee County Locally Administered Funds (Thousands of Dollars).

FY TEDF – C

(EDC) TOTAL 2014 $988 $988 2015 $988 $988 2016 $988 $988 2017 $988 $988

TOTAL

$3,952

PART IV. HIGHWAY FUNDING FORECAST—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. Locally-funded transportation projects that are not of regional significance are not required to be included in the TIP. This makes it difficult to determine how much local funding is being spent for roads in Genesee County. Additionally, special assessment districts and millages generally have finite lives, so an accurate figure for local transportation funding would require knowledge of what millages and special assessment districts were in force in each year of the TIP period. Given that there are 33 local units of government in Genesee County, this level of accuracy is difficult to achieve. However, a proxy measure is available. Base and Assumptions Used in Forecast Calculations of Local Highway Funds The current TIP covers fiscal years 2011 through 2014. 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 the agency uses its own money to build the project, then pays itself back in a future year

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

17

with federal funding. Because of the way AC projects are shown in the TIP, counting them exaggerates the amount of local funding actually used. When this was done, the five-year annual average of local funding totaled about $4.06 million. It’s highly unlikely that there will be increases in local funding over the four-year TIP period, so the actual programmed figure for FY 2014 was used, and then $4.06 million was used for each year through FY 2017. A total of $16.24 million in local funding is expected to be available over the four-year TIP period.

PART V. DISCUSSION OF INNOVATIVE FINANCING STRATEGIES--HIGHWAY A number of innovative financing strategies have been developed over the past two decades to help stretch limited transportation dollars. Some are purely public sector; others involve partnerships between the public and private sectors. Some of the more common strategies are discussed below. Toll Credits: This strategy allows states to count funding they earn through tolled facilities (after deducting facility expenses) to be used as “soft match,” rather than using the usual cash match for federal transportation projects. States have to demonstrate “maintenance of effort” when using toll credits—in other words, they must show that the toll money is being used for transportation purposes and that they’re not reducing their efforts to maintain the existing system by using the toll credit program. Toll credits have been an important source of funding for the State of Michigan in the past because of the three major bridge crossings and one tunnel crossing between Michigan and Ontario. Toll credits have also helped to partially mitigate the funding crisis in Michigan, since insufficient non-federal funding is available to match all of the federal funding apportioned to the state. State Infrastructure Bank (SIB): Established in a majority of states, including Michigan.4 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. Loans are available at 3 percent interest and a 25-year loan period to public entities such as political subdivisions, regional planning commissions, state agencies, transit agencies, railroads, and economic development corporations. Private and nonprofit corporations developing publicly owned facilities may also apply. In Michigan, the maximum per-project loan amount is $2 million. The Michigan SIB had a balance of approximately $12 million in FY 2011. 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. TIFIA enables states and local governments to use the borrowing power and creditworthiness of the United States to fund finance projects at far more favorable terms than they would otherwise be able to do on their own. Repayment of TIFIA funding to the federal government can be delayed for up to five years after project completion with a repayment period of up to 35 years. Interest rates are also low. The amount authorized for the TIFIA program in FY 2014 nationwide is $1.0 billion.

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

18

Bonding: Bonding is borrowing, where the borrower agrees to repay lenders the principal and interest. Interest may be fixed over the term of the bond or variable. The amount of interest a borrower will have to pay depends in large part upon its perceived credit risk; the greater the perceived chance of default, the higher the interest rate. In order to bond, a borrower must pledge a reliable revenue stream for repayment. For example, this can be the toll receipts from a new transportation project. In the case of general obligation bonds, future tax receipts are pledged. States are allowed to borrow against their federal transportation funds, within certain limitations. While bonding provides money up front for important transportation projects, it also means diminished resources in future years, as funding is diverted from projects to paying the bonds’ principal and interest. Michigan transportation law requires money for the payment of bond and other debts be taken off the top before the distribution of funds for other purposes. Therefore, the advantages of completing a project more quickly need to be carefully weighed with the disadvantages of reduced resources in future years. Advance Construct/Advance Construct Conversion: This strategy allows a community or agency to build a transportation project with its own funds (advance construct) and then be reimbursed with federal funds in a future year (advance construct conversion). Tapered match can also be programmed, where the agency is reimbursed over a period of two or more years. Advance construct allows for the construction of highway projects before federal funding is available; however, the agency must be able to build the project with its own resources and then be able to wait for federal reimbursement in a later year. 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. An example of a public-private partnership is Design/Build/Finance/Operate (DBFO). In this arrangement, the government keeps ownership of the transportation asset, but hires one or more private companies to design the facility, secure funding, construct the facility and operate it, usually for a set period of time. The private-sector firm is repaid most commonly through toll revenue generated by the new facility.5 Sometimes, as in the case of the Chicago Skyway and the Indiana Toll Road, governments grant exclusive concessions to private firms to operate and maintain already-existing facilities in exchange for an up-front payment from the firm to the government. The firm then operates, maintains, and collects tolls on the facility during the period of the concession, betting that it will collect more money in tolls then it paid out in operations costs, maintenance costs, and the initial payment to the government.

PART VI. 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, other than the construction, reconstruction,

5 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/p3/defined/design_build_finance_operate.htm.

19

repair, and rehabilitation of the infrastructure. Operations and maintenance includes 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 electrical bills for street lights and traffic signals, and other similar activities, and the personnel and direct administrative costs necessary to implement these projects. These activities are as vital to the smooth functioning of the highway system as good pavement. Federal transportation funds cannot be used for operations and maintenance of the highway system. Since the TIP only includes federally-funded transportation projects (and non-federally-funded projects of regional significance), it does not include operations and maintenance projects. While in aggregate, operations and maintenance activities are regionally significant, the individual projects do not rise to that level. However, federal regulations require an estimate of the amount of funding that will be spent operating and maintaining the federal-aid eligible highway system over the FY 2014 through FY 2017 TIP period. This section of the Financial Plan provides an estimate for Genesee County and details 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).6 About 2.63 percent of the lane miles in the state trunkline system are located in Genesee County. Assuming a roughly equal per-lane-mile operations and maintenance cost, MDOT should spend approximately $15.76 million in Genesee County on these activities in FY 2014. Since MDOT’s operations and maintenance funding comes from state motor fuel taxes (the Michigan Transportation Fund), the agreed-upon rate of increase for state funds (0.4 percent annually) was applied to derive the operations and maintenance costs for FYs 2015, 2016, and 2017. Local communities’ and agencies’ were surveyed in order to determine the costs to operate and maintain their portions of the federal-aid highway system. Responses to this survey did not provide the expected results and thus an accurate estimate of the cost to operate and maintain the federal-aid highway system was difficult to obtain. The assumption in this case is that local communities and agencies are spending 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) was applied to derive the operations and maintenance costs for FYs 2014 through 2017. MDOT and local operations and maintenance funding available was then brought together for a regional total. This is summarized in Table 4.

6 Michigan Department of Transportation. FY 2011-2014 State Transportation Improvement Program (January 2012), p. 9.

20

Table 4. Projected Available Highway Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Funding, Federal-Aid Eligible Roads, FY 2014 through FY 2017 (Millions of Dollars).

FY Estimate 2014 $49.30 2015 $49.50 2016 $49.70 2017 $49.90

TOTAL $198.40

PART VII. HIGHWAY COMMITMENTS AND PROJECTED AVAILABLE REVENUE The TIP must be fiscally constrained; that is, the cost of projects programmed in the TIP cannot exceed revenues “reasonably expected to be available” during the four-year TIP period. Funding for core programs such as NH, STP, TAU, 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 hybrid state/federal programs, Transportation Economic Development Fund Categories C and D, are also expected to be available during the FY 2014 through FY 2017 TIP 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 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 in the TIP. 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. Projects programmed in the TIP are known as commitments. As mentioned previously, commitments cannot exceed funds reasonably expected to be available. Projects must also be programmed in year of expenditure dollars, meaning that they must be adjusted for inflation to reflect the estimated purchasing power of a dollar in the year the project is expected to be built. The MTPA/Financial Work Group has decided on an annual inflation rate of 3.3 percent for projects over the TIP period. 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 0.86 percent in 2014 and then 2 percent per year thereafter, and state funds by only 0.4 percent per year over the four-year TIP period, this means that less work can be done each year with available funding. Tables 5 A & B are known as a fiscal constraint demonstration. The demonstration is provided to the Michigan Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration in order to show that the cost of planned projects does not exceed the amount of funding reasonably expected to be available over the FY 2014 through FY 2017 TIP period. This is a summary. To see the detailed table, refer to Appendix A.

21

Table 5A. Summary Fiscal Constraint Demonstration (Highway) for the FY 2014 through FY 2017 TIP – Genesee County Locally Administered Funds (Millions of Dollars).

2014 2015 2016 2017

Funding Avail Prog Avail Prog Avail Prog Avail Prog STU $4.80 $4.80 $4.89 $4.89 $4.99 $4.99 $5.09 $5.09 Flex $1.17 $1.17 $1.19 $1.19 $1.21 $1.21 $1.24 $1.24 STL $0.569 $0.569 $0.580 $0.580 $0.592 $0.592 $0.604 $0.604 NH $0.924 $0.924 $0.943 $0.943 $0.961 $0.961 $0.981 $0.981 CMAQ $2.07 $2.07 $1.57 $0.876 $1.57 $1.30 $1.57 $0.773 TEDF-C $0.988 $0.988 $0.988 $0.988 $0.988 $0.682 $0.988 $0.00 TAU $0.425 $0.425 $0.434 $0.434 $0.443 $0.443 $0.452 $0.452 TOTAL $10.95 $10.95 $10.60 $9.90 $10.75 $10.18 $10.93 $9.14 Net Balance* $0.00 $0.70 $0.57 $1.79

Table 5B. Summary Fiscal Constraint Demonstration (Highway) for the FY 2014 through FY 2017 TIP – MDOT (Millions of Dollars).

2014 2015 2016 2017

Funding Avail Prog Avail Prog Avail Prog Avail Prog STP – ST & STG $0.552 $0.552 $1.44 $1.44 $1.19 $1.19 $0.077 $0.077 NH $8.17 $8.17 $8.33 $8.33 $8.50 $8.50 $8.67 $8.67 CMAQ $0.461 $0.461 $1.36 $1.36 $1.01 $1.01 $3.18 $3.18 TOTAL $9.18 $9.18 $11.13 $11.13 $10.70 $10.70 $11.93 $11.93 Net Balance* $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

*Net Balance = Available funding less cost of programmed projects. A positive net balance means that available funding exceeds programmed project cost; a negative balance means that programmed project costs exceed available funding; and a zero net balance indicates that programmed project costs equal available funding.

PART VIII. 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. Some of the motor fuel tax collected from around the country is deposited in the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). As of the start of fiscal year 2012 (October 1, 2011), the balance of the federal Mass Transit Account was $7.32 billion.7 Federal transit funding is similar to federal highway funding in that there are several core programs where money is distributed on a formula basis and other programs that are competitive in nature. Here are brief descriptions of some of the most common federal transit programs. Section 5307: This is the largest single source of transit funding that is apportioned to Michigan. Section 5307 funds can be used for capital projects, transit planning, and projects eligible under the former Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program

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

22

(intended to link people without transportation to available jobs). Some of the funds can also be used for operating expenses, depending on the size of the transit agency. One percent of funds received are to be used by the agency to improve security at agency facilities. Distribution is based on formulas including population, population density, and operating characteristics related to transit service. Urbanized areas of 200,000 population or larger receive their own apportionment. Areas between 50,000 and 199,999 population are awarded funds by the governor from the governor’s apportionment. In Genesee County, the Flint Mass Transportation Authority receives the apportionment. Section 5310, Elderly and Persons with Disabilities: Funding for projects to benefit seniors and disabled persons when service is unavailable or insufficient and 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 under 50,000 population. Activities under the former JARC program (see Section 5307 above) in rural areas are also eligible. The state must use 15 percent of its Section 5311 funding on intercity bus transportation. The State of Michigan operates this program on a competitive basis. Section 5339, Bus and Bus Facilities: Funds will be made available under this program to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment, as well as 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. In addition to these funding sources, transit agencies can also apply for Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program funds. In Genesee County, approximately 40% of each year’s local CMAQ allocation is reserved for transit projects. Base and Assumptions Used in Forecast Calculations of Federal Transit Funds The federal portion of the transit financial forecast is based on the amount of federal funding the MTA has historically received. Based on uncertainty in past revenue projections and recent legislation changes, the MTA does not expect any increases in federal revenue. The CMAQ program funds do, however, fluctuate. This is because the MTA is allotted 40 percent of CMAQ funding over the 4-year TIP cycle rather than 40 percent each year. Table 6 shows the federal transit forecast for the FY 2014-17 TIP period. Table 6. Federal Transit Revenue Projections for the 2014-2017 TIP (Millions of Dollars).

