Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission Metropolitan Alliance Committee (METRO)

Transcription

1 ROOM BEACH STREET FLINT, MI (810) FAX (810) ROBERT JOHNSON CHAIRPERSON ROBERT PLUMB VICE-CHAIRPERSON TREASURER Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission Metropolitan Alliance Committee (METRO) Genesee County Administration Building Harris Auditorium 1101 Beach Street, 3 rd Floor Flint, Michigan TRUSTEES BILL BAIN TOD SORENSEN MATT BACH PAULETTE JOHNSON JOHN GILBERT JOHN WHITESIDE Wednesday, September 19, :00 P.M. AGENDA I. Call to Order II. III. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call IV. Minutes ***A. Minutes of the June 20, 2018 Regular Meeting (attached) V. Introduction of Guests VI. Public Comment VII. Public Hearing A. FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment #13 VIII. Finances A. FY 2019 Dues for Local Units IX. Committee Reports A. Nomination Committee AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ORGANIZATION

2 X. Old Business A. Genesee: Our County, Our Future - Update (attached) ***B. FY 2020 Call for Safety and High Risk Rural Road Projects (attached) XI. New Business ***A. Election of Officer: Treasurer ***B. FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment #13 (attached) ***C. FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Policies and Procedures (attached) ***D. FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Applications (attached) E. Pavement, Bridge, and System Reliability Performance Targets (attached) XII. XIII. XIV. Other Business Announcements Adjournment ***Action Items NEXT MEETING Wednesday, OCTOBER 17, 2018, 7:00 P.M. JN:dc K:\trans\METRO\2018\Agendas\September\ docx

3 GENESEE COUNTY METROPOLITAN ALLIANCE Regular Meeting Minutes June 20, 2018 The Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance Committee met at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, in the Harris Auditorium of the Genesee County Administration Building, 1101 Beach Street, Third Floor, Flint, Michigan. I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Johnson led the Pledge of Allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members present and absent were noted as follows: UNIT REPRESENTED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Genesee County 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 Joan Snyder Mark Richard Commissioner Ted Henry Thomas Martinbianco Danny Wells Duane Mosher Eric Wiederhold Reuben Garcia Patricia Lockwood Mayor Karen Weaver Robert Bincsik Betty Wideman George Gray Chris Douglas John Crawford Mayor Susan Soderstrom Ray Culbert Paul Zelenak Duane Dunckel Jr. IV A - 1 -

4 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 Robert Plumb Dennis Cramer Paulette Johnson Andrew Marko John Whiteside Jenifer Almassy Lee Purdy Tod Sorensen Al Mansour Tom Tithof Robert Johnson Kay Doerr David Cain William Daniels John Gilbert Brian Saad Leslie Renckly Katie Vick Tere Onica Shelley Thompson Chris Gehringer Matthew Karr Rhonda Clark Mark Goupil Robert Kesler Karyn Miller Tracey Tucker Bill Bain Mary Ann Price Linda Smoke Kenneth Draper Matt Moros Cheryl Woughter Monica Shapiro Mark Emmendorfer Jacky King Brian Baxter Matt Bach Dan Morey Gerry Masters Gary Stevens Rachel Stanke IV A - 2 -

5 Goodrich Village Otisville Village Otter Lake Village Lennon Village Gaines Village Federal Highway Admin Gen Cty Drain Comm Gen Cty Road Comm GCMPC Mass Trans Authority Mich Dept of Trans Alex Patsy Christine Durgan Shawnice Dorsey Jay Reithel Kim Zimmer Trevor Block Kerry Paulson Jake Vick Doug McAbee Mark Baldwin Joan Skias Emily Alexander Valerie Delauter Melissa Neal Andrea Dewey Aaron Dawson Jeff Wright Derek Bradshaw Ed Benning Mary Ann Ketels Anita Boughner OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Carr, Danielle Booms, Matt Hunter, Jason Nordberg, Sharon Gregory, and Debby Compton. IV. Minutes ***A. Minutes of the May 16, 2018 Regular Meeting Motion: Action: Approve, moved by David Cain, supported by Robert Plumb, to approve the minutes of the May 16, 2018 regular meeting as presented. Motion passed unanimously. V. Introduction of Guests No one spoke at this time. VI. Public Comment No one spoke at this time. VII. Public Hearing There was no Public Hearing IV A

6 VIII. Finances There were no Finances. IX. Committee Reports There were no Committee Reports. X. Old Business A PASER Survey Update Sharon Gregory advised that the annual PASER program is currently underway. All Federal-aid eligible roads in Genesee County are being surveyed. Once the Federal-aid survey is complete, staff will survey all paved non-federal aid roads. Alex patsy stated that half of the Genesee County Road Commission (GCRC) Federal-aid eligible roads have been surveyed. Mr. Patsy stated that if anyone has questions regarding the survey of GCRC roads to contact him or Damon Fortney. B. Genesee: Our County, Our Future - Update Sharon Gregory presented a PowerPoint to the committee. Ms. Gregory talked about the Open Houses and all the activities that staff had prepared for the attendees. The winners of the $2,000 Beautification Grant Awards were announced. They are: Village of Lennon; City of Mt. Morris; and Thetford Township. So far over 1,000 surveys have been completed. Ms. Gregory provided the website address for those that would still like to do the survey or make comments. There have been over 95 comments made so far in the areas of: housing; parks/recreation/trails; public transit; road/infrastructure conditions; safety concerns; services needed; and traffic/areas of congestion. Ms. Gregory talked about the data that staff is collecting and analyzing. The timeline was also reviewed with the committee. Kay Doerr inquired about the neighborhood assessment and stated that the Flint Center for Health Equity Solutions, is conducting an assessment as well. She suggested that GCMPC staff contact Ken Key at MSU to see if they can share information. Ms. Gregory stated that she would pass Ms. Doerr s name and address on to Dave Yeoman of our office so he could contact her about this. Dennis Cramer inquired about the Genesee County Extension Non-Motorized Trail in Swartz Creek. Alex Patsy stated that it is being administered through the City of Swartz Creek. XI. New Business A. MDOT Presentation: Paul Carr, Danielle Booms, Matt Hunter The Michigan Department of Transportation has contracted with HNTB for an I-75 study. Mr. Paul Carr of HNTB presented a PowerPoint to the committee on the I IV A

7 75 Operational Study. This project covers I-75 from US-23 to just north of Court Street and includes the following interchanges: I-75 Bristol Road interchange; I-69 interchange; Miller Road interchange; and M-21 Corunna Road interchange. Comment sheets were made available to the committee and everyone was encouraged to leave their comments. Mr. Carr talked about this meeting s goals and the project overview which included the reason for the study, project limits and the projected timeline. Danielle Booms from HNTB, talked about existing conditions and Time of Day traffic conditions were looked at. Discussion ensued regarding heavier traffic on Fridays going north and Sundays going south. Mr. Carr opened the floor for a question and answer session. ***B. FY 2020 Call for Safety and High Risk Rural Road Projects Sharon Gregory advised that MDOT has released their FY 2020 Call for Safety and High Risk Rural Road Projects. New this year they have also released a call for the Streamlined Systemic Safety Program and the only project types eligible for this funding are: horizontal curve delineation; rumble strips; edgeline pavement marking; or stop controlled intersection sign upgrades. MDOT is requesting all applications be in their office by Monday, August 13 th. Staff is asking that a copy of the applications for safety projects be sent to the GCMPC office by Monday, August 6 th, to give staff time to review and endorse the applications. In anticipation that the July and August TAC and Metropolitan Alliance meetings will be cancelled, the Technical Advisory Committee is recommending that the Metropolitan Alliance allow the FY 2020 Call for Safety Projects to be reviewed and endorsed by the Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission staff. Motion: Action: Approved, moved by Robert Plumb, supported by Dennis Cramer, to give approval to GCMPC staff to review and endorse Genesee County projects submitted for the FY 2020 Call for Safety Projects. C. Reminder-No FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project Changes During JobNet Shutdown Sharon Gregory stated that JobNet is the program used to manage transportation projects. It will be shut down for an update from July During those two weeks staff will not be able to make any project changes. There will be no amendments, no administrative modifications, and no technical corrections. As soon as MDOT is done with the update, the next day staff can make those changes. Staff has been working with MDOT to make sure JobNet matches our TIP and everything is correct so when it comes back up we will be good to go. D. Pavement, Bridge, and System Performance Targets Sharon Gregory advised that MDOT has established its targets for some new areas such as: Bridge; Pavement; and System Reliability/Congestion IV A - 5 -