FY Sec 5307 Sec 5310

Sec 5311

Sec 5339 Total

2014 $6.58 $0.586 $0.22 $0.75 $8.13 2015 $6.58 $0.360 $0.22 $0.77 $7.93 2016 $6.58 $0.360 $0.22 $0.77 $7.93 2017 $6.58 $0.360 $0.22 $0.77 $7.93 Total $26.32 $1.66 $0.88 $3.06 $31.93

23

PART IX. TRANSIT FINANCIAL FORECAST—STATE Sources of State Transit Funding The majority of state-level transit funding is derived 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.8 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 2011.9 Base and Assumptions Used in Forecast Calculations of State Transit Funds The base for calculations of state transit funds is the amount the MTA received in years past. The amount has not fluctuated much in recent years. The table below represents the amount of state-level funds the MTA can reasonably expect to receive for the FY 2014-2017 period. The state-level CTF distributions to the MTA are shown in Table 7. Table 7. State Transit (CTF) Revenue Projections for the 2014-2017 TIP (Millions of Dollars).

FY Sec 5307 Sec 5310 Sec 5311 Sec 5339 Total 2014 $1.83 $0.100 $0.505 $0.187 $2.62 2015 $1.83 $0.050 $0.505 $0.192 $2.58 2016 $1.83 $0.050 $0.505 $0.192 $2.58 2017 $1.83 $0.050 $0.505 $0.192 $2.58 Total $7.32 $0.23 $2.02 $0.76 $10.34

PART X. TRANSIT FINANCIAL FORECAST—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. The MTA collects fares from riders. This farebox funding totaled approximately $5.37 million in 2012. The MTA also receives funds from a dedicated transportation millage. In 2012, the MTA received $7.73 million from the millage. Base and Assumptions Used in Forecast Calculations of Local Transit Funds The base amounts for farebox, general fund transfers, and millages are derived from the amount MTA received from these sources in FY 2012. These amounts form the basis of Tables 8 A & B. Since the MTA did not project any increases, it was assumed that the amount of local funding would remain stable throughout the FY 2014-17 TIP period. Table 8A represents the total amount of Local Transit Revenue from fare box projections and millage projections, while Table 8B represents the amount of Local Transit Revenue used for the FY 2014-2017 TIP.

8 Hamilton, William E. Act 51 Primer (House Fiscal Agency, February 2007), p. 4. 9 MDOT Report 139 for 2011, Schedule A.

24

Table 8A. Local Transit Revenue Projections (Millions of Dollars). FY Amount

2014 $13.09 2015 $13.09 2016 $13.09 2017 $13.09 Total: $52.36

Table 8B. Local Transit Revenue Projections for the FY2014-2017 TIP (Millions of Dollars).

FY Amount 2014 $0.997 2015 $0.976 2016 $0.976 2017 $0.976 Total: $3.93

PART XI. DISCUSSION OF INNOVATIVE FINANCING STRATEGIES--TRANSIT

Sources of funding for transit are not limited to the federal, state, and local sources previously mentioned. As with highway funding, there are alternative sources of funding that can be utilized to operate transit service. Bonds can be issued (see discussion of bonds in the “Innovative Financing Strategies—Highway” section). The federal government also allows the use of toll credits to match federal funds. Toll credits are earned on tolled facilities. Regulations allow for the use of toll revenues (after facility operating expenses) to be used as “soft match” for transit projects. Soft match means that actual money does not have to be provided—the toll revenues are used as a “credit” against the match. This allows the actual toll funds to be used on other parts of the transportation system, thus stretching the resources available to maintain the system.10

PART XII. 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 and other 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 the FY 2011-2014 TIP. The four-year average of the FY 2014-2017 TIP split is 52 percent capital and 48 percent operations for the MTA. It is assumed that this basic split will continue for the FY 2014-FY 2017 TIP period. It is also assumed that the MTA is spending all available capital and operations funding, so that the amount expended on these items is roughly equal to

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

25

the amount available. Table 9 shows the amounts estimated to be available for transit capital and operations during the FY 2014-FY 2017 TIP period. Table 9. Anticipated Amounts to be Expended on Transit Capital and Transit Operations for the 2014-2017 TIP (Millions of Dollars).

FY Capital Operations Total 2014 $11.74 $10.84 $22.58 2015 $11.82 $10.91 $22.73 2016 $11.68 $10.78 $22.46 2017 $11.81 $10.89 $22.70 Total: $47.05 $43.22 $90.27

PART XIII. TRANSIT COMMITMENTS AND PROJECTED AVAILABLE REVENUE

The TIP must be fiscally constrained; that is, the cost of projects programmed in the TIP cannot exceed revenues “reasonably expected to be available” during the four-year TIP period. Funding for core programs such as Section 5307, Section 5339, Section 5310, and Section 5311 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 state’s Comprehensive Transportation Fund (CTF), and local sources of revenue such as farebox, general fund transfers, and millages, are also expected to be available during the FY 2014 through FY 2017 TIP 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 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 in the TIP. 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. Projects programmed in the TIP are known as commitments. As discussed previously, commitments cannot exceed funds reasonably expected to be available. Projects must also be programmed in year of expenditure dollars, meaning that they must be adjusted for inflation to reflect the expected purchasing power of a dollar in the year the project is expected to be built. The MTPA/Financial Work Group has decided on an annual inflation rate of 3.3 percent for projects over the TIP period. 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 10 shows the summary financial constraint demonstration for transit. The demonstration is provided to the Michigan Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration in order to show that the cost of planned projects does not exceed the amount of funding reasonably expected

26

to be available over the FY 2014 through FY 2017 TIP period. To see the detailed fiscal constraint demonstration, refer to Appendix B. Table 10. Summary Fiscal Constraint Demonstration (Transit) for the FY 2014 through FY 2017 TIP (Millions of Dollars).

FY Available Federal

Programmed Federal

Available State

Programmed State

Available Local

Programmed Local

2014 $8.13 $8.13 $2.62 $2.62 $0.997 $0.997 2015 $7.93 $7.93 $2.58 $2.58 $0.976 $0.976 2016 $7.93 $7.93 $2.58 $2.58 $0.976 $0.976 2017 $7.93 $7.93 $2.25 $2.58 $0.976 $0.976 Total $34.74 $31.18 $10.34 $10.34 $3.93 $3.93

PART XIV. ANALYSIS OF FUNDING AND NEEDS

While the previous tables have shown fiscal constraint; i.e., that programmed funds do not exceed available revenues, the fact remains that the needs of the transportation system substantially outweigh the funding available to address them. A brief discussion of highway funding illustrates the problem. On a statewide basis, a study headed by Michigan Rep. Rick Olson found that approximately $1.4 billion was needed annually through 2015 just to maintain the existing highway system. This could be expected to increase in future years to approximately $2.6 billion annually by 2023.11 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. Any new facilities would, of course, increase the costs of the system to higher levels. The Genesee County 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan also analyzed this issue and concluded that it would take three times as much funding as Genesee County currently receives to realize even a slight improvement in the overall condition of the road network. The way the road network is currently funded there is not enough funding to maintain the road network at reasonable level let alone improve the condition. The result is that our road network continues to deteriorate. This is a well-known issue that requires action at the state and federal legislative levels. Whether the solution involves restructuring the existing tax formulas for roads or new tax or revenue sources, it is clear more funding is needed for our road systems.

11 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.

27

Section 3: Public Participation

28

Public Participation Process PUBLIC PARTICIPATION An intensive public involvement process was undertaken in the development of the 2014-2017 Genesee County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). In the following Public Involvement Section, staff has documented public involvement activities for the development of the TIP. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAILING LIST GCMPC maintains an extensive public participation mailing list that is used to provide information and notice to the public on transportation planning activities. The list includes many representatives of the following: neighborhood block groups, senior centers, area churches, chambers of commerce, government agencies and local transportation providers (including limousine, taxi cab, trucking, rail and airports), labor unions, Veterans of Foreign Wars groups, academic institutions, schools and public libraries, area media (including newspapers, radio and television stations) and bilingual organizations. This list is continually maintained and updated regularly. A complete mailing list of the 1,418 entries (as of April 2013) is maintained at the GCMPC office. A category breakdown of the mailing list indicates the following percentages: 6% of the list represents community organizations (81) 24% of the list represents concerned citizens (337) 1% of the list represents organizations for the disabled (3) 15% of the list represents educational organizations (207) 9% of the list represents elected officials (125) 11% of the list represents governmental organizations (153) 15% of the list represents neighborhood associations (210) 11% of the list represents other businesses (163) 5% of the list represents religious organizations (84) 2% of the list represents senior citizen organizations (36) 1% of the list represents transportation-related businesses (19) PUBLIC OUTREACH

GCMPC utilized a number of outreach methods including public outreach events to enable the public to participate in the Genesee County 2014-2017 TIP update process. These methods were designed to generate an increase in public participation during the update. At each event, staff sought input and recommendations from the public.

• In December of 2012, GCMPC staff began the TIP development process with the announcement of the 2014-2017 TIP “Call for Projects”. A public notice appeared in the Flint Journal to announce that GCMPC was accepting applications for the 2014-2017 TIP. Notifications similar to the public notice were mailed to our entire public participation mailing list, as well as every local unit of government. Notifications were also sent to the Genesee County Road Commission, the Mass Transportation Authority, and the Michigan Department

29

of Transportation. A copy of the Call for Projects announcement also appeared on the GCMPC website, www.gcmpc.org.

• In early April of 2013, GCMPC performed a mass mailing along the proposed

project corridors to ensure notification to those citizens who would be most directly impacted by the proposed transportation projects. A total of 2,923 flyers were direct mailed to households along all proposed project corridors. Each notification listed the project, project limits, and the type of improvement to be performed. These notifications also served as an invitation for public input as each public event’s date, time, and location were included on the flyers. A similar flyer was sent out to 1,372 entities on our public involvement mailing list, bringing the total number flyers mailed to 4,295. Information was also placed on our web site promoting the public input sessions.

• In April of 2013, three public input sessions

were organized. The three events were held in strategic locations throughout Genesee County to offer the most convenient opportunity for local citizens to communicate with GCMPC regarding the proposed transportation projects. GCMPC staff and local road agencies were available to answer questions and to explain projects. Staff used visualization techniques as identified in our Public Participation Plan (PPP) such as maps and photographs to help explain projects. Staff provided comment sheets to session attendees, and received comments via e-mail and telephone. The first event was held at the Mass Transportation Authority’s Bus Transfer Center in downtown Flint, the second at the Fenton Township Offices in the southern end of the county, and the last at the Clio Area Senior Center in the northern end of the county.

• A thirty-day public comment period was held for the draft 2014-2017 Genesee County Transportation Improvement Program from May 6, 2013 through June 5, 2013. Prior to this 30-day public comment period, the draft document was made available to all county road agencies, the Mass Transportation Authority, all local units of government, and on the GCMPC website. In addition, the draft TIP was available at the GCMPC office with staff to respond directly to any public concerns or questions. Notices of the public comment period were placed in the Flint Journal newspaper and posted on the GCMPC website. Comments were received via phone, fax or e-mail.

• A Public Hearing was held on June 19, 2013 at the Genesee County

Administration Building during the regularly scheduled Metropolitan Alliance meeting. All events were also listed on the GCMPC website, www.gcmpc.org.

30

CONSULTATION In an attempt to receive comments on particular projects and to see how our TIP may affect the plans that have been developed by other agencies, staff consulted with 182 agencies that are responsible for environmental protection, historic preservation, natural resource management, transportation services, economic development, human services and land use planning. Letters were mailed to these agencies with a list of proposed transportation projects for their review. A copy of the letter and the list of agencies are included in the appendix of this document. One agency responded with a comment, which was addressed in a timely manner and taken into consideration during TIP development. A copy of the comment is included in this document’s appendix.

31

Section 4: Environmental Justice

32

Environmental Justice

The Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission (GCMPC) conducted an Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis for the proposed projects in the 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program. The analysis undertaken by GCMPC supports principles and requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 and the 1997 U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Order to Address Environmental Justice. In order to consider Title VI and E.O.12898, and also achieve environmental justice in the planning and construction of this project, the analysis was based on Environmental Justice Guidelines developed by the U.S. DOT, Federal Highway (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administrations (FTA). To meet this goal, staff used the following three environmental justice principals throughout the development of the Transportation Improvement Program.

• To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economical effects, on minority populations and low-income populations.

• To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities.

• To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations.

The following process will analyze whether the GCMPC has addressed the EJ principles in the 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program:

1. Genesee County average percentages were developed for the populations identified in E.O. 12898 as "persons belonging to any of the following groups: American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian American, Black/African American, Hispanic of any origin and persons whose income is at or below poverty guidelines.

2. Maps showing Genesee County areas where these identified populations are concentrated were developed based on 2010 Census Block Group level data for all categories except “Persons of Low Income”. For this identified population, American Community Survey (ACS) 2007-2011 Census Tract Data was used.

3. These areas of concentration in which the percentage of identified persons exceeds the county average were determined to be EJ Zones.

4. The EJ Zones were related to the location of the projects contained within the TIP for further analysis of the proposed projects to ensure that the proposed projects deliver equitable levels of service to all persons and to determine any disproportionate impacts to identified populations.

5. An intensive public involvement effort was designed to eliminate participation barriers and engage minority and low-income persons in the decision making process for the proposed projects.

6. Conclusions were drawn from the EJ analysis of the proposed projects.

33

Development of Genesee County "Average Percentages" It is important to identify patterns of minority and low-income populations so that their needs can be identified and addressed, and that benefits and burdens of transportation investments can be fairly distributed. In order to determine the EJ effects of any federal-aid transportation project, it is necessary to identify areas within Genesee County in which the levels of identified population groups meet or surpass the average levels for the county. Calculating the average number of persons in the identified groups and applying that percentage to each Census Block Group within the county established these areas. The average percentages are based on information from the U.S. Bureau of the Census – 2010 Block Group level data. The total population of Genesee County in 2010 was 425,790. This analysis considered 414,774 persons (97.4%) of the total who declared themselves to be of one race in the 2010 Census. Percentages for American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, and Black/African American of one race were taken of the total of one race. Persons of Hispanic origin are of any race, and therefore the county average is derived from the total Genesee County population.

2010 Census Identified Population Groups Population County Average

American Indian/Alaskan Native 2,252 0.5% Asian 3,879 0.9% Black/African American 88,127 20.7% Hispanic Origin 12,983 3.1% Persons Living below the Poverty Level (ACS 2007-2011 Census Tract Data)

n/a

18.8%

34

Targeted Groups Maps based on 2010 Census information were developed for each of the identified population groups. Information relative to each map is included. Ranges were set to distinguish areas below and above the county average. Location of American Indian/Alaskan Native Population The map on the following page illustrates Genesee County areas where the concentration of American Indian/Alaskan Native persons within each Block Group is greater than the Genesee County average percentage. In 2010, there were 2,252 persons (0.5% of the Total of One Race Population) residing in Genesee County that indicated themselves to be of the American Indian/Alaskan Native race.

35

36

Location of Asian Populations The following map illustrates Genesee County areas where the concentration of Asian American persons within each Block Group is greater than the Genesee County average. In 2010, there were 3,879 persons (0.9% of the Total of One Race Population) residing in Genesee County that indicated themselves to be of the Asian race.

37

Location of Black/African American Populations The following map illustrates Genesee County areas where the concentration of Black/African American persons within each Block Group is greater than the Genesee County average percentage. In 2010, there were 88,127 persons (20.7% of the Total of One Race Population) residing in Genesee County that indicated themselves to be of the Black/African American race.

38

Location of Hispanic (of any race) Populations The following map illustrates Genesee County areas where the concentration of Hispanic Origin (of any race) persons within each Block Group is greater than the Genesee County average. In 2010, there were 12,983 persons (3.1% of the Total Population) residing in Genesee County that indicated themselves to be of Hispanic Origin of any race.

39

Location of Persons with Low Income American Community Survey 2007-2011 Census Tract Data for persons residing in Genesee County, whose income during that time period was below the poverty level, is illustrated on this map. Areas of concentration occur for this group where the number of persons below the poverty level in a Census Tract is greater than the Genesee County average percentage of 18.8%.

40

Environmental Justice Zones An EJ Zone was established wherever the percentages of identified populations per each Census Block Group (or Census Tract for Persons of Low Income) met or exceeded the average percentage for Genesee County. Of the total 649 square miles that make up Genesee County, there are 429 square miles (66%) identified as EJ Zones. Each EJ Zone is depicted in yellow in the map on the following page. Staff utilized this information in order to assess the significance of transportation projects on identified population groups.

41

42

GCMPC staff identified environmental justice areas and the projects proposed for those areas. Any property parcel that touches the proposed roadway improvement within an Environmental Justice area is highlighted through the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. From the data, a mailing list is generated and GCMPC staff sends notices to all property owners along the proposed corridors notifying them of the potential project. Public meetings are also held for the purpose of providing citizens the opportunity to learn more about the transportation planning process as a whole. This level of analysis and notification helps to insure that neighborhoods are informed of projects, have the ability to provide input into the transportation planning process, and are minimally impacted by future transportation improvements. TIP Projects The 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program contains 156 projects that are located within an EJ Zone. For purposes of this analysis, staff makes the assumption that the improvement of the condition of the transportation system through these types of transportation projects also is a direct improvement to the overall well-being of the community. Projects which are an expansion of the transportation system may have potential adverse impacts to the community through the displacement or relocation of individuals, economic hardship or losing a sense of community. There are a total of five expansion projects, all of which are located in an EJ Zone. Of these five expansion projects, four will have a minor impact on the community. These projects will improve travel time, safety and access for the residents within the EJ zone and provide a measure of congestion relief. However, the Dort Highway Extension Project could potentially result in displacement of residents. Residents often find relocation difficult, especially if persons in the home are elderly, have disabilities, depend upon local networks for social support, or have lived in the home for many years. The Dort Highway Extension Project also potentially impacts near-by wetlands. This project will continue to be monitored as the project develops through the preliminary engineering and right-of-way acquisition phases. All federal regulations related to the potential displacement of residents and environmental impacts will be followed to minimize the potential impacts. Summary GMCPC's analysis concludes that the Transportation Improvement Program meets Environmental Justice principles of Title VI, and E.O. 12898 and the U.S. DOT Order by demonstrating the following: 1. To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health

and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations.

• The public participation process for the proposed projects has ascertained that

persons residing within Genesee County have indicated there to be no adverse effects that will result from the proposed projects, with the exception of the Dort Highway Extension Project. This project generated a great deal of public

43

controversy due to potential displacement of residents and concerns about near-by wetlands.

• Economic conditions will not be adversely impacted, no existing businesses must relocate, and access to jobs will not be adversely affected within Genesee County.

• The proposed projects do not adversely affect mobility and access for persons

residing in Genesee County to businesses, public services and other area facilities.

2. To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities.

• This was accomplished through a public outreach process of mailing notification cards to each of the households surrounding the proposed projects as well as mailing notification cards to all of the individuals and groups on our Public Participation Mailing List.

• In addition, a public announcement on the proposed projects and a

notification of the Public Hearing were published in the Flint Journal newspaper. These same notices were published on the GCMPC's website: www.gcmpc.org with a dedicated e-mail address for staff to receive and respond to any and all public comments on the proposed projects.

• Three public input sessions for the proposed projects were held throughout

Genesee County: one in north Genesee County; one in south Genesee County; and one in the City of Flint. Staff felt that these strategic locations provided an open forum that would be well received and attended by persons interested in the proposed projects.

• Staff was available during the public input sessions to provide information, take

comments, answer questions, and to respond to any public concerns on the proposed projects.

3. To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits

by minority and low-income populations.

• This is achieved by maintaining system-wide policies that are the same for every person in Genesee County.

• Genesee County "Your Ride" passengers have access to direct travel services

and links to any destination including work, shopping, and recreational trips.

• The proposed transportation improvement projects are an economic investment in an area where identified populations are concentrated.

44

Conclusions This analysis concludes that there will be no disproportionately high or adverse impacts to any of those persons identified in Executive Order 12898 of 1994. In addition, this analysis concludes that the proposed projects have not excluded any person from participation in, nor does it deny or delay benefits to, or discriminate against any person or group of persons in Genesee County.

45

Section 5: Air Quality Analysis

46

AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

Transportation Improvement Program 2014-2017 On May 12, 2012 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the 1997 8-hour 0.080 ppm Ozone standard for the purposes of regional transportation conformity. On May 21, 2012, the USEPA issued designations for the new 2008 8-hour 0.075 ppm Ozone standard. Flint-Genesee County is designated attainment under the 2008 standard. Effective July 21, 2013, (as a result of both the partial revocation of the 0.080 Ozone standard, and the designation of Flint-Genesee County as attainment for the 0.075 standard), the Flint-Genesee County attainment/maintenance area is no longer required to demonstrate regional transportation conformity of Long Range Plans or Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs) until EPA publishes a notice designating the area in nonattainment. Unless a designation to nonattainment for the 2008 standard occurs on or before July 20, 2013, the requirement to demonstrate regional transportation conformity will end until a designation of nonattainment under a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is published for the area.

47

Section 6: 2014-2017 Project List (Additional large print project list attached)

48

DraftFY 2014‐2017 Flint ‐ Genesee County Transportation Improvement Program

Fiscal Year County

Respon-sible

Agency Project Name Limits Length Primary Work Type Project Description PhaseAdvance

Construct

Federal Cost

($1000s)

Federal Fund

Source

State Cost

($1000s)

State Fund

Source

Local Cost

($1000s)

Local Fund

Source

Total Phase Cost

($1000s)MDOT

Job No.Local ID

No.