8 Mitigation/Air Quality. GCMPC has six months to adopt the statewide targets or set its own targets. Ms. Gregory stated that the agenda packets contained the targets as well as some very good information on Bridge Performance Measures. If anyone has comments on these Performance Measures let staff know. Discussion ensued. E. Election of Officers Chairperson Johnson stated that our Treasurer resigned. If anyone is interested in the Treasurer position, contact David Cain or Debby Compton. Chairperson Johnson stated that July and August meetings will most likely be cancelled unless we have an agenda item. Jason Nordberg stated that a notice will go out letting everyone know if the meeting will take place or be cancelled. The election will be held at the next meeting, most likely in September with a meeting of the election committee prior to the regular meeting. XII. XIII. XIV. Other Business There was no Other Business. Announcements There were no Announcements. Adjournment Chairperson Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debby Compton, Secretary Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission IV A

9 A Long Range Plan for Transportation, Housing, & the Environment ROOM BEACH STREET FLINT, MI (810) FAX (810) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Members of the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance Jacob Maurer, Planner III Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission DATE: September 19, 2018 SUBJECT: Genesee: Our County, Our Future Update The development of the Genesee: Our County, Our Future planning document is fully underway. GCMPC staff continues to meet internally on a weekly basis to ensure the data collection stays on schedule and that public outreach efforts continue. The following is a summary of work items recently completed and/or currently under development. Summary reports will be available later this fall. Roundabout Study Work continued with data collection and methodology for the roundabout study. Staff is collecting data to help evaluate Federal Aid intersections within Genesee County and prioritize them into four priority tiers. Staff has spoken with both the Genesee County Road Commission and MDOT to identify data needed for the study and to identify safety and physical characteristics of intersections that may be suitable for a roundabout installation. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ORGANIZATION X A

10 Pavement Conditions Survey Staff has worked with the Genesee County Road Commission, MDOT, and local units of government to survey pavement condition on all roads in Genesee County. To date, all paved federal-aid roads have been surveyed. This data will be used for the upcoming TIP Call for Projects, as PASER ratings are a main factor used in scoring project applications. Staff is also about two-thirds completed with surveying non-federal aid roads. All pavement data will be used to help staff analyze how much funding is needed to maintain or improve the condition of our road network. Coordinated Plan The Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan) is developed to solve the transportation needs of individuals with a disability, elderly individuals, and persons of low income for all of Genesee County. The 2018 community workshop was held on July 19 th at the Flint Mass Transportation Authority s (MTA) Administration Building with fifteen stakeholders representing various community service agencies in attendance. Non-Motorized Trail Prioritization The 2018 Genesee County Regional Trails Prioritization meeting will be held on September 14 th at the Genesee County Administration Building. The purpose of this meeting is to update the non-motorized network, establish priorities for development, and review available funding opportunities. GCMPC relies on the assistance of elected officials, trail organizations, and residents to reaffirm regional trail priorities for all of Genesee County. If you re interested in attending, please RSVP at: DB:SG:dc K:\trans\METRO\2018\Our County Our Future - September Update.docx

11 ROOM BEACH STREET FLINT, MI (810) FAX (810) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Members of the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance Jacob Maurer, Planner III Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission DATE: September 19, 2018 SUBJECT: FY 2020 Call for Safety and High Risk Rural Road Projects During the month of May, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) released a Call for Safety Projects and a Call for High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Projects to all local road agencies for the 2020 fiscal year. Applications were due to MDOT by August 13 th, Staff requested that copies of applications for safety projects be sent to staff for prioritization and support. The Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance provided staff authority to submit this prioritized list to MDOT, due to the submittal deadline being prior to the September meeting of the Metropolitan Alliance. Staff received seven (7) local safety program applications which were reviewed according to MDOT Time-of-Return (TOR) Analysis and appear as a prioritized list below. Projects received for the FY 2020 Safety Program: Agency Project Location Project Description TOR Total Cost 1 City of Flushing Main Street (Chamberlain Street to Pierson Road) 4 to 3 Lane Conversion 1.18 $48,194 2 GCRC Davison Road (Oak Road to Cummings Road) Lane widening, Resurfacing with Center-line Rumble Strips 1.92 $400,000 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ORGANIZATION X B

12 3 GCRC Lapeer Road (Gale Road to 2,200' east) Center Turn Lane Installation (Reconstruction, Widening & Resurfacing) 5.85 $790,000 4 City of Flushing Pierson Road (Main Street to Elms Road) Mill and Resurface, 4 to 3 Lane Conversion 7.93 $513,624 5 GCRC Grand Blanc Road & Torrey Road Taper Construction, 4 to 3 Lane Reconfiguration, Signal Improvements 8.83 $350,000 6 GCRC Seymour Road & Lennon Road Roundabout Installation $890,000 7 GCRC 14 Intersections - Systemic Project Reconfiguration from 4 to 3 lanes at various intersection approaches N/A $36,000 At this time, the Technical Advisory Committee is recommending approval for the prioritized list of FY 2020 Safety Projects for MDOT consideration to the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance. DF:JM:dc K:\trans\METRO\2018\FY 2020 Safety Projects for Metro.doc

13 Projects Received for the FY 2020 Local Safety Program Agency Project Location Project Description TOR Fatal Crashes Type "A" Crashes Total Cost City of Flushing Main Street (Chamberlain Street to Pierson Road) 4 to 3 Lane Conversion $48,194 GCRC Davison Road (Oak Road to Cummings Road) Lane widening, Resurfacing with Center-line Rumble Strips $400,000 GCRC Lapeer Road (Gale Road to 2,200' east) Center Turn Lane Installation (Reconstruction, Widening & Resurfacing) $790,000 City of Flushing Pierson Road (Main Street to Elms Road) Mill and Resurface, 4 to 3 Lane Conversion $513,624 GCRC Grand Blanc Road & Torrey Road Taper Construction, 4 to 3 Lane Reconfiguration, Signal Improvements $350,000 GCRC Seymour Road & Lennon Road Roundabout Installation $890,000 GCRC 14 Intersections - Systemic Project Reconfiguration from 4 to 3 lanes at various intersection approaches N/A 0 0 $36,000 Total Projects Received: $3,027,818

14 ROOM BEACH STREET FLINT, MI (810) FAX (810) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Members of the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance Sharon Gregory, Planner III Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission DATE: September 19, 2018 SUBJECT: FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment # 13 Attached is the description of proposed projects in the FY TIP Amendment # 13. This amendment adds fourteen (14) projects and changes three (3) projects. This amendment meets the financial constraints of the TIP and will have no disproportionately high or adverse impacts to any of the identified Environmental Justice (EJ) populations in Genesee County. The projects that are being amended are eligible for the funding programmed, and they meet the intended state (including State TEDF Category C) and federal goals and objectives identified for the funding. Staff has reviewed these projects and has determined that they are exempt from Air Quality analysis. At this time, the Technical Advisory Committee is recommending approval of the attached Amendment #13 to the FY Transportation Improvement Program to the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ORGANIZATION XI B

15 FY Transportation Improvement Program Proposed Amendment # 13 Projects proposed to be added with a TIP Amendment Year Agency Project Length Limits Description Phase Fund Type Federal State Local Total Cost Comments 2019 MDOT I-75 N 1.7 Genesee County 2019 MDOT I-75 N 1.7 Genesee County 2019 MDOT I-75 N 4.7 Genesee County 2019 MDOT I-75 N 4.7 Genesee County Application of special pavement markings Application of special pavement markings Longitudinal pavement marking application Longitudinal pavement marking application PE HSIP $ 6,750 $ 750 $ - $ 7,500 New project CON HSIP $ 603,000 $ 67,000 $ - $ 670,000 New project PE HSIP $ 6,155 $ 684 $ - $ 6,839 New project CON HSIP $ 877,075 $ 97,453 $ - $ 974,528 New project 2019 MDOT M-21 n/a Over abandoned CSX RR in Flint Culvert replacement PE ST $ 169,569 $ 32,902 $ 4,700 $ 207,171 New project 2019 MDOT Regionwide n/a Genesee County Pavement marking retroreflectivity readings, and condition assessment CON HSIP $ 18,900 $ 2,100 $ - $ 21,000 New project 2019 MDOT US-127 BR n/a Signal Corridors in Genesee County Traffic signal modernizations; connected vehicle installations ROW STG $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ 5,000 New project 2020 MDOT I-475 n/a Over Leith, Stever-Broadway, SB Service Rd., Saginaw St., CSX RR and NB Service Rd., and Flint River. Epoxy overlay CON IM $ 4,758,871 $ 528,762 $ - $ 5,287,633 New project 2020 MDOT M-15 n/a Over Bird County Drain Culvert replacement CON ST $ 925,961 $ 205,329 $ 1,131,290 New project 2020 MDOT M-54 n/a M-54 signals from Atherton Rd. to Lapeer Rd. Signal modernization and synchronization CON CMG $ 678,027 $ - $ - $ 678,027 New project 2020 MDOT M-54 n/a Genesee County Scour Protection CON ST $ 269,711 $ 59,809 $ - $ 329,520 New project 2020 MDOT M-54 n/a Genesee County Traffic signal modernizations; connected vehicle installations ROW STG $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ 5,000 New project 2020 MDOT M Genesee County Non-freeway signing CON STG $ 248,383 $ - $ - $ 248,383 New project 2020 MDOT US-23 NB and SB n/a North of Silver Lake Rd. interchange Install new weigh-in-motion station CON NH $ 122,775 $ 27,225 $ - $ 150,000 New project CMG--Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality - 100% Federal HSIP--Highway Safety Improvement Program - SAFETEA-LU IM--Interstate Maintenance - No Added Lanes NH--National Highway System ST--Surface Transportation Program (STP) - Any Area STG-STP Safety--100% federal for ST