MPO/ Rural Action Date

Amend-ment Type

Air Quality Comments

2014 Genesee City of Burton Bristol Road Over Thread Creek Bridge - otherBridge Preventative Maintenance

CON 318 BHT 60 M 20 CITY 398 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee City of Burton Belsay RoadCourt Street to Davison Road

0.8 Reconstruct Reconstruct PE 269 STU 67 CITY 336 06/19/13 ExemptAdmin Mod Change in Year and Cost 3/28/2013

2014 Genesee City of Burton Lapeer RoadBelsay Road to Vassar Road

1 Resurface Resurface CON 1,209 STU 302 CITY 1,511 06/19/13 ExemptFunding Sources: Flex - $1,165,714; STU - $43,479

2014 GeneseeCity of Fenton

South Leroy Street

Elizabeth Street to Caroline Street

0.3 Reconstruct Road Reconstruction CON 1,140 STU 285 CITY 1,425 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee City of FlintGenesee Valley Trail

Chevrolet Avenue to M-21

1.5 MiscellaneousInstall 10ft wide non-motorized pathway

CON 426 TAU 154 CITY 580 115005 06/19/13 Exempt

Admin Mod Change in Year and funding source 1/11/2012, Admin Mod Change in Year-3/12/13

2014 Genesee City of FlintPierson Road - Phase II

Harvard St to Dort Highway

Traffic ops/safetyLED and wireless traffic signal upgrades at 6 of 12 intersections

PE 46 CMG 46 114111 06/19/13 Exempt

5/6/11 - Admin Mod - phased project, Phase I is in 2012, 5/25/11 - break out PE, 6/7/11 - typographical correction, 12/20/11-change cost. 4/4/12 Technial correction scope limits fine but did not reflect correct # Intersections. 2/27/13-Change in Year and Cost.

2014 Genesee City of FlintPierson Road - Phase II

Harvard St to Dort Highway

Traffic ops/safetyLED and wireless traffic signal upgrades at 6 of 12 intersections

CON 415 CMG 415 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 GeneseeCity of Grand Blanc

Perry Road Pedestrian Bridge

Elmwood Drive east to existing sidewalk

MiscellaneousSix foot wide sidewalk extending 1200 ft and 14 ft bridge

CON 280 CM 70 CITY 351 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 GeneseeCity of Montrose

North Saginaw St - PE

State Street (M-57) to North City Limits

0.55 Resurface Road Resurfacing PE 13 STL 3 CITY 17 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 GeneseeCity of Montrose

North Saginaw St - CON

State Street (M-57) to North City Limits

0.55 Resurface Road Resurfacing CON 152 STL 38 CITY 190 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 GeneseeCity of Swartz Creek

Miller Road - PEMorrish Road to Elms Road

1.2 Resurface Road Resurfacing PE 72 STU 18 CITY 89 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 GeneseeCity of Swartz Creek

Miller Road - PETallmadge Court to Dye Road

1.2 Resurface Road Resurfacing PE 72 STU 18 CITY 90 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee GCMPCRideshare Program

Genesee & Lapeer Counties

MiscellaneousFree Computerized Carpool and Vanpool Program

CON 79 CMG 79 116714 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee GCRC Richfield Road Genesee to Belsay 4.16 Resurface Resurface CON 896 STU 224 CNTY 1,119 06/19/13 ExemptAdmin Mod Change in Year 5/16/2012

49

DraftFY 2014‐2017 Flint ‐ Genesee County Transportation Improvement Program

Fiscal Year County

Respon-sible

Agency Project Name Limits Length Primary Work Type Project Description PhaseAdvance

Construct

Federal Cost

($1000s)

Federal Fund

Source

State Cost

($1000s)

State Fund

Source

Local Cost

($1000s)

Local Fund

Source

Total Phase Cost

($1000s)MDOT

Job No.Local ID

No.

MPO/ Rural Action Date

Amend-ment Type

Air Quality Comments

2014 Genesee GCRC Cole RoadOver Shiawassee River

Bridge restore & rehabilitate

Bridge Rehabilitation CON 312 BHO 59 M 20 CNTY 390 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee GCRCDort Highway Extension

I-75 at Dort Highway South to Baldwin Road

1.7New route/structure (capacity increase)

Construction of a 4-lane highway

ROW 426 EDC 107 CNTY 533 06/19/13 Exempt

Administrative Mod 8/24/2012 Split out PE and will AC ROW in 2013 ($492,000 EDC State funds) with ACC in 2014. Administrative Mod 3/29/2012 Change in Year

2014 Genesee GCRC Irish RoadTeachout to Mt Morris

0.753 Restore & rehabilitate Road Rehabilitation CON 404 STL 101 CNTY 505 06/19/13 ExemptAdmin Mod 6/1/11: change fund code per Brandon Wilcox

2014 Genesee GCRC Baldwin Road Fenton to Graytrax 1.704 Resurface Resurface CON 387 STU 97 CNTY 484 06/19/13 Exempt2014 Genesee GCRC Elms Road Pierson to Carpenter 2.498 Resurface Resurface CON 353 STU 88 CNTY 441 06/19/13 Exempt2014 Genesee GCRC Richfield Road Irish to Gale 4.02 Resurface Resurface CON 856 STU 214 CNTY 1,069 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee GCRC Saginaw Street Hill to Maple 6.825 Resurface Road Resurfacing CON 1,452 NH 363 CNTY 1,816 06/19/13 ExemptFunding Sources: NH - $924,035; STU - $528,448

2014 Genesee GCRCDort Highway Extension

I-75 at Dort Highway South to Baldwin Road

1.7New route/structure (capacity increase)

Construction of a 4-lane highway

PE 700 EDC 175 CNTY 875 115503 06/19/13 Exempt

Administrative Mod 8/24/2012 Split off PE. AC 2013 with 2014 ACC.

2014 Genesee GCRCMcCumsey Road

McCumsey Road culvert crossing Pine Run Creek in Thetford Township

Traffic ops/safety McCumsey Road CON 62 STH 0 7 OLF 69 06/19/13 Exempt3/20/13-New Safety Improvement Project

2014 Genesee GCRCMorrish Road/Calkins Road

Morrish Road @ Calkins Road in Clayton Township

Traffic ops/safetyMorrish Road/Calkins Road

CON 21 STH 0 0 21 06/19/13 Exempt3/20/13-New Safety Improvement Project

2014 Genesee GCRCSeymour Road/Grand Blanc Road

Seymour Road @ Grand Blanc Road in Gaines Township

Traffic ops/safetySeymour Road/Grand Blanc Road

CON 35 STH 0 0 35 06/19/13 Exempt3/20/13-New Safety Improvement Project

2014 Genesee GCRCLewis Road/Wilson Road

Lewis Road @ Wilson Road

Traffic ops/safety Lewis Road/Wilson Road CON 31 STH 0 0 31 06/19/13 Exempt3/20/13-New Safety Improvement Project

2014 Genesee GCRC Baldwin Road

Baldwin Road culvert crossing Atherton Drain from Duffield Road to VanVleet Road in Gaines Township

Traffic ops/safety Baldwin Road CON 86 STH 0 10 OLF 96 06/19/13 Exempt3/20/13-New Safety Improvement Project

2014 Genesee GCRCLinden Road and Elms Road

Two Structures over Flint River

Bridge - otherBridge Preventative Maintenance

CON 312 BHT 59 M 20 CNTY 390 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee GCRCLapeer Road at Charter Oaks Drive

Lapeer Road at Charter Oaks Drive

Traffic ops/safetyConstruction of a new passing flare

CON 270 STH 30 CNTY 300 119593 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MDOT I-69 from I-475 to Center Road

2.32 Roadside facilityCombination Freeway Lighting

CON 3,260 IM 362 M 0 3,622 87660 06/19/13 Exempt

50

DraftFY 2014‐2017 Flint ‐ Genesee County Transportation Improvement Program

Fiscal Year County

Respon-sible

Agency Project Name Limits Length Primary Work Type Project Description PhaseAdvance

Construct

Federal Cost

($1000s)

Federal Fund

Source

State Cost

($1000s)

State Fund

Source

Local Cost

($1000s)

Local Fund

Source

Total Phase Cost

($1000s)MDOT

Job No.Local ID

No.

MPO/ Rural Action Date

Amend-ment Type

Air Quality Comments

2014 Genesee MDOT I-75Oakland COL to I-475 N Junction

19.259 Resurface Mill & HMA Overlay CON 11,312 IM 1,257 M 0 12,569 110398 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MDOT I-69 M-54 to Center Road 1.002 Reconstruct Bituminous Reconstruction CON 13,544 IM 1,505 M 0 15,049 110535 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MDOT M-15Colonial Blvd to Potter Rd

0.61 Traffic ops/safety

Add Dedicated Center Left Turn Lane. The C Phase CMAQ grant number is 11132.

CON 454 CM 113 M 0 567 113505 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MDOT I-69I-69 over CSX RR and Averill Ave

0.639 Restore & rehabilitateWidening with Paint and Epoxy Ovly

CON 5,099 IM 567 M 0 5,666 115879 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MDOT I-69I-69 over M-54 (Dort Hwy) and Center Rd

0.36 Restore & rehabilitateWidening, PCI Beam Repair, Substructure Repair

CON 6,072 BHI 590 M 84 CITY 6,747 116194 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MDOT I-75 GTW RR over I-75 0.193 Bridge - other Heat Straightening (HLH) CON 529 IM 59 M 0 588 113236 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MDOT I-75Four I-75 Bridges in Genesee County

1.234 Bridge - otherEpoxy Overlay, Deck Patching

CON 1,720 BHI 191 M 0 1,911 115876 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MDOT M-15Davison Rd to NCL of Davison

0.5 Traffic ops/safety Add Center Left Turn Lane CON 467 HSIP 52 M 0 519 113003 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MDOT I-69Safety upgrade of signals

0 Traffic ops/safety Safety upgrade of signals CON 552 STG 0 0 552 118063 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MDOT I-69E of Ballenger Hwy to W of Fenton Rd

1.906 Roadside facility Replace Freeway Lighting PE 344 IM 38 M 0 383 116474 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MDOT I-475Carpenter Road to Saginaw Street

1.788 Restore & rehabilitate Rubbilize and Resurface PE 749 IM 83 M 832 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MDOT M-57from Linden Road to M-54

2.999 Traffic ops/safetyInstall GPS clocks at 7 signals

CON 7 CM 2 M 8 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MTAEquipment-Computer

Genesee CountyTransit communication equipment

Purchase Computer Hardware

T-Cap 157 5307 39 M 196 06/19/13 Exempt2/27/13-Revised buget

2014 Genesee MTAEquipment-Computer

Genesee CountyTransit communication equipment

Purchase Computer Software

T-Cap 528 5307 132 M 660 06/19/13 Exempt2/27/13-Revised buget

2014 Genesee MTAEquipment-Parts

Genesee CountyTransit maintenance equipment and parts

Purchase Capital maintenance Items

T-Cap 684 5307 171 M 855 06/19/13 Exempt2/27/13-Revised buget

2014 Genesee MTAEquipment-Shop

Genesee CountyTransit maintenance equipment and parts

Purchase Shop Equipment T-Cap 154 5307 39 M 193 06/19/13 Exempt2/27/13-Revised buget

2014 Genesee MTA Facility Rehab Genesee County Transit facility Rehab/Renovate Facilities T-Cap 196 5307 49 M 245 06/19/13 Exempt2/27/13-Revised buget

2014 Genesee MTA ITS Genesee CountyTransit communication equipment

Fare Recovery System T-Cap 160 5307 40 M 200 06/19/13 Exempt2/27/13-Revised buget

2014 Genesee MTA Job Access Genesee County Transit operationsJob Access Reverse Commute

T-Cap 270 5307 270 M 540 06/19/13 Exempt2/27/13-Revised buget and funding source

2014 Genesee MTA Operations Genesee County Transit operations Operating Assistance T-Ops 223 5311 505 M 764 TRAL 1,492 06/19/13 Exempt2/27/13-Revised buget

2014 Genesee MTA Operations Genesee County Transit operations Preventative Maintenance T-Ops 2,528 5307 632 M 3,160 06/19/13 Exempt2/27/13-Revised buget

51

DraftFY 2014‐2017 Flint ‐ Genesee County Transportation Improvement Program

Fiscal Year County

Respon-sible

Agency Project Name Limits Length Primary Work Type Project Description PhaseAdvance

Construct

Federal Cost

($1000s)

Federal Fund

Source

State Cost

($1000s)

State Fund

Source

Local Cost

($1000s)

Local Fund

Source

Total Phase Cost

($1000s)MDOT

Job No.Local ID

No.