16 Projects proposed to be changed with a TIP Amendment Year Agency Project Length Limits Description Phase Fund Type Federal State Local Total Cost Comments 2019 Genesee County Road Commission County-wide backplates n/a Hill at Fenton, Bristol at Van Slyke, Bristol at Fenton, Saginaw at Hill, Linden at Miller, Pierson at Linden, Linden at Court, Owen at Jennings, Miller at Austins Parkway, Irish at Court, Miller at Manwaring, Miller at Lennon, Genesee at Richfield, Pierson at Pier North Install reflectorized signal backplates at 14 intersections PE HSIP $ 4,600 $ - $0 $4,600 $ 9,200 Change in funding 2019 Genesee County Road Commission Torrey Rd Crane Rd. to Lahring Rd. Install high-friction surface treatment in three horizontal curves, upgrade curve signing, and permanent pavement markings. PE HSIP $ 10,600 $ - $0 $10,600 $ 21,200 Change in funding MDOT M-54 n/a North of Saginaw St. in Thetford Twp. Culvert replacement CON ST $135,683 $195,106 $30,087 $43,264 $ - $165,770 $238,370 Change in funding and year

17 ROOM BEACH STREET FLINT, MI (810) FAX (810) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Members of the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance Sharon Gregory, Planner III Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission DATE: September 19, 2018 SUBJECT: Approval of the FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Policies and Procedures At the Technical Advisory Committee meeting held on September 13, 2018, members provided a recommendation of approval for the attached FY TIP Policies and Procedures. If you have any questions on the policies and procedures, or need more information, please feel free to contact Ms. Sharon Gregory at or by at: sgregory@co.genesee.mi.us At this time, the Technical Advisory Committee is recommending approval for the attached FY TIP Policies and Procedures to the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance. K:/trans/Metro/2018/Approval of TIP Policies and Procedures AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ORGANIZATION XI C

18 Section 7: TIP Assurances, Procedures, and Policies

19 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. Our current transportation legislation, the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, has established performance provisions. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have established rules to implement these performance measures. Because of this, project selection for the TIP will be guided by a performance measure-based process. This process will help program projects that contribute to achieving the performance targets. MDOT has established statewide targets for performance measures and GCMPC has adopted those targets. A list of performance targets is included with each TIP application. 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 funds with a resolution The project prioritization process shall be done by fiscal year and by funding category. These funding categories include the following: STBG (Surface Transportation Block Grant (also includes S T B G Flex funding) eligible activities include: preserve, expand, improve, transit, safety, bridge, enhancement, and studies. NHPP (National H i g h w a y Performance Program) for projects located on the National Highway System STBGL (Surface Transportation Block Grant 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 The FAST Act 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)

20 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 conformity with applicable federal rules and regulations. 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. Financial Constraint Projects to be included in the TIP shall be consistent with the federal, state, and local allocations or fund balance. 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. Implementation of projects from the TIP will be on a first-come, first-served basis within each funding source until obligational authority is expended. 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 - ADA Accessibility - Access Management - Any other items that are needed to complete a properly designed road 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. Applicants using federal funds for engineering services should be aware that potential conflict of interest issues could arise when obtaining engineering services. Please refer to MDOT for detailed guidelines on conflict of interest concerning engineering services.

21 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. 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 (STBG, STBG Flex, STBGL, NHPP and EDC-State). Administrative Modification (also called an Adjustment) 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 ½ mile (2,640 feet) 3. Total project cost increases or decreases less than 25% An administrative modification does not require formal approval by TAC or GCMA. 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 ½ mile (2,640 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 Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance (GCMA). 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. Changes to projects in General Program Accounts (GPA) will follow approved State of Michigan GPA guidelines. These guidelines outline the fundamental amendment triggers for Genesee County projects. However, other project changes may trigger a federal TIP amendment. A more detailed listing of federal amendment triggers can be found on the TIP portion of the GCMPC website.

22 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 1 st 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 15 th of the assigned fiscal year, the funds may 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. Rescheduled or withdrawn TIP projects will be eligible for reinstatement after 2 years. Local projects that are withdrawn or rescheduled from the TIP by the local jurisdiction must receive MPO approval to avoid a two-year reinstatement restriction. F. All reprogramming recommendations shall be completed under the established process for amending the TIP. Policy if Project Costs Exceed Programmed Costs 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 irrespective of fiscal year. There is also the option to do an Advance Construct project using future funds awarded to that local unit. The project losing funding may need to be revised to accommodate new funding levels. If the project can t be revised due to the updated funding levels, the project will need to be withdrawn and reinstated after two years. 2. If the local jurisdiction has no other project in that year from which to draw funds, money can be taken from the project with the lowest TIP score (which is 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 TIP year. If funding remains, the succeeding year s projects will then be available based on remaining funding. In the event additional funds become available, the current year's projects will have priority.

23 Policy for Flexing Funds The FAST Act 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 to either 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 Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements are met by the local transit authority before transit funds can be flexed. Expand Projects U.C. ACT 231 OF 1987 As part of the ongoing transportation planning process in Genesee County, GCMPC staff developed a Congestion Management Process (CMP) in conjunction with MDOT, local jurisdictions and road agencies along with the 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 into the 2040 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, 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 they must identify those results. 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.

24 Congestion Management Process (CMP) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN System Identification Genesee County Congestion Management Process Process Products Through a CMP literature review during the last LRTP update, it was found that most other MPOs use the federal-aid road network to define the CMP network. The CMP network was expanded from the select group of corridors used 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. System Identification Develop Performance Measures Monitor & Evaluate Performance Strategy Identification Strategy Selection Project Implementation Policy, Planning, Project Selection Transportation Plan Transportation Improvement Program Performance Evaluation Develop Performance Measures GCMA uses Level of Service (LOS) as a performance measure for congestion in the CMP. The LOS is derived from volume to capacity ratios as illustrated in the following table. 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

25 Volume to Capacity Severity Ranges Volume to Capacity Severity Ranges Volume to Capacity Ratio Operating Conditions Severity Level of Service (LOS) 0 to to 0.99 Traffic at free to stable flow High density of traffic, but stable flow (Approaching Congestion) A-C D STABLE FLOW 1.00 to and greater Unstable flow lower speed some stops Forced or breakdown traffic flow many stops E F CONGESTED

26 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 five 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. k:\trans\tip\ \tip policies and procedures\policies and procedures.docx

27 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program Local Funding Priorities The Federal CMAQ Program was created to provide a link between transportation legislation and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). The primary purpose of the CMAQ program is to fund projects and programs in non-attainment areas that reduce transportation related emissions and contribute to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Individual projects must show emission reductions in order to be eligible for CMAQ Program funds. CMAQ Program funds may not be used as replacement funding for transportation activities that would normally be undertaken. The Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance (GCMA) is given authority by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) to allocate the local portion of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program funds. FY 2020 CMAQ projects have already been programmed in the TIP. For FYs 2021 through 2023, the funding is estimated to be approximately $782,748 per year. Funding will be awarded (until funds run out) to projects that provide the greatest amount of pollution reduction in each of the four categories below. For example, Category 1 projects will compete only with each other, Category 2 projects will compete only with each other, etc. Fiscal Year (FY) CMAQ Funding Priorities Projects must be from eligible local road agencies, transit agencies, and planning agencies for the FY CMAQ Program Projects must meet all existing criteria for eligibility determination Small variations on the targets (+/- 5%) may be needed to balance out the total CMAQ funds for the entire non-attainment area Lapeer County and MDOT funds are chosen separately from this process. This process applies to Genesee County local projects only Category 1--Intersection Improvements Corridor improvements can be funded at up to 100% federal funds; 0% local match. Single intersection projects will be funded at 80% federal funds, 20% local match. Roundabouts are funded at 100% federal funds; 0% local match. Intersection improvements can account for up to 37.6% of the total project funding available for local Genesee County CMAQ projects when combined with all four years of funding or as one individual year s worth of projects Estimated funding for FYs is $294,409 per year If the corridor involves signal timing of MDOT intersections, it is recommended to request a partnership project with MDOT participation from the MDOT available CMAQ funds Priority will also be given to corridors that have not received CMAQ funding in the past or need additional funding in order to complete a previously awarded CMAQ project k:\trans\tip\ \tip policies and procedures\policies and procedures.docx

28 Category 2--Transit Projects Funded at 80% federal funds; 20% local match Transit projects can account for up to 37.6% of the total project funding available for local Genesee County CMAQ projects when combined with all four years of funding or as one individual year s worth of projects Estimated funding for FYs is $294,409 per year Projects for low emission vehicles and diesel retrofits will be given priority Category 3--Non-Motorized Transportation Projects Funded at 80% federal funds; 20% local match Non-motorized transportation projects can account for up to 12% of the total project funding available for local Genesee County CMAQ projects when combined with all four years of funding or as one individual year s worth of projects Estimated funding for FYs is $93,930 per year Projects that do not require right-of-way acquisition will be given priority, as will projects being constructed in conjunction with a road project, and projects connecting to an existing non-motorized facility Project can include bike lanes and 10-foot non-motorized paths Project must provide a transportation benefit, not for recreational purposes only Scoring Criteria (100 points total) A. 80 points - VOC ranking best air quality benefit project receives most points (Top VOC ranking receives 80 points, second project receives 75 points, third VOC ranking project, receives 70 points, and so on in 5 point intervals B. 10 points - constructed in conjunction with a road project C. 10 points - projects connecting to an existing non-motorized facility D. Projects that require right-of-way acquisition will automatically move to the bottom of the prioritized list. Category 4--Ridesharing, Vanpooling and Carpooling Programs Funded at 100% federal funds; 0% local match Ridesharing, vanpooling, and carpooling programs can account for up to 12.8% of the total project funding available for local Genesee County CMAQ projects when combined with all four years of funding or as one individual year s worth of projects Estimated funding for FYs is $100,000 per year Must be an area-wide program k:\trans\tip\ \tip policies and procedures\policies and procedures.docx

29 Category Percentage of Funding Estimated Funding Per Year for FYs Intersection Improvements 37.6% $294,409 Transit 37.6% $294,409 Non Motorized 12.0% $93,930 Rideshare, Vanpooling, Carpooling 12.8% $100, % $782,748 k:\trans\tip\ \tip policies and procedures\policies and procedures.docx

30 ROOM BEACH STREET FLINT, MI (810) FAX (810) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Members of the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance Sharon Gregory, Planner III Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission DATE: September 19, 2018 SUBJECT: Approval of the FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Applications At the Technical Advisory Committee meeting held on September 13, 2018, members provided a recommendation of approval for the attached FY TIP Applications. The previous funding split of 73% preservation/27% reconstruction has been revised to include a new category. The new percentages are: 60% preservation; 15% set-aside preservation for projects with a PASER 5 rating; and 25% reconstruction. If you have any questions on the TIP Applications, or need more information, please feel free to contact Ms. Sharon Gregory at or by at: sgregory@co.genesee.mi.us At this time, the Technical Advisory Committee is recommending approval for the attached FY TIP Applications to the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance. K:/trans/Metro/2018/Approval of TIP Applications AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ORGANIZATION XI D

31 Preservation/Reconstruction Application Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance FY Transportation Improvement Program K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Preservation_Reconstruction App.doc Prepared by the Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission staff. 1

32 Preservation/Reconstruction Project Application Please Complete and Attach as a Front Cover to your Application TO: Sharon Gregory, Planner III Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission Please indicate application type: Preservation (PASER 5) Application (15% of funds in this category are reserved for preservation projects with a PASER 5 rating) Preservation Application (60% of funds in this category are reserved for preservation projects) Reconstruction Application (25% of funds in this category are reserved for reconstruction projects) Application Agency: Contact Person: Phone/ Proposed Project Information (Please attach commitment from local funding agency in the form of a Resolution of Support. This is required for eligibility) Road Name Point of Beginning Point of End Project length in Miles Current Number of Lanes Number of Lane Feet in Project Current Pavement Width Current ADT If in a township, which one? MDOT Project Description: (Please refer to list provided) NOTE: Please provide a narrative describing the details of the project on the following page. Please be specific and feel free to attach additional pages. K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Preservation_Reconstruction App.doc 2

33 Detailed Project Description K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Preservation_Reconstruction App.doc 3

34 Please provide a list of any alternatives to the proposed improvement and a brief explanation as to their shortcomings. Alt #1 Alt #2 K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Preservation_Reconstruction App.doc 4

35 Diagrams of the existing segment, intersection, or area drawn at an appropriate scale and in sufficient detail to describe the existing situation and proposed improvement. K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Preservation_Reconstruction App.doc 5

36 Estimated Project Cost Item Total Cost Federal Funds Requested Local Match Other Source of Funds R.O.W $ (100%) (Y/N) Preliminary $ (80%)Max (20%) Min (Y/N) Engineering $ $ Construction $ (80%)Max (20%) Min (Y/N) Engineering $ $ Construction $ (80%) Max (20%) Min (Y/N) $ $ Total Project cost $ $ $ (Y/N) Funds Type & Amount NOTE: The PE and CE must be identified above to be eligible for funding. Proposed Implementation Schedule (Indicate beginning month / year and ending month/year for each activity) Circle as many as needed Preferred Fiscal Year =1 Second Preferred year = Item Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept R.O.W Acquisition Preliminary Engineering Construction Engineering Grade Inspection Bid Letting Construction K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Preservation_Reconstruction App.doc 6

37 Performance Measures and TIP Projects A key feature of the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is the establishment of a performance and outcome-based program, originally introduced through the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21) Act. The objective of a performance-based program is for states and MPOs to invest resources in projects that collectively will make progress toward the achievement of national goals. 23 CFR 490 outlines the seven areas in which performance goals are required. These seven areas include: Safety; Infrastructure Condition; Congestion Reduction; System Reliability; Freight Movement; Environmental Sustainability, and Reduced Project Delivery Delay. Keep in mind that projects should be able to address performance measures which will help Genesee County meet its targets. A list of performance measures and targets is included at the end of this application. PAVEMENT CONDITION (65 Points Available) 2018 PASER Rating: (From GCMPC 2018 PASER Map) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (17 Points Available) PASER RATING POINTS What is the ADT for this road segment? Per Thru Lane ADT Points 7,000 and Above 17 6,999 to 6,000 5,999 to 5,000 4,900 to 2, ,999 or less 5 PERFORMANCE PRINCIPLES (18 Points Available) 1. COMPLETE STREETS (3 Points Available) Which of the complete streets design elements are planned as part of this project? (ie: bike lanes, sidewalks, ADA accessible crosswalks, pedestrian crossings, etc.) If none, please explain. Does your project increase the safety of the street? K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Preservation_Reconstruction App.doc 7

38 2. SAFETY - (5 Points Available) Points will be given to projects that implement safety improvements in conjunction with normal roadway improvements. Safety improvements such as 4-to-3 lane conversions, signage and/or signal upgrades, lane re-striping, access management, turn lane additions, etc. all qualify. Please describe below the safety improvements proposed for this project. 3. AREA-WIDE IMPACT - (10 Points Available) Agency judgement shall be taken into consideration in this category. There are certain important and significant criteria which do not fit into any of the above categories. Nevertheless these should be included in establishing priorities. This criteria includes the following: a. Is this project located in an Environmental Justice (EJ) Zone identified in the Genesee County 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan? If so, what are the effects of the project, both positive and negative, and how do you plan to mitigate the negative effects? (2 Points) K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Preservation_Reconstruction App.doc 8