MPO/ Rural Action Date

Amend-ment Type

Air Quality Comments

2014 Genesee MTA Transit Facility Genesee County Transit facility Lease Service Centers T-Cap 4 5307 1 M 0 5 06/19/13 Exempt2/27/13-Revised buget

2014 Genesee MTA Transit Facility Genesee County Transit facilityBus Shelter and Signage Enhancement

T-Cap 66 5307 17 M 0 83 06/19/13 Exempt2/27/13-Revised buget

2014 Genesee MTA Transit Facility Genesee County Transit facility Security T-Cap 66 5307 17 M 0 83 06/19/13 Exempt2/27/13-Revised buget

2014 Genesee MTA Transit Facility Genesee County Transit facilityConstruct Davison Service Center

T-Cap 1,662 5307 416 M 0 2,078 06/19/13 Exempt2/27/13-Revised buget and funding source

2014 Genesee MTA

Modification of facilities and fueling stations for CNG

Genesee County Transit facilityPurchase 1 CNG Over -the-road Coaches

T-Cap 500 CMG 500 06/19/13 ExemptAdmin Mod Broke out one Bus for 2014-3/12/13

2014 Genesee MTA Vehicles Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Purchase 9 new LPG vehicles

T-Cap 731 CM 183 OLF 914 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 Genesee MTA Vehicles Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Purchase Service Vehicles T-Cap 52 5307 13 M 0 65 06/19/13 Exempt 2/27/13-New Project

2014 Genesee MTAOperating Assistance

Genesee County Transit operations Operating Assistance T-Ops 50 5307 0 50 OLF 100 06/19/13 Exempt 2/27/13-New Project

2014 Genesee MTA

Enhanced Service to Seniors and Persons with Disabilities

Genesee County Transit operationsEnhanced Service to Seniors and Persons with Disabilities

T-Ops 184 5310 0 184 OLF 367 06/19/13 Exempt 2/27/13-New Project

2014 Genesee MTAADA Vehicle equipment

Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

ADA Vehicle equipment T-Cap 74 5310 19 M 0 93 06/19/13 Exempt 2/27/13-New Project

2014 Genesee MTA Vehicle Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Replacement vehicles for nonprofit agencies

T-Cap 103 5310 26 M 0 128 06/19/13 Exempt 2/27/13-New Project

2014 Genesee MTA Facility Genesee County Transit facilityConstruct Davison Service Center

T-Cap 748 5339 187 M 0 935 06/19/13 Exempt 2/27/13-New Project

2014 GeneseeVillage of Goodrich

Erie StreetPontiac Street to Kearsley Creek

0.53 Resurface Resurface CON 181 STU 45 VLG 227 06/19/13 ExemptAdmin Mod 6/1/11: change fund code per Brandon Wilcox

2014 GeneseeVillage of Goodrich

East Hegel Road Pathway

South side of East Hegel Rd between State St and Fox Hollow Lane

MiscellaneousProposed 5 ft wide pathway 1,270 feet in length

CON 20 CM 5 VLG 25 06/19/13 Exempt

2014 GeneseeVocational Independence Program

Replacement Vehicle

Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Purchase 2 Replacement Buses

T-Cap 226 5310 56 M 0 282 06/19/13 Exempt3/20/13-Vehicle Purchase

2015 Genesee City of BurtonBelsay Road - CON

Court Street to Davison Road

0.8 Reconstruct Road Reconstruction CON 3,056 STU 764 CITY 3,820 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 GeneseeCity of Fenton

Silver Lake Road

over Shiawassee River

0 Bridge replacement Bridge Replacement CON 1,757 BHT 329 M 110 OLF 2,196 118494 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee City of Flint Barton Street over Thread Creek 0 Bridge - other Preventative Maintenance CON 176 BHO 33 M 11 OLF 221 118498 06/19/13 Exempt

52

DraftFY 2014‐2017 Flint ‐ Genesee County Transportation Improvement Program

Fiscal Year County

Respon-sible

Agency Project Name Limits Length Primary Work Type Project Description PhaseAdvance

Construct

Federal Cost

($1000s)

Federal Fund

Source

State Cost

($1000s)

State Fund

Source

Local Cost

($1000s)

Local Fund

Source

Total Phase Cost

($1000s)MDOT

Job No.Local ID

No.

MPO/ Rural Action Date

Amend-ment Type

Air Quality Comments

2015 GeneseeCity of Mt. Morris

Saginaw Street - PE

South City Limits to North City Limits

0.5 Resurface Road Resurfacing PE 101 STU 25 CITY 126 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 GeneseeCity of Swartz Creek

Miller Road - CON

Morrish Road to Elms Road

1.2 Resurface Road Resurfacing CON 814 STU 204 CITY 1,018 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 GeneseeCity of Swartz Creek

Miller Road - CON

Tallmadge Court to Dye Road

1.2 Resurface Road Resurfacing CON 818 STU 204 CITY 1,022 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee GCMPCRideshare Program

Genesee and Lapeer Counties

MiscellaneousFree Computerized Carpool and Vanpool Program

CON 79 CMG 79 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee GCRC Wilson RoadWilson Road over Brent Run

0.00 Restore & rehabilitate Rehabilitation CON 476 BHO 89 M 30 OLF 596 118514 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee GCRC Mt. Morris Road over Flint River 0 Bridge - other Preventative Maintenance CON 884 BHT 166 M 55 OLF 1,106 118515 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee GCRCBallenger Highway

over Swartz Creek 0 Bridge replacement Replacement CON 1,511 BRT 283 M 94 OLF 1,889 118516 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee GCRC Pierson Road Linden Road to I-75 0.52 Restore & rehabilitate Road Rehabilitation CON 952 NH 238 CNTY 1,190 06/19/13 ExemptFunding Sources: NH - $942,516; STU - $9,523

2015 Genesee GCRC Flushing RoadWarner Road to Mill Road

0.811 Restore & rehabilitate Road Rehabilitation CON 1,283 STU 321 CNTY 1,604 06/19/13 ExemptFunding Sources: Flex - $1,189,028; STU - $94,364

2015 Genesee GCRC Stanley RoadHenderson Road to E County Line

1.016 Restore & rehabilitate Road Rehabilitation CON 580 STL 145 CNTY 725 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee GCRCDort Highway Extension

I-75 at Dort Highway South to Baldwin Road

1.2New route/structure (capacity increase)

Construction of a 4-lane highway

ROW 355 EDC 89 CNTY 444 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee GCRC Flint River TrailStepping Stone Falls to Bluegill Boat Launch

1.4 MiscellaneousInstall a 10 Ft wide non-motorized pathway

CON 434 TAU 395 CNTY 829 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee GCRC Pierson RoadLinden Road to Jennings Road

1.01 Traffic ops/safetyUpgrade 5 intersections and realign driveway

CON 638 CM 159 CNTY 638 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee GCRCDort Highway Extension

I-75 at Dort Highway South to Baldwin Road

1.2New route/structure (capacity increase)

Construction of a 4-lane highway

PE 584 EDC 146 CNTY 730 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MDOT I-475at 8th St, & Pierson (D02 & D04), city of Flint

0.247 MiscellaneousPump Station Rehabilitation

CON 1,441 ST 319 M 0 1,760 103739 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MDOT I-75 I-75 at Holly Rd 0.515Widen - major (capacity increase)

Construct Loop Ramp to NB I-75

ROW 1,360 CM 340 M 0 1,700 115832 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Operations Genesee County Transit operations Preventative Maintenance T-Ops 2,484 5307 621 M 3,105 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Vehicle Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Purchase Replacement Buses

T-Cap 1,791 5307 448 M 2,239 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Vehicle Genesee CountyTransit vehicle rehabilitation

Rehab/Renovate Revenue Vehicles

T-Cap 80 5307 20 M 100 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Facility Genesee County Transit facility Rehab/Renovate Facilities T-Cap 292 5307 73 M 365 06/19/13 Exempt

53

DraftFY 2014‐2017 Flint ‐ Genesee County Transportation Improvement Program

Fiscal Year County

Respon-sible

Agency Project Name Limits Length Primary Work Type Project Description PhaseAdvance

Construct

Federal Cost

($1000s)

Federal Fund

Source

State Cost

($1000s)

State Fund

Source

Local Cost

($1000s)

Local Fund

Source

Total Phase Cost

($1000s)MDOT

Job No.Local ID

No.

MPO/ Rural Action Date

Amend-ment Type

Air Quality Comments

2015 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit maintenance equipment and parts

Purchase Capital Parts T-Cap 672 5307 168 M 840 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit maintenance equipment and parts

Purchase Shop Equipment T-Cap 144 5307 36 M 180 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit communication equipment

Purchase Computer Hardware

T-Cap 132 5307 33 M 165 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit communication equipment

Purchase Computer Software

T-Cap 530 5307 133 M 663 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Facility Genesee County Transit facilityBus Shelter and Signage Enhancement

T-Cap 66 5307 17 M 83 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Facility Genesee County Transit facility Security T-Cap 66 5307 17 M 83 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Operations Genesee County Transit operationsJob Access Reverse Commute

T-Ops 270 5307 270 M 540 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Operations Genesee County Transit operations Operating Assistance T-Ops 50 5307 50 OLF 100 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Vehicle Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Purchase Paratransit Vehicles

T-Cap 198 5310 50 M 248 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Operating Genesee County Transit operationsEnhanced Service to ADA Eligible Passengers

T-Ops 162 5310 162 OLF 324 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Operating Genesee County Transit operationsNon-urban Area Operating Assistance

T-Ops 223 5311 505 M 764 OLF 1,492 06/19/13 Exempt

2015 Genesee MTA Vehicle Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Purchase Replacement Buses

T-Cap 766 5339 192 M 958 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee City of BurtonCenter Road - PE

Atherton Road to Lippincott Blvd

1 Resurface Road Resurfacing PE 77 STU 19 CITY 96 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee City of Burton Center RoadAtherton Road to Davison Road

3.3 Traffic ops/safetyTraffic signal upgrades and interconnection at 13 intersection

CON 913 CM 311 CITY 1,224 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee City of FlintFenton Road - PE

W Hemphill Road to I-69

1.56 Resurface Road Resurfacing PE 154 STU 38 CITY 192 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee City of FlintFenton Road - CON

W Hemphill Road to I-69

1.56 Resurface Road Resurfacing CON 1,766 STU 442 CITY 2,208 06/19/13 ExemptFunding Sources: STU - $804,756; Flex - $1,212,809

2016 Genesee City of FlintKearsley Street - PE

Chevrolet Avenue to Beach Street

0.95 Resurface Road Resurfacing PE 75 STU 19 CITY 94 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 GeneseeCity of Grand Blanc

BellavistaViaCatherina to City Limits (S of Bellavista Ct)

0.18 Reconstruct Road Reconstruction CON 210 STU 52 CITY 262 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 GeneseeCity of Montrose

Alfred Street - PE

Park Street to Nanita Drive

0.23 Resurface Road Resurfacing PE 6 STL 1 CITY 7 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 GeneseeCity of Montrose

Alfred Street - CON

Park Street to Nanita Drive

0.23 Resurface Road Resurfacing CON 65 STL 16 CITY 81 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 GeneseeCity of Mt. Morris

Saginaw Street - CON

South City Limits to North City Limits

0.5 Resurface Road Resurfacing CON 1,140 NH 285 CITY 1,425 06/19/13 ExemptFunding Sources: NH - $961,366; STU - $178,907

54

DraftFY 2014‐2017 Flint ‐ Genesee County Transportation Improvement Program

Fiscal Year County

Respon-sible

Agency Project Name Limits Length Primary Work Type Project Description PhaseAdvance

Construct

Federal Cost

($1000s)

Federal Fund

Source

State Cost

($1000s)

State Fund

Source

Local Cost

($1000s)

Local Fund

Source

Total Phase Cost

($1000s)MDOT

Job No.Local ID

No.