39 b. Please identify and explain any additional transportation-related improvements taking place in the area. (2 Points) c. Is this project located in a traditional downtown area? Please explain the importance of this project to the community s traditional downtown. (4 Points) d. Regarding system reliability and congestion mitigation, points are available for projects that improve traffic flow and freight movement. Write a narrative that describes how your project can improve: travel time; congestion; freight movement; traffic signals; intersection accidents; and corridor timing. (2 Points) K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Preservation_Reconstruction App.doc 9

40 Performance Measures and Targets Performance Area Measure Baseline Condition (CY 2017) 2-Year State Target 4-Year State Target Bridge Pavement System Reliability Percent National Highway System (NHS) Deck Area in Good Condition Percent NHS Deck Area in Poor Condition Percent of Interstate Pavement in Good Condition Percent of Interstate Pavement in Poor Condition Percent of Non-Interstate NHS Percent in Good Condition Percent of Non-Interstate NHS in Poor Condition Level of Travel Time Reliability of the Interstate Level of Travel Time Reliability of the Non-Interstate NHS Freight Reliability Measure on the Interstate 32.7% 27.2% 26.2% 9.8% 7.2% 7.0% 56.8% N/A 47.8% 5.2% N/A 10.0% 49.7% 46.7% 43.7% 18.6% 21.6% 24.6% 85.1% 75.0% 75.0% 85.8% N/A 70.0% Annual Hours of Peak Hours Excessive Delay per Capita 18 hours, 30 minutes N/A 22 hours Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) Percent of Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle Travel Mobile Source Emission Reduction for Carbon Monoxide Mobile Source Emission Reduction for Particulate Matter 16.0% 14.4% 14.4% 87, , , K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Preservation_Reconstruction App.doc 10

41 Safety Performance Measure Baseline Through State Safety Target Fatalities ,003.2 Fatality Rate (per 100 million VMT) Serious Injuries 5, ,136.4 Serious Injury Rate (per 100 million VMT) Non-Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Preservation_Reconstruction App.doc 11

42 Roadway Expand Application Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance FY Transportation Improvement Program Prepared by the Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission staff. K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 1

43 Roadway Expand Application Please complete and attach as a front cover to your application. Note: Roadway Expand projects must be identified in the LRTP as having capacity deficiencies in the year the project is proposed and must meet the 1993 traffic count guidelines. TO: Sharon Gregory, Planner III Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission Road Agency: Contact Person: Phone/ Proposed Project Information (Please attach commitment from local funding agency in the form of a Resolution of Support. This is required for eligibility) Road Name Point of Beginning Point of End Project Length in Feet If the geometrics of the intersection are being reconfigured this also needs to be indicated in the narrative and on the project diagram. MDOT Project Description: (Please refer to list provided) NOTE: Please provide a narrative describing the details of the project on the following page. Please be specific and feel free to attach additional pages. Existing Number of Lanes Existing Pavement Width Proposed Number of Lanes Proposed Pavement Width Proposed Length of Right Turn Bay Proposed Length of Left Turn Bay K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 2

44 Detailed Project Description K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 3

45 Please provide a list of any alternatives to the proposed improvement and a brief explanation as to their shortcomings. (Please refer to the Congestion Management Document and indicate which strategies from the tool box have been tried.) Alt #1 Alt #2 K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 4

46 Diagram 1 Diagrams of the existing segment, intersection, or area drawn at an appropriate scale and in sufficient detail to describe the existing situation and proposed improvement. K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 5

47 Diagram 2 Identify in Diagram: 1. Volumes 2. Lanes, lane widths 3. Movement by lane 4. Parking locations 5. Bay lengths Approach 2 North / South Street name Approach 3 Approach 1 Approach 4 East / West Street Name K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 6

48 Estimated Project Cost Item Total Cost Federal Funds Requested Local Match Other Source of Funds R.O.W $ (100%) (Y/N) Preliminary $ (80%)Max (20%) Min (Y/N) Engineering $ $ Construction $ (80%)Max (20%) Min (Y/N) Engineering $ $ Construction $ (80%) Max (20%) Min (Y/N) $ $ Total Project cost $ $ $ (Y/N) Funds Type & Amount *NOTE: The PE and CE costs must be identified above to be eligible for funding. Proposed Implementation Schedule (Indicate beginning month/year and ending month/year for each activity) Circle as many as needed Preferred Fiscal Year =1 Second Preferred year = Item Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept R.O.W Acquisition Preliminary Engineering Construction Engineering Grade Inspection Bid Letting Construction K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 7

49 Performance Measures and TIP Projects A key feature of the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is the establishment of a performance and outcome-based program, originally introduced through the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21) Act. The objective of a performance-based program is for states and MPOs to invest resources in projects that collectively will make progress toward the achievement of national goals. 23 CFR 490 outlines the seven areas in which performance goals are required. These seven areas include: Safety; Infrastructure Condition; Congestion Reduction; System Reliability; Freight Movement; Environmental Sustainability, and Reduced Project Delivery Delay. Keep in mind that projects should be able to address performance measures which will help Genesee County meet its targets. A list of performance measures and targets is included at the end of this application. A total of 65 points is available for either segment or intersection capacity. CAPACITY Capacity will be rated in terms of the ability of the segment under consideration to carry existing traffic volumes without undue delay and interruption of smooth flow. Please provide the 1993 traffic count for the project. Please provide the current traffic count for the project. Project Year: Level of Service information will be filled out by GCMPC staff after the project has been submitted using data from the transportation model. Segment Capacity Information: LOS Intersection Capacity Information for the: North and South Legs: LOS East and West Legs: LOS Segment Points Level of Service A = 0 points Level of Service B = 0 points Level of Service C = 0 points Level of Service D = 40 points Level of Service E = 50 points Level of Service F = 65 points Intersection Points Per Leg Level of Service A = 0 points Level of Service B = 0 points Level of Service C = 0 points Level of Service D = 20 points Level of Service E = 25 points Level of Service F = 32.5 points K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 8

50 PAVEMENT CONDITION (15 Points Available) 2018 PASER Rating: (From Attached GCMPC 2018 PASER Map) PASER Points Rating PERFORMANCE PRINCIPLES (20 Points Available) 1. SAFETY - (5 Points Available) Points will be given to projects that implement safety improvements in conjunction with normal roadway improvements. Safety improvements such as signage and/or signal upgrades, lane restriping, turn lane additions, etc. all qualify. Please describe below the safety improvements proposed for this project. 2. ACCESS MANAGEMENT (3 Points Available) Points will be given to projects that employ access management techniques as the use of these techniques can help reduce traffic congestion, preserve the flow of traffic, improve traffic safety, prevent crashes and preserve existing road capacity. Does this project address access management? If yes how? If not, why not? Please be specific in identifying access management strategies used, such as describing the proposed number and location of driveway closures and the average driveway spacing. K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 9

51 3. AREA-WIDE IMPACT - (7 Points Available) Agency judgement shall be taken into consideration in this category. There are certain important and significant criteria which do not fit into any of the above categories. Nevertheless these should be included in establishing priorities. This criteria includes the following: a. Is this project located in an Environmental Justice (EJ) Zone identified in the Genesee County 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan? If so, what are the effects of the project, both positive and negative, and how do you plan to mitigate the negative effects? b. Please identify and explain any additional transportation-related improvements taking place in the area. K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 10

52 c. Please identify any capacity-related bridge improvements that will need to be made in conjunction with this project. Please include information on current bridge condition and capacity. d. Regarding system reliability and congestion mitigation, points are available for projects that improve traffic flow and freight movement. Write a narrative that describes how your project can improve: travel time; congestion; freight movement; traffic signals; intersection accidents; and corridor timing. K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 11

53 4. COMPLETE STREETS (5 Points) Which of the complete streets design elements are planned as part of this project? (ie: bike lanes, sidewalks, ADA accessible crosswalks, pedestrian crossings, etc.) If none, please explain. K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 12

54 Performance Measures and Targets Performance Area Measure Baseline Condition (CY 2017) 2-Year Target 4-Year Target Bridge Pavement System Reliability Percent National Highway System (NHS) Deck Area in Good Condition Percent NHS Deck Area in Poor Condition Percent of Interstate Pavement in Good Condition Percent of Interstate Pavement in Poor Condition Percent of Non-Interstate NHS Percent in Good Condition Percent of Non-Interstate NHS in Poor Condition Level of Travel Time Reliability of the Interstate Level of Travel Time Reliability of the Non-Interstate NHS Freight Reliability Measure on the Interstate 32.7% 27.2% 26.2% 9.8% 7.2% 7.0% 56.8% N/A 47.8% 5.2% N/A 10.0% 49.7% 46.7% 43.7% 18.6% 21.6% 24.6% 85.1% 75.0% 75.0% 85.8% N/A 70.0% Annual Hours of Peak Hours Excessive Delay per Capita 18 hours, 30 minutes N/A 22 hours Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) Percent of Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle Travel Mobile Source Emission Reduction for Carbon Monoxide Mobile Source Emission Reduction for Particulate Matter 16.0% 14.4% 14.4% 87, , , K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 13

55 Safety Performance Measure Baseline Through State Safety Target Fatalities ,003.2 Fatality Rate (per 100 million VMT) Serious Injuries 5, ,136.4 Serious Injury Rate (per 100 million VMT) Non-Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Roadway Expand Application.doc 14

56 Transit Application Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance FY Transportation Improvement Program K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Transit Application.doc Prepared by the Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission staff. 1

57 TRANSIT APPLICATION Please Complete and Attach as a Front Cover to Your Transit Application To: Sharon Gregory, Planner III Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission Agency: Contact Person: Phone/ Proposed Project Information (Please attach commitment from local funding agency in the form minutes and a Resolution of Support. This is required for eligibility) Location of project Street Address Project Total Cost MDOT Project Description: (Please refer to list provided) NOTE: Please provide a narrative describing the details of the project on the following page. Please be specific and feel free to attach additional pages. Performance Measures and TIP Projects A key feature of the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is the establishment of a performance and outcome-based program, originally introduced through the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21) Act. The objective of a performance-based program is for states and MPOs to invest resources in projects that collectively will make progress toward the achievement of national goals. 23 CFR 490 outlines the seven areas in which performance goals are required. These seven areas include: Safety; Infrastructure Condition; Congestion Reduction; System Reliability; Freight Movement; Environmental Sustainability, and Reduced Project Delivery Delay. Keep in mind that projects should be able to address performance measures which will help Genesee County meet its targets. A list of the transit State of Good Repair Targets is included at the end of this application. K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Transit Application.doc 2

58 Detailed Project Description K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Transit Application.doc 3

59 I. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Item Total Cost Federal Funds Requested Transit Capital Transit Operations Transportation Enhancement Transportation Demand Management Total Project cost Local Match Other Source of Funds $ (80%) Max (20%) Min (Y/N) $ (50%) Max $ $ (80%) Max $ $ (80%) Max $ (50%) Min $ (20%) Min $ (20%) Min $ (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) $ $ $ (Y/N) Funds Type & Amount Proposed Implementation Schedule (Indicate beginning month/year and ending month/year for each activity) Circle as many as needed Preferred Fiscal Year =1 Second Preferred year = Item Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept R.O.W Acquisition Preliminary Engineering Construction Engineering Grade Inspection Bid Letting Construction K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Transit Application.doc 4

60 II. MAINTAIN/SUSTAIN A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (MTS) Please describe the proposed project s effect on the existing transit system. Does this project help achieve and maintain a state of good repair for the MTS? (Points are awarded if existing service will be negatively affected without the project.) Meets minimum age criteria for replacement items. (5 points) OR Exceeds minimum age criteria for replacement by 1 or 2 years. (10 points) OR Exceeds minimum age criteria for replacement by 3 + years. (15 points) Project is essential to daily provisions of public transportation services. (10 points) III. IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OR EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MTS (0-10 Points Available) Project meets standard service or performance criteria: 10 points if standards are exceeded; 8 points if standards are met; 5 points if project addresses but does not completely meet need. Please describe how the project will meet or exceed service standards as it improves the efficiency/effectiveness of the MTS. K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Transit Application.doc 5

61 IV. SAFETY (10 POINTS) Does project correct documented major safety problems (# of accidents; injuries/fatalities)? Y / N If yes, how V. IMPROVE SERVICE UTILIZATION (10 POINTS) Please explain how project will improve service utilization using the criteria listed below: 1. Increase in alternative commuting options (i.e. HOV lanes, transit friendly carpool lots, ITS improvements) - 4 points 2. Quality improvements, e.g., passenger amenities such as passenger shelters, signage, etc. 3 points 3. Projects are identified in Congested Corridors. (see Congestion Management Document) 3 points K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Transit Application.doc 6

62 VI. EXPAND TO MEET DEMAND ON THE MTS - (15 Points) Please describe how this project will expand the services of the MTS: VII. SHIFTING OF SOCIAL-ECONOMIC BASES (10 POINTS) If the project is needed to address social or economic development issues, projects, or changes in ridership composition, please explain: K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Transit Application.doc 7

63 VIII. AREA-WIDE JUDGMENT AND IMPACT - (0-20 Points Available) Area-wide judgment shall be considered for certain important and significant criteria which do not fit any of the above categories but which, nevertheless, should be included in establishing priorities. This criteria includes the following: 1. Please provide a list of any alternatives to the proposed improvement and a brief explanation as to their shortcomings. (Please refer to the Congestion Management Document and indicate which strategies from the tool box have been tried.) Alt #1 Alt #2 2. Is this project located in an Environmental Justice (EJ) Zone identified in the Genesee County 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan? If so, what are the effects of the project, both positive and negative, and how do you plan to mitigate the negative effects? 3. Who benefits from this project? K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Transit Application.doc 8

64 4. Are other transportation-related improvements taking place in the area? Y / N, If yes, what/where? K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Transit Application.doc 9

65 DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES CAPITAL ITEMS Depreciable Life Buildings - new Office furniture, fixtures, and equipment (not structural components of the buildings) such as desks, files, safes, communication equipment (radios and telephones) Information systems - computers and their components. Data handling equipment, typewriters, calculators, copiers Cars, taxi Buses - small (up to 22 passengers) body on van cutaway (includes Carpenter and Wheel Coach for replacement) Buses - medium (from 23 to 30 passengers) body on truck chassis Buses - large (over 30 passengers) Trucks - light duty (under 13,000 lb. g.v.w.) Trucks - heavy duty (over 13,000 lb. g.v.w.) Bus radios, base stations, remotes 20 years 10 years 6 years 3 years 7 years 7 years 12 years 4 years 6 years 10 years Maintenance garage items: Roller cabinets, portable tool stands, portable compressors, portable hoists, diagnostic equipment Lift trucks, engine and transmission stands, brake lathes Power hand tools, portable bus washers, power (hydraulic) jacks, cherry pickers, parts cleaners, grease guns and pumps, power floor cleaners, lawn mowers, snow blowers, and precision hand tools Hand tools, oil pumps, fuel pumps, portable lighting equipment, and grinders Creepers, wheeled stools 10 years 8 years 5 years 3 years 2 years K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Transit Application.doc 10

66 CAPITAL FUNDING CRITERIA 1. Replacement buses and rehab. of existing buses are the first priorities for state matching funds. 2. Urban Section 9 Program - Provide state match for all items requested unless they did not meet the definition of essential. 3. Section 3 Program - Provide state match for transit agency priorities #1 and #2, unless an item did not meet the definition of Essential, in which case, a lower priority essential items was moved up. 4. Definition of essential - Those capital items directly needed to maintain service. a. Communication Equipment - Replacement only. b. Maintenance Equipment and Parts c. Operational Support Equipment and Services - Equipment and services directly involving the daily provision of service, such as continuation of the capital cost of contracting, tire leases, bus leases, computers and computer leases and operational support vehicles. d. Expansion buses for ADA if included in the transit agency Para transit plan. 5. Definition of Non-essential - Items which are not needed to maintain daily service. For example: * Office furniture and equipment * Computer tables and chairs * Training equipment * Shelters and pads * Expansion buses * Signage * Administrative vehicles * Facility equipment (flagpole, lawn irrigation system, utility tractor, etc.) 6. New Facilities or Facility Renovations - These items are not eligible for inclusion in the Section 3 application, as FTA is interpreting the reauthorization language which states the grant is for the... purchase of buses and bus related equipment to mean no facility work is eligible. K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Transit Application.doc 11

67 Flint MTA State of Good Repair Targets, Adopted by the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance Asset Class Current Condition 2018 Target 2019 Target Revenue Vehicles: Small Bus and Van, Demand Response 1% of our fleet past Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) 1% of our fleet to be past Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) 1% of our fleet to be past Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) Revenue Vehicles: Large Bus Class, Motorbus 51% of our fleet past Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) 42% of our fleet to be past Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) 33% of our fleet to be past Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) Service Vehicles 50% of our fleet past Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) 40% of our fleet to be past Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) <40% of our fleet to be past Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) Facilities all Classes 0% of our facilities are past Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) 0% of our facilities to be past Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) 0% of our facilities to be past Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\Transit Application.doc 12

68 ROOM BEACH STREET FLINT, MI (810) FAX (810) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Members of the Transportation System Management (TSM) Sub- Committee Sharon Gregory, Planner III Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission DATE: August 23, 2018 SUBJECT: Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Call for Projects Funding for FY Projects submitted for Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funding must improve the air quality by contributing to the reduction of mobile source emissions. CMAQ funds can be used for projects such as traffic signal optimization, roundabouts, transit vehicle purchases, and non-motorized improvements. Projects that include a safety component (such as roundabouts or traffic signal improvements with interconnects or actuation) are eligible for a 100% federal share. Other CMAQ projects will require the usual 20% match. In August of 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Highway Administration will recognize the 2015 Ozone Standards, thus reducing the number of non-attainment counties in Michigan from 25 to 10. Beginning in FY 2021, 15 counties that are no longer designated as non-attainment or maintenance will receive one half of their 2020 allocation. This includes Genesee County. Please keep in mind that funding for these projects is contingent upon receiving federal funds. Attached please find a chart that identifies the proposed funding categories, percentages, and estimates for FYs 2021 through Staff is recommending these categories and amounts. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ORGANIZATION

69 Genesee County CMAQ Funding Estimates Category Percentage of Funding Estimated Funding Per Year for FYs Intersection Improvements 37.6% $294,409 Transit 37.6% $294,409 Non Motorized 12.0% $93,930 Rideshare, Vanpooling, Carpooling 12.8% $100, % $782,748 K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\CMAQ Application\CMAQ Application Memo.doc

70 ROOM BEACH STREET FLINT, MI (810) FAX (810) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Members of the Transportation System Management (TSM) Sub- Committee Sharon Gregory, Planner III Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission DATE: August 23, 2018 SUBJECT: Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Call for Projects Funding for FY The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) is a competitive grant program that uses federal transportation funds for specific activities that enhance the intermodal transportation system and provide safe alternative transportation options such as bike and pedestrian facilities. Other eligible projects can be found on the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) TAP website. TAP projects require at least a 20% match. GCMPC will use the web-based MDOT TAP application for the FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Call for Projects. This will allow the application to be reviewed and considered for both local and MDOT TAP funding. Genesee County receives approximately $442,000 in TAP funding annually and is proposing to use the attached scoring sheet to prioritize and select projects for Genesee County local TAP funding. Please note that MDOT gives additional points to projects that exceed the minimum 20% match requirement for the statewide MDOT TAP funding. K:/trans/TIP/ /TIP Applications/TAP Application/TAP Application Memo

71 Score Type: Non Motorized Indicator Points Available Priority on Statewide, Regional, or Local trail plans 50 Supports Connections to Local & Regional Trails 15 Improves Safety 10 Local Match 6 Preliminary Design Completed 5 Completed in conjunction with another transportation project 5 Right of Way 3 Other Funding Sources Identified 3 Operations & Maintenance 3 Total 100 K:\trans\TIP\ \TIP Applications\TAP Application\TAP Application Memo.doc

72 ROOM BEACH STREET FLINT, MICHIGAN TELEPHONE (810) FAX (810) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Members of the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance Jacob Maurer, Planner III Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission DATE: September 19, 2018 SUBJECT: Pavement, Bridge, and System Reliability Performance Targets In May, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) established statewide targets for the performance measure areas of Bridge, Pavement, and System Reliability. The Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance has until November 16, 2018 (180 days after state targets are set) to either adopt the statewide targets or set its own local targets. The statewide targets are listed on the following page. MDOT has recently provided supplementary fact sheets to assist MPOs in making decisions on targets. These include a description of the measures, recent trends, and the methodology used to establish these targets. Please see attached. Between now and the next Metro meeting in October, staff will be gathering localized data to help make an informed decision. Due to limited funding and because performance targets only apply to a limited number of roads along the National Highway System (8% or 84.4 miles of all Federal Aid-eligible roads in Genesee County), staff expects to recommend adoption of MDOT s Performance Targets. Local NHS roads are identified in blue on the attached map. Summaries and full rules can be viewed at the FHWA website: If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (810) or jmaurer@co.genesee.mi.us. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ORGANIZATION JM:dc k:\trans\metro\2018\pavement, bridge, and system reliability performance update.docx XI D

73 Statewide Targets Performance Area Measure Baseline Condition (CY 2017) 2-Year Target 4-Year Target Bridge Pavement System Reliability Percent National Highway System (NHS) Deck Area in Good Condition Percent NHS Deck Area in Poor Condition Percent of Interstate Pavement in Good Condition Percent of Interstate Pavement in Poor Condition Percent of Non-Interstate NHS Percent in Good Condition Percent of Non-Interstate NHS in Poor Condition Level of Travel Time Reliability of the Interstate Level of Travel Time Reliability of the Non-Interstate NHS Freight Reliability Measure on the Interstate 32.7% 27.2% 26.2% 9.8% 7.2% 7.0% 56.8% N/A 47.8% 5.2% N/A 10.0% 49.7% 46.7% 43.7% 18.6% 21.6% 24.6% 85.1% 75.0% 75.0% 85.8% N/A 70.0%

74 MAY 2018 TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published in the Federal Register (82 FR 5886) a final rule establishing performance measures for State Departments of Transportations (DOTs) to use in managing pavement and bridge performance on the National Highway System (NHS). The National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program Final Rule addresses requirements established by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and reflects passage of the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The rule became effective May 20, The federal rule requires MDOT to establish targets for pavement condition measures Percent Good and Percent Poor on the Interstate and non-interstate NHS. Targets are required for two and four-year intervals for each measure, with eight targets in total. For the Interstate measures, there will be no two-year targets for the first ( ) performance period per 23 CFR Part 490, therefore, there will only be six targets in the first period. condition. If two or more metrics are poor, it is to be considered in poor condition. Only IRI will be used to determine non-interstate condition for the performance period, after which it will use PCM. Cracking Percent and IRI are to be reported on all pavement types. Rutting is to be reported only on asphalt pavements, and faulting, on jointed concrete pavements. The table below indicates the metric thresholds for condition on each pavement type, as defined by the rule. The rule requires states to measure, monitor and set targets based upon a composite index of pavement condition measures (PCM). The four metrics to be used are International Roughness Index (IRI), Cracking Percent, Rutting, and Faulting as reported by states to the FHWA s Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). All four metrics will be used to determine the condition for Interstate. If all three metrics on a segment are good, then a pavement is rated in good TARGET SETTING AND SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS Targets: The Transportation Performance Management (TPM) Pavement Rule designates recurring four-year performance periods for which MDOT is required to establish two-year (midpoint) and four-year (full performance) targets for pavement condition on the National Highway System (NHS). Performance Measures: There are four performance measures for assessing pavement condition based on composite analysis of the metrics above: 1) percent of Interstate pavement in Good Condition 2) percent of Interstate pavement in Poor Condition 3) percent of Non-Interstate NHS pavement in Good Condition 4) percent of Non-Interstate NHS pavement in Poor Condition. States were required to establish targets for each measure by May 20,