MPO/ Rural Action Date

Amend-ment Type

Air Quality Comments

2016 Genesee GCMPCRideshare Program

Genesee and Lapeer Counties

MiscellaneousFree Computerized Carpool and Vanpool Program

CON 79 CMG 79 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee GCRCIrish Road at Potter Road

700 Ft South of Potter Road to 700 Ft North of Potter Road

0Widen - major (capacity increase)

Add Center Left Turn Lane CON 682 EDC 170 CNTY 852 06/19/13 Exempt

Administrative Mod 3/29/2012 Change in Year and Funding Source

2016 Genesee GCRC Elms RoadLake Road to Willard Road

1.046 Restore & rehabilitate Road Rehabilitation CON 521 STL 130 CNTY 651 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee GCRC Flint River TrailBluebell Beach to Genesee Road

2.8 MiscellaneousInstall a 10 Ft wide non-motorized pathway

CON 443 TAU 1,823 CNTY 2,266 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee GCRC Coldwater RoadClio Road to Dort Highway

1.035 Restore & rehabilitate Road Rehabilitation CON 3,743 STU 936 CNTY 4,678 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MDOT I-75at I-69 (D02 of 25031), Genessee County

0.056 MiscellaneousPump Station Rehabilitation

CON 819 ST 182 M 0 1,000 111441 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MDOT I-475Saginaw Street to Clio Road

1.401 Restore & rehabilitate Rubbilize & Resurface CON 9,239 IM 1,027 M 0 10,265 112481 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MDOT I-69I-69 under Lapeer Road

0.25 Bridge replacement Deck Replacement CON 3,150 BHI 350 M 0 3,500 112621 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MDOT I-475Saginaw St to E of Clio Rd

1.141 Traffic ops/safety Upgrade Shoulder Lighting CON 119 IM 13 M 0 132 113242 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MDOT I-75Bristol Rd at I-75 NB Ramps

0.344 Traffic ops/safety Install Roundabout CON 1,014 CM 253 M 0 1,267 115831 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MDOT M-15M-15 over Paddison Co Drain

0.31 Bridge replacement Culvert Replacement CON 375 ST 83 M 0 458 115908 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MDOT I-4752 Bridges on I-475, Flint

0.075 Restore & rehabilitateBm End Rprs, Substr Rprs, App work, Brgs

CON 1,316 IM 146 M 0 1,462 115911 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MDOT I-69Ballenger Highway to Fenton Road

1.56 Reconstruct Reconstruct ROW 90 IM 10 M 0 100 115799 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MDOT I-69Belsay Road over I-69

0.062 Bridge - other Epoxy Overlay CON 1,233 BHI 137 M 0 1,370 113223 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MDOT I-75Bristol Rd at I-75 NB Ramps

0.344 Traffic ops/safety Install Roundabout CON 950 HSIP 106 M 0 1,055 116193 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MDOT M-150.3 miles N of Bristol Rd

0.2 Widen - minor Add Center Left Turn Lane CON 510 HSIP 57 M 0 566 116195 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Operations Genesee County Transit operations Preventative Maintenance T-Ops 2,484 5307 621 M 3,105 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Vehicle Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Purchase Replacement Buses

T-Cap 1,687 5307 422 M 2,109 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Vehicle Genesee CountyTransit vehicle rehabilitation

Rehab/Renovate Buses T-Cap 80 5307 20 M 100 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Facility Genesee County Transit facility Rehab/Renovate Facilities T-Cap 252 5307 63 M 315 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit maintenance equipment and parts

Purchase Capital Parts T-Cap 672 5307 168 M 840 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit maintenance equipment and parts

Purchase Shop Equipment T-Cap 224 5307 56 M 280 06/19/13 Exempt

55

DraftFY 2014‐2017 Flint ‐ Genesee County Transportation Improvement Program

Fiscal Year County

Respon-sible

Agency Project Name Limits Length Primary Work Type Project Description PhaseAdvance

Construct

Federal Cost

($1000s)

Federal Fund

Source

State Cost

($1000s)

State Fund

Source

Local Cost

($1000s)

Local Fund

Source

Total Phase Cost

($1000s)MDOT

Job No.Local ID

No.

MPO/ Rural Action Date

Amend-ment Type

Air Quality Comments

2016 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Purchase Service Vehicles T-Cap 52 5307 13 M 65 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit communication equipment

Purchase Computer Hardware

T-Cap 132 5307 33 M 165 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit communication equipment

Purchase Computer Software

T-Cap 542 5307 136 M 678 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Facility Genesee County Transit facilityBus Shelter and Signage Enhancement

T-Cap 66 5307 17 M 83 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Facility Genesee County Transit facility Security T-Cap 66 5307 17 M 83 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Operations Genesee County Transit operationsJob Access Reverse Commute

T-Ops 270 5307 270 M 540 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Operations Genesee County Transit operations Operating Assistance T-Ops 50 5307 50 OLF 100 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Vehicle Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Purchase Paratransit Vehicles

T-Cap 198 5310 50 M 248 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Operating Genesee County Transit operationsEnhanced Service to ADA Eligible Passengers

T-Ops 162 5310 162 OLF 324 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Operating Genesee County Transit operationsNon-urban Area Operating Assistance

T-Ops 223 5311 505 M 764 OLF 1,492 06/19/13 Exempt

2016 Genesee MTA Vehicle Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Purchase Replacement Buses

T-Cap 766 5339 192 M 958 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee City of BurtonCenter Road - CON

Atherton Road to Lippincott Blvd

1 Resurface Road Resurfacing CON 981 NH 245 CITY 1,226 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 GeneseeCity of Fenton

Poplar StreetSilver Lake Road to North Road

0.217 Restore & rehabilitate Road Rehabilitation CON 103 STU 480 CITY 583 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee City of FlintKearsley Street - CON

Chevrolet Avenue to Beach Street

0.95 Resurface Road Resurfacing CON 878 STU 220 CITY 1,098 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee City of FlintGrand Traverse Greenway Trail

Riverbank Park to Hemphill Road

3 MiscellaneousInstall a 10 Ft wide non-motorized pathway

CON 452 TAU 1,118 CITY 1,570 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 GeneseeCity of Mt. Morris

Roosevelt StreetBenson Street (City Limits) to Saginaw Street

0.5 Resurface Road Resurfacing CON 103 STU 795 CITY 898 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 GeneseeCity of Swartz Creek

Fairchild, Winston, Worchester & Cappy

Miller Road to Miller Road

0.84 Resurface Road Resurfacing CON 103 STU 535 CITY 638 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee GCMPCRideshare Program

Genesee and Lapeer Counties

MiscellaneousFree Computerized Carpool and Vanpool Program

CON 79 CMG 79 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee GCRC Linden RoadLennon Road to Calkins Road

1.004 Restore & rehabilitate Road Rehabilitation CON 3,798 STU 949 CNTY 4,747 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee GCRC Clio RoadDodge Road to Wilson Road

1.006 Restore & rehabilitate Road Rehabilitation CON 1,239 STU 310 CNTY 1,549 06/19/13 ExemptFunding Sources: Flex - $1,237,065; STU - $2,175

2017 Genesee GCRC Linden RoadFrances Road to Dodge Road

0.988 Restore & rehabilitate Road Rehabilitation CON 103 STU 497 CNTY 600 06/19/13 Exempt

56

DraftFY 2014‐2017 Flint ‐ Genesee County Transportation Improvement Program

Fiscal Year County

Respon-sible

Agency Project Name Limits Length Primary Work Type Project Description PhaseAdvance

Construct

Federal Cost

($1000s)

Federal Fund

Source

State Cost

($1000s)

State Fund

Source

Local Cost

($1000s)

Local Fund

Source

Total Phase Cost

($1000s)MDOT

Job No.Local ID

No.

MPO/ Rural Action Date

Amend-ment Type

Air Quality Comments

2017 Genesee GCRC Mt. Morris RoadState Road to 7500 Ft East (Richfield Recycling)

1.42 Restore & rehabilitate Road Rehabilitation CON 604 STL 712 CNTY 1,316 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee GCRCDort Highway Extension - CON

I-75 at M-54 interchange to Baldwin Road - Local funds

1.7New route/structure (capacity increase)

Construction of a 4-lane highway

CON 19,720 CNTY 19,720 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee GCRC Hill RoadFenton Road to Saginaw Road

2.11 Traffic ops/safety Upgrade 8 intersections CON 694 CMG 694 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MDOT M-13 at M-21 0.088 Roadside facility Install solar lighting CON 25 ST 5 M 0 30 113185 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MDOT I-69Ballenger Highway to Fenton Road

1.556 Reconstruct Reconstruct CON 16,223 IM 1,803 M 0 18,025 115799 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MDOT I-75 I-75 at Holly Rd 0.515Widen - major (capacity increase)

Construct Loop Ramp to NB I-75

CON 3,179 CM 795 M 0 3,973 115832 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MDOT I-69E of Ballenger Hwy to W of Fenton Rd

1.906 Roadside facility Replace Freeway Lighting CON 2,295 IM 255 M 0 2,550 116474 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MDOT US-23 at Silver Lake Road 0 Roadside facility Resurface Carpool Lot CON 52 ST 12 M 0 64 116547 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Operations Genesee County Transit operations Preventative Maintenance T-Ops 2,556 5307 639 M 3,195 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Vehicle Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Purchase Replacement Buses

T-Cap 1,747 5307 437 M 2,184 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Vehicle Genesee CountyTransit vehicle rehabilitation

Rehab/Renovate Revenue Vehicles

T-Cap 80 5307 20 M 100 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Facility Genesee County Transit facility Rehab/Renovate Facilities T-Cap 74 5307 19 M 93 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit maintenance equipment and parts

Purchase Capital Parts T-Cap 672 5307 168 M 840 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit maintenance equipment and parts

Purchase Shop Equipment T-Cap 200 5307 50 M 250 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Purchase Service Vehicles T-Cap 60 5307 15 M 75 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit communication equipment

Purchase Computer Hardware

T-Cap 140 5307 35 M 175 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Equipment Genesee CountyTransit communication equipment

Purchase Computer Software

T-Cap 596 5307 149 M 745 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Facility Genesee County Transit facilityBus Shelter and Signage Enhancement

T-Cap 66 5307 17 M 83 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Facility Genesee County Transit facility Security T-Cap 66 5307 17 M 83 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Operations Genesee County Transit operationsJob Access Reverse Commute

T-Ops 270 5307 270 M 540 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Operations Genesee County Transit operations Operating Assistance T-Ops 50 5307 50 OLF 100 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Vehicle Genesee CountyTransit vehicle additions/replacements

Purchase Paratransit Vehicles

T-Cap 198 5310 50 M 248 06/19/13 Exempt

57

DraftFY 2014‐2017 Flint ‐ Genesee County Transportation Improvement Program

Fiscal Year County

Respon-sible

Agency Project Name Limits Length Primary Work Type Project Description PhaseAdvance

Construct

Federal Cost

($1000s)

Federal Fund

Source

State Cost

($1000s)

State Fund

Source

Local Cost

($1000s)

Local Fund

Source

Total Phase Cost

($1000s)MDOT

Job No.Local ID

No.

MPO/ Rural Action Date

Amend-ment Type

Air Quality Comments

2017 Genesee MTA Operating Genesee County Transit operationsEnhanced Service to ADA Eligible Passengers

T-Ops 162 5310 162 OLF 324 06/19/13 Exempt

2017 Genesee MTA Operating Genesee County Transit operationsNon-urban Area Operating Assistance

T-Ops 223 5311 505 M 764 OLF 1,492 06/19/13 Exempt

58

Section 7: TIP Assurances, Procedures, and Policies

59

Project Selection and Prioritization Policy The following policy has been drafted to establish an objective method of selecting Federal Transportation projects on the basis of local priorities. The selection process shall be a natural progression of projects from the current Flint-Genesee County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), the Congestion Management Plan, the Transit Long Range Transportation Plan and the MDOT 5 Year Plan. The oversight of this process shall be through a Transportation System Management (TSM) task force. The designated task force shall be a subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee organized under Section 143 of Title 23. Local project selection shall be done on a point rating system as identified in the TIP application. In order to objectively evaluate the project proposals, they must contain the following information: 1. The scope of the project, including termini, where applicable 2. A description of work 3. A realistic estimate of costs 4. Match The project prioritization process shall be done by fiscal year and by funding category. These funding categories include the following:

• STU (Surface Transportation Urban (also includes Flex funding) eligible activities include; preserve, expand, improve, transit, safety, bridge, enhancement, and studies.

• NH (National Highway System) – for projects located on the National Highway System

• STL (Surface Transportation – Local) eligible activities include; preserve, expand, improve, transit, safety, bridge, enhancement, and studies in areas outside of the urban boundary.

• TAU – Transportation Alternatives Program – Non-motorized forms of transportation including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals

• Economic Development Category C (EDC) – State – expand projects • Section 5307 – urbanized transit program • Section 5310 – Transit – Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with

Disabilities • Section 5311 – Transit – Formula Grants for Rural Areas • Section 5339 – Transit – Bus and Bus Facilities • Flex Funds – SAFETEA-LU allows for the “flexing of funds” between highway and

transit projects. If the MPO decides that it is in its best interest to shift dollars to either transit or highway interests an application to “flex” funds will be submitted to FTA and FHWA for their approval prior to obligating these funds.

• CM/CMG – Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) Financial Constraint

Projects to be included in the TIP shall be consistent with the Federal, State, and Local allocations or fund balance. The first two years of the TIP must be financially constrained. The third and fourth years are flexible in terms of a budget, however, funds

60

and funding sources must be reasonably available. Although projects may be moved between years within the TIP, the funding must remain in the year it was programmed. Implementation of projects from the TIP will be on a first-come, first-serve basis within each funding source until obligational authority is expended.

61

Plan Preparation Guidelines It will be the policy of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to direct all agencies submitting projects for consideration to include the items listed below as part of the Preserve, Safety and Expand applications, and that the associated costs be submitted in the application and considered in the evaluation. - Drainage structures (curb and gutter or shoulders and ditches), - Signs and markings, - Traffic signals, - Base improvements, - Guardrail,

- Provision of adequate lateral clearance, - Safety Improvements - Handicap Accessibility - Access Management - Any other items that are needed to complete a properly designed highway

project Preliminary and Construction Engineering Guidelines Construction engineering costs up to 15% (of the construction cost) and preliminary engineering cost up to 10% (of the construction cost) will be allowed as part of the application for TIP projects, and are therefore eligible for federal funds. If preliminary and/or construction engineering is applied for, construction must be scheduled within the next three (3) years of the TIP. The request for either of these funds must be identified in the application, and can’t have already taken place. The agency will not be reimbursed for work that has already taken place prior to the approval of the current TIP. All work must follow the MDOT Engineering Procurement Procedures. Please note that these costs are capped at the level of engineering costs as identified in the TIP project application. Project Construction Guidelines The project construction costs are pro-rata (not capped) at the funding levels as identified in the approved TIP for any projects using local federal funds (STU, Flex, STL, NH and EDC-State). Administrative Modification An administrative modification to the TIP will be defined as: 1. Change in the project year 2. Change in funding type 3. Change in the terminus less than ¼ mile (1320 feet) 3. Cost of the project increases or decreases less than 25%

An administrative modification does not require formal approval by TAC or GCMA.

62

Amendment Policy An amendment to the TIP will be defined as: 1. Project added or deleted 2. Change in the scope 3. Change in the terminus more than ¼ mile (1320 feet) 4. Cost of the project increases or decreases by 25% or more An amendment to the TIP will be brought to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Metropolitan Alliance. An amendment will require action by both TAC and GCMA following the requirements established in the Public Participation Plan (PPP). The MPO must approve the TIP and TIP amendments as being in compliance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) as stated in 40 CFR part 51 of the Transportation Conformity Air Quality Rule. Reprogramming Policy The following policy shall apply to reprogramming existing funds within the current TIP.

A. If the project has not held a grade inspection by March 1st of the assigned fiscal

year, the funds will be recaptured and distributed to any project in the current TIP that has the ability to obligate the funds in the current fiscal year.

B. If the project has not been obligated by MDOT by May 15th of the assigned

fiscal year, the funds will be recaptured and distributed to any project in the current TIP that has the ability to obligate the funds in the current fiscal year.

C. If the federal funds being obligated are below the original estimate, the

additional funds will be recaptured and distributed to any project in the current TIP that has the ability to obligate the funds in the current fiscal year.

D. In the event additional funds become available, projects in the succeeding

year will be eligible based on available funding and their ability to meet deadlines for obligation.

E. Withdrawn or rescheduled TIP projects will be eligible for reinstatement after 2

years.

F. All reprogramming recommendations shall be completed under the established process for amending the TIP.

63

Expand Projects U.C. ACT 231 OF 1987 As part of the ongoing transportation planning process in Genesee County, GCMPC staff has developed a Congestion Management Process (CMP) in conjunction with MDOT, local jurisdictions and road agencies along with Mass Transportation Authority. The CMP identifies congested road segments and intersections in Genesee County. Road agencies seeking funding for road expansion must consult the CMP, which is integrated in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, as all expand projects must be part of the CMP to be eligible for funding. In order to submit an expand application, a project for through capacity must qualify for urban congestion funding and meet the following criteria:

a) If the segment of the roadway is two-lane, it must have an average daily traffic (ADT) count of at least 10,000 vehicles; or an ADT of 25,000 vehicles for a four lane segment of roadway as of July 1, 1993.

b) The segment of roadway must have the functional classification above

local road and/or rural minor collector. c) The road must be Federal Aid Eligible d) Improvements must be of a lasting nature (not maintenance

improvements)

e) Local road agencies that are seeking to make capacity improvements must provide documentation that Strategies #1 through #4 from the CMP toolbox have been used, and what the results were. If the LRA has exhausted all appropriate strategies for their corridor, then adding capacity may be considered as a final step.

All reconstruction and expansion projects require non-motorized improvements where feasible.

64

Congestion Management Process (CMP) – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The staff of the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance (GCMA) CMP completed a literature review to begin formulating an implementation plan for the Congestion Management Process in Genesee County examining the GCMA CMP along with three additional SAFETEA-LU compliant CMP’s. This was performed to help evaluate and improve our existing CMP. In compiling the literature review (which is found at the end of this plan), staff discovered an extensive amount of valuable information of which helped to formulate potential updates to the GCMA CMP. Please refer to the Congestion Management Plan Technical Report of the 2035 LRTP Plan for further details. System Identification Through the CMP literature review, it was found that most other MPO’s use the federal-aid road network to define the CMP network. The CMP network was expanded from the select group of corridors use in the previous CMP to include the entire federal-aid road network. This network was used to evaluate congestion on a system-wide basis for the base year and horizon year of the Long Range Transportation Plan. In the future staff may identify specific corridors within the network for further analysis. Develop Performance Measures GCMA uses “level of service” (LOS) as the sole performance measure for congestion in the CMP. The LOS is derived from volume to capacity ratios as illustrated in the table below. A grade of “A” through “F” is assigned to all roadways in the CMP network. Roadways assigned a LOS “A” demonstrate free-flow traffic while LOS “F”, being the worst rating, signifies a system failure where the roadway is completely shut down with congestion. The LOS on any given roadway in the CMP network was calculated through the use of the Genesee County Urban Travel Demand Model. Staff will continue the use of this performance measure to evaluate congestion on Genesee County roadways in future analysis.

Process Products

System Identification

Develop Performance Measures

Monitor & Evaluate Performance

Strategy Identification

Strategy Selection

Project Implementation

Performance Evaluation

Long Range Transportation Plan

Policy, Planning, Project Selection

Transportation Improvement Program

Genesee County Congestion Management Process

65

Volume to Capacity Severity Ranges

Volume to Capacity Severity Ranges

Volume to Capacity

Ratio

Operating Conditions

Severity

0 to 0.84

0.85 to

0.99

1.00 to

1.24

Forced or breakdown traffic flow – many stops

Unstable flow – lower speed some stops

High density of

traffic, but stable flow

(Approaching Congestion)

Traffic at free to stable flow

Level of Service (LOS)

A-C

D

E

F

1.25 and greater

C

ON

GES

TED

STA

BLE

FLO

W

66

Monitor and Evaluate Performance An inventory identifying the current performance of the roadway was built to begin to properly monitor the roadway performance within the CMP network. The LOS on any given roadway in the CMP network is calculated through the use of the Genesee County Urban Travel Demand Model. LOS grades of “A”, “B”, and “C” are considered congestion-free. An LOS grade of “D” is considered to be approaching congestion along a roadway. A roadway receiving an LOS grade of “E” or “F” is considered congested. Most of the efforts of the GCMA CMP are aimed at relieving congested segments (LOS “E” or “F”), while some proactive efforts will be investigated to mitigate future congestion along those roadways approaching congestion (LOS “D”). A Speed Study Performance Program was implemented in 2008 and concentrated on select roadways and corridors that are slated for improvement projects in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to help evaluate roadway performance. To build an adequate inventory of data, staff included a survey of select high volume, congested corridors in Genesee County. To monitor the future performance on a system-wide basis, LOS grades will be re-determined during every Long Range Transportation Plan update. As a system-wide benchmark for the CMP, the GCMA will manage the network to operate at a LOS “D” or better. Strategy Identification The GCMA CMP includes 5 different strategy categories that could be used to manage congestion in Genesee County. The structure of the CMP “toolbox” has the strategies assembled for use in a top down approach. This approach ensures that solutions that reduce or shift auto trips or improve roadway operations are evaluated before adding roadway capacity. Congestion Management solutions will include the implementation of Transportation System Management (TSM), Travel Demand Management (TDM), and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements. Staff used the toolbox to determine if the strategies presented in the proposed projects were indeed suitable to help manage congestion in Genesee County. NOTE: Any application being submitted as a roadway expand project must be identified in the Congestion Management Plan and all expand applications must include which toolbox options have been tried and documented and then must explain why expansion is the best option.

67

MAP-21 allows for the flexibility of funds to be shifted between highway and transit projects. If the MPO decides that it is in its best interest to shift dollars either to transit or highway interests, applications to transfer funds must be submitted to FTA for their approval prior to obligating these funds. The FTA must determine that all Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements are met by the local transit authority before transit funds can be flexed. Citizen input shall be obtained during the call for project period and through a public hearing process that shall be held prior to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) finalizing the TIP. Initiation of projects shall be the responsibility of the appropriate implementing agency having jurisdiction of the facility. All projects to be funded with Federal Transportation funds must be in conformance with Section 8 of the Federal Transit Act and Section 134 and Section 135 of Title 23 United States Code. Implementation of projects from the TIP will be on a first-come, first-serve basis within each funding source until the funds are exhausted. Projects to be included in the TIP shall be consistent with the Federal, State, and Local allocations or fund balance. The first two years of the TIP must be financially constrained. The third year of the TIP is more flexible in terms of a budget, however, funds and funding sources must be reasonably available although projects may be moved between years within the TIP, the funding must remain in the year it was programmed. The MPO must approve the TIP and TIP amendments as being in compliance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the CAAA less than 40 CFR parts 51 of the Transportation Conformity Air Quality Rule. STP projects that are withdrawn or rescheduled from the TIP by the local jurisdiction must receive MPO approval to avoid a two-year reinstatement restriction. In the event that project costs exceed those stated in the TIP, the following procedures will be taken by the MPO: 1. Money shall be taken from another uncommitted project of the local unit

whose project is affected by the cost overrun. The project losing funding will then be withdrawn by the local unit and will be eligible for reinstatement in the TIP after a two-year period.