75 MAY 2018 MPO Targets: MPOs are required to establish fouryear targets for these measures and have two options for target selection: agree to plan and program projects that support MDOT targets or commit to their own targets for their Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). MPO Targets Due: MPO targets are due on November 16, 2018, 180 days after MDOT s targets. These targets are not reported to FHWA but must be reported to MDOT in a manner both parties agree to. MPOs will include targets in their TIPs and LRPs and explain how their projects and programs support either MDOT s or the MPO s targets. Significant Progress: FHWA will determine significant progress on the Mid- and Full Performance Period Progress Reports. Significant progress is defined as achieving a condition that is equal to or better than the target, or better than the baseline condition. If significant progress is not achieved, MDOT must document how it plans to achieve it for the next report ROAD OWNERSHIP The rule applies to the entire National Highway System (NHS), which includes the Interstate, and Non- Interstate NHS. The Non-Interstate portion of the system is comprised of trunkline (MDOT owned) and non-trunkline (local government owned) roads. Local agencies own 19 percent of the NHS in Michigan, while MDOT maintains ownership of approximately 81 percent (see table below). MDOT and MPO targets must cover the entire NHS, regardless of ownership, meaning these agencies may have a limited capacity to achieve these targets. To account for this, the rule requires MDOT and MPOs to coordinate target setting, planning, and programming, ensuring targets are feasible, and projects are geared toward achieving them. MDOT Investment Strategy Process Department goals for state trunkline pavement condition are established by the State Transportation Commission (STC) and influence the way MDOT invests in and maintains state-owned transportation infrastructure. To do this, MDOT conducts investment planning. Investment strategies guide the allocation of capital resources to achieve the goals established. Investments are focused where they will most benefit the public, consistent with the direction established. Investment strategies are developed utilizing anticipated available funding, life cycle planning, and performance gap analysis, and the results of risk analysis. The various strategies are also analyzed and compared to determine how they would impact the overall goals and objectives set by the STC. The desired mix of fixes, investment levels, and funding targets are developed for the selected investment strategy and provided in the Highway Call for Projects memo. They form the basis for project selection and prioritization. The selected investment strategy is communicated to the public by way of the annual Five- Year Transportation Program. MDOT s investment strategy to achieve the constrained Michigan targets for asset condition are reflected in the STIP program of projects. MICHIGAN STATEWIDE PAVEMENT TARGETS The TPM Pavement Team reviewed historical trends of condition metric data from the last decade ( ) to support future target establishment. FHWA and MDOT use the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) to report pavement condition. According to the rule, HPMS data must be submitted annually by April 15 for Interstate data, and June 15 for Non-Interstate NHS data. These figures were used as a baseline to establish the statewide targets. With MDOT s current funding levels, trunkline pavement condition is anticipated to decline over the course of the next decade, and therefore, MDOT has chosen conservative targets to reflect this decline. Given the 2

76 MAY 2018 definition of significant progress (equal to or better than the target, or better than the baseline condition), MDOT can achieve significant progress while targets are declining if condition does not fall below the targets. Interstate Targets Non-Interstate Targets 3

77 MAY 2018 Conservative Targets The conservative nature of the approved targets is based on several factors: 1) Forecasts of the trunkline pavement condition based on Remaining Service Life (RSL) is declining. 2) Sample size for the cracking measure will move from 30% to 100% of roads sampled. 3) Issues surrounding the data such as the use of new vendors and the introduction of more advanced data collection may make data collection inconsistent. 4) A buildup in the Interstate IRI category at the edge of good gives the potential for a significant number of segments to fall into fair. 5) The use of a composite score means that all three measures must be good to be counted as good. If only one measure was to fall the whole segment is no longer considered good. 6) At the current time the sample size available for previous years is relatively small for the use of trend analysis. Other major potential hindrances include climate changes, funding uncertainties, and funding levels. REPORTING National Goal: FHWA will annually assess the percent of Interstate pavement in poor condition to ensure compliance with a minimum condition level requirement that no more than five percent of the Interstate System be in poor condition. This is the only portion of the rule with a financial penalty for pavement funding and prioritizes the Interstate System by directing MDOT pavement funding toward it. Reports are structured on a 4-year reporting cycle, with midpoint (2-year) reports. Between October 2018 and October 2022, state DOTs will be required to submit three performance reports to FHWA. Baseline Performance Report: In this report, MDOT must establish 2-year and 4-year targets, describe baseline conditions, urbanized area boundaries and population data, NHS limits, and relationships with other performance expectations. The Baseline Performance Report will include HPMS data collected in 2016 and States will be able to adjust the 4-year targets in the Mid Performance Progress Report based on data collected in 2018 and To allow for the phasing in of new reporting requirements for Interstate pavement conditions, states are only required to establish 4-year targets for Interstate pavements in the Baseline Performance Report that is due October 1, Both 2-year and 4-year targets are required for non-interstate NHS pavements. Baseline Performance Report due 10/1/18. Mid Performance Progress Report: MDOT must report on 2-year conditions and performance, investment strategy effectiveness and discuss progress in achieving targets. States have the option to adjust 4-year targets at this time. In this report states may include a discussion of target achievement and extenuating circumstances. Because states are not required to establish 2-year targets for Interstate pavements in the Baseline Performance Report, they would use the Mid Performance Progress Report to update baseline condition/performance data and, if necessary, adjust the 4- year targets. Mid-Performance Period Progress Report due 10/1/20. Full Performance Progress Report: This report includes the same content as the Mid Performance Period Progress Report but reports on the 4-year targets. If a state has not made significant progress for achieving the NHPP targets in two consecutive biennial determinations, then the state DOT will include a description of the actions they will undertake to better achieve the NHPP targets in the next performance period. Even though significant progress is assessed for all four pavement performance measures, pavement condition penalties only apply for Interstate pavements. As part of the Full Performance Progress Report, MPOs will report targets and progress toward the achievement of targets. MPOs will report their established targets, performance, progress, and achievement of the targets to their respective state DOT in a manner that is agreed upon by both parties and documented in the Metropolitan Planning Agreement. Full Performance Period Progress Report due 10/1/20. 4

78 MAY 2018 Penalties MDOT will be penalized if it does not meet the interstate pavement condition requirement. If FHWA determines that a State DOT's Interstate pavement condition is below the minimum condition level for the most recent 2 years, then that State DOT would be subject to the penalty under the rule. The FHWA will notify MDOT annually of its compliance status regarding the minimum condition requirement prior to October 1 of the year in which the determination is made. State DOTs are subject to a statutory penalty that would obligate a portion of NHPP funds and transfer a portion of STP funds to address Interstate pavement conditions if they fail to meet this minimum condition requirement for 2 consecutive years. Specifically, if the state is out of compliance, they would be required to obligate the following: From the amount apportioned to the State for the NHPP, an amount that is not less than the interstate Maintenance apportionment for fiscal year 2009 plus 2 percent per year compounded annually for the five additional fiscal years after For apportioned transfer Surface Transportation Program funds, an amount equal to 10 percent of Interstate Maintenance apportionment for fiscal year These funds would need to be used to improve Interstate pavement conditions (as provided under the pre-map-21 Interstate Maintenance Program). This requirement will remain in effect until the Interstate system pavement condition exceeds the minimum condition level. Available Data A web application is available online showing pavement conditions and inventory for Interstate PCM and Non- Interstate IRI data. This tool is available for use by the MPOs. The link to the application is below. For More Information Pavement condition data: Mike Sokolnicki ; SokolnickiD@michigan.gov Pavement condition information: Craig Newell ; NEWELLC@michigan.gov For More Information Pavement condition data: Mike Sokolnicki Pavement condition information: Craig Newell ; SokolnickiD@michigan.gov ; NEWELLC@michigan.gov 5

79 JUNE 2018 TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT BRIDGE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT BRIDGE CONDITION Federal law, outlined in the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), defines a bridge as a structure carrying traffic with a span greater than 20 feet and requires that all bridges be inspected every two years to monitor and report condition ratings. The FHWA requires that for each applicable bridge, the performance measures for determining condition be based on the minimum values for substructure, superstructure, deck, and culverts. The FHWA further requires counting this condition by the respective deck area of each bridge and express condition totals as a percentage of the total deck area of bridges in a state. Condition ratings are based on a 0-9 scale and assigned for each culvert, or the deck, superstructure and substructure of each bridge. These ratings are recorded in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database. Condition ratings are an important tool for transportation asset management, as they are used to identify preventative maintenance needs, and to determine rehabilitation and replacement projects that require funding. REPORTING ON BRIDGE CONDITION The Transportation Performance Management (TPM) Bridge Condition Rule designates recurring four-year performance periods for which MDOT is required to twoyear (midpoint) and four-year (full performance) targets for bridge condition on the National Highway System (NHS). MDOT is required to submit three performance reports to FHWA within the 4-year performance period. Baseline Performance Report -October 1st, 2018 Mid-Performance Period Progress Report -October 1st, 2020 Full Performance Period Progress Report -October 1st, 2022 The two performance measures for assessing bridge condition are: % of NHS bridges in Good Condition; and % of NHS bridges in Poor Condition. MDOT established bridge targets on May 20, ANATOMY OF A BRIDGE OR CULVERT NBI Condition Ratings 7-9 Good Condition Routine maintenance candidate. 5-6 Fair Condition Preventative maintenance and minor rehabilitation candidate. 4 Poor Major rehabilitation or replacement candidate Poor Condition Serious or Critical Imminent Failure or Failed Emergency repair or high priority major rehabilitation or replacement candidate. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close until corrective action can be taken. Major rehabilitation or replacement