2. If the local jurisdiction has no other project from which to draw funds, money

can be taken from the lowest rated project not committed to contract. The project losing funding will be moved to the succeeding year's TIP.

3. If cost overruns occur on the final eligible project, the project will be moved to

the succeeding year TIP and the highest medium level project meeting the funding levels will receive funding.

In the event that additional funds become available, the succeeding year's projects will be eligible based on available funding.

68

Public Participation Policy In accordance with the elements in the 23 CFR, 450.316 (b)(1) the metropolitan transportation planning process shall: "Include a proactive public involvement process that provides complete information, timely public notice, full public access to key decisions, and supports early and continuing involvement of the public in developing plans and TIPs and meets the requirements and criteria specified" as listed in planning regulations. GCMPC administers the Federal Highway Transportation Planning Process as authorized under sections 134 and 135 of Title 23, United States Code. The Public Participation Plan (PPP) demonstrates the commitment to ensure that citizen input will figure prominently throughout not only the (TIP), but throughout the entire transportation planning process. Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations.” This order requires to the greatest practicable extent to achieve Environmental Justice as part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. GCMPC is pursuing this order on a project level basis. Purpose The purpose of the GCMPC's PPP is to solicit, identify and evaluate input from any number of different perspectives on transportation planning processes and resulting projects. Goal The goal of the PPP is to encourage citizen involvement in the GCMPC planning process which can be achieved by: 1. Seeking non-traditional program users 2. Educating the public on the planning processes 3. Obtaining community ideas 4. Incorporating community ideas into the planning process 5. Performance evaluation Public Needs Hearings Public needs hearings shall be held to allow citizens time to review and make comment on proposed planning issues, policies, and/or plans. The public comment period shall be at least 30 days for the TIP. Public comments are received by GCMPC either verbally or in written form. Comments received are addressed by staff and answered within a reasonable time frame. Provisions are made available to assist those individuals with disabilities. Project Applications Project applications are accepted only from public and private non-profit transportation providers that have jurisdiction over transportation facilities or services within the Genesee County Metropolitan Area Boundary. The public needs hearing process is utilized throughout the transportation project application process. Notices of requests for project applications are mailed to all transportation providers no later than three months prior to the finalization of the TIP.

69

All other interested parties are notified by means of a public notice placed in The Flint Journal, the area's most widely circulated newspaper. This notice is placed at the time project application requests are mailed. The notice encourages interested parties to contact appropriate transportation providers. All interested individuals shall be given an opportunity for input to these agencies. GCMPC staff has developed official mailing lists for locating business, labor, civic organizations, housing groups, special interests, minority groups, and organizations. These lists are comprised of entities providing services and/or referrals in the major planning areas of transportation, community and economic development, and housing. Advertising All interested parties shall be provided timely information about transportation planning issues and processes including the TIP. Reasonable notice is provided in the form of a public notice placed in The Flint Journal 30 days prior to the date of any action including request for applications and comments on the proposed TIP. Distribution of Plans Copies of the TIP will be available for public comment at the GCMPC offices. Whenever necessary, copies will also be available at local units of government, the main branches of the Genesee District and Flint Public Libraries, and at any appropriate agency. The TIP is also available on the GCMPC website, www.gcmpc.org. Community input received from public hearings either confirms staff assumptions or is incorporated into the results of the planning phase. At a minimum, this PPP will be reviewed every five years to determine its effectiveness in assuring that the process provides full and open access to all. The PPP was reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration during the certification review process in November/December 2010. GCMPC updated this document in FY 2011. Agency Consultation Part of the transportation planning process involves agency consultation. Particular types of agencies need to be consulted during the planning process. The legislation requires that state, local, tribal, and private agencies be consulted who are involved with the following:

• State and local planned growth • Economic growth and development • Environmental protection • Airport operations • Freight movement

During the early stages of TIP Development, consultation with other agencies performing planning activities in Genesee County begins with GCMPC’s public participation mailing list. Representatives from a number of organizations, many of which are involved in the activities listed above, are notified through this process. Public notice mailings, public comment and hearing dates and direct mailings are used

70

to initiate the consultation process. Information on how to submit comment, along with instructions on how to contact staff is provided. Agencies were notified at the onset of the TIP “Call for Projects”, and once again after those projects were prioritized. Following project prioritization, agencies were invited to a series of three public input sessions to share their comments and concerns with staff regarding the FY 2014-2017 TIP projects. Further consultation is performed through our committee process. Along with being on our public participation list, representatives from local cities and townships, the Federal Highway Administration, the Michigan Department of Transportation, the Bishop International Airport, CSX Transportation Inc., and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality all sit on the Technical Advisory Committee and are often updated with the activities surrounding the development of the current TIP. Any and all views expressed by the aforementioned agencies are given consideration by the committee. Summary Environmental Justice and Genesee County Public Participation Process One of the goals of GCMPC is to educate the public on how Title VI and Environmental Justice requirements improve planning and decision making for the transportation system in Genesee County. To meet this goal, staff used the following three Environmental Justice principals throughout the development of the Transportation Improvement Program. • To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse

human health and environmental effects, including social and economical effects, on minority populations and low-income populations.

• To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected

communities. • To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt

of benefits by minority and low-income populations.

As a first step, staff has identified residential, employment, and transportation patterns of low- income and minority populations so that their needs can be identified and addressed. Staff has also mapped projects to ensure that benefits and burdens are distributed fairly. In addition, staff continues to evaluate the public participation process to eliminate barriers and encourage input from minorities and low-income populations in the transportation decision making process. GCMPC developed an extensive public involvement mailing list used to provide information and notices directly to the public on transportation planning processes. The

71

list includes representatives of the following: neighborhood block groups, senior centers, area churches, chambers of commerce, government agencies and local units of government, elected government officials, private transportation services providers (including limousine, taxi cab, trucking, rail and airports), labor unions, Veterans of Foreign Wars groups, academic institutions, schools and public libraries, area media (including newspapers, radio and television stations) and bilingual organizations. This list is continually maintained and updated regularly. As of April 2013, the list has 1,418 representatives. Representatives on this list received notifications of the three public input sessions and the public hearing. GCMPC also performed a mass mailing along the proposed project corridors to ensure notification to those citizens who would be most directly impacted by the proposed transportation improvement. A total of 2,923 flyers were direct mailed to households along all proposed project corridors. Each notification listed the project, project limits, and the type of improvement to be performed. These notifications also served as an invitation for the public input sessions, as each public event’s date, time, and location were included on the flyers. All approved TIP projects were submitted by the local units of government. These projects are based on the needs of the community and go through public hearings and endorsement at the local level before being submitted to GCMPC. Projects are evaluated taking into consideration project alternatives, community support, coordination with other agencies, and environmental impacts. In the development of the FY 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program, GCMPC chose to examine the effects of transportation planning decisions on Genesee County citizens through the use of geographic location maps. Locations of transportation improvement projects listed in the 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program in Genesee County are highlighted with geographic areas defined as “low-moderate income”. Maps of low-income areas in Genesee County are derived from American Community Survey 2007-2011 Census Tract Data. The map illustrates that the low/mod areas received a substantial amount of projects, and staff can conclude from this that the benefits and burdens are well distributed. The FY 2014 – 2017 TIP projects also appear to distribute the benefits and burdens of transportation fairly in Genesee County.

Conclusion GCMPC has complied with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice and the 1997 U.S. DOT Order as well as other associated laws, regulations and policies by: analyzing the TIP; identifying and addressing Genesee County's transportation needs; effectively developing a more inclusive approach to low-income and minority populations throughout the process; and determining that the benefits and/or burdens of transportation investments are fairly distributed.

72

Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission has made a commitment to develop and improve the public outreach and participation in the transportation planning process. Staff has provided residents of Genesee County opportunities to participate in the transportation planning process by advertising in the Flint Journal newspaper, direct mailing, and going directly out to the public. Staff has enhanced its outreach capabilities by identifying groups that are underserved and hard to reach. Staff has received and evaluated concerns from citizens, and addressing these concerns will benefit future transportation developments. Through the public involvement effort and the distribution of transportation benefits, GCMPC has complied with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice and the 1997 U.S. DOT Order as well as other associated laws, regulations and policies Next Steps

Staff is committed to improving our current effort through the following: 1) Continuing to identify organization representatives of low-income and/or

minority populations to add to the Public Participation Mailing List. 2) Developing GCMPC presentations to include and strengthen diverse

community based partnerships throughout Genesee County, with a focus on providing low- income and minority populations additional information on the transportation planning process.

3) Identify neighborhood/community concerns early in the planning process.

73

Section 8: FY 2012 Project Status

74

Final Project Status for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 of the 2011-2014 TIP

The following information is provided for Genesee County transportation projects that were obligated, let for bid, under construction and/or completed during FY 2012 (October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012). The projects are grouped under the type of transportation improvement performed by individual agencies. In FY 2013, the Fenton Road project (North Fenton City Limits to Butcher Road 2 to 3 lane expansion) was obligated. This is a project that has been in several previous TIPs and has addressed all issues that have held up the project in previous years. The Dort Highway Extension project will begin preliminary engineering in conjunction with right-of-way acquisition beginning in FY 2013.

75

76

77

78

79

Section 9: MAP-21 Performance Measures

80

MAP-21 Performance Measures

A key feature of MAP-21 is the establishment of a performance-and-outcome-based program. The objective of this performance-and-outcome-based program is for States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to invest resources in projects that collectively will make progress toward the achievement of the national goals as identified below:

Goal area National goal

Safety To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads

Infrastructure condition To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair

Congestion reduction To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System

System reliability To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system

Freight movement and economic vitality To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development

Environmental sustainability To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment

Reduced project delivery delays To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies’ work practices

MAP-21 requires State DOT’s establish performance measures for the areas listed above within 18 months of enactment of MAP-21, and prohibits DOT from establishing additional performance measures. Within one year of the DOT final rule on performance measures, States are required to set performance targets in support of those measures. States may set different performance targets for urbanized and rural areas. To ensure consistency each State must, to the maximum extent practicable:

o coordinate with an MPO when setting performance targets for the area represented by that MPO; and

o coordinate with public transportation providers when setting performance targets in an urbanized area not represented by an MPO.

81

Within 180 days of States or providers of public transportation setting performance targets, MPO’s are required to set performance targets in relation to the performance measures (where applicable). To ensure consistency, each MPO must, to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate with the relevant State and public transportation providers when setting performance targets.

Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/pm.cfm

These targets are required to be included in MPO and State Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP). At the time the Genesee County FY 2014-2017 TIP was developed and approved no official federal guidance on the performance measures requirements of MAP-21 had been released and the State of Michigan did not have performance targets in place. The Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance recognizes these MAP-21 requirements and without official Federal Guidance in place and without targets set at the State level the MPO, though the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program, has established funding goals that generally target the areas specified. These goals were established in the LRTP and implemented through the 2014-2017 TIP as close as possible given the limitations on the availability and restrictions of local, state, and federal funding sources. Staff will also continue to gather data for the development of performance measures such as pavement and bridge condition, traffic volumes, traffic flow, level of congestion, and safety. Performances measures will be further evaluated during the development of the 2040 LRTP.

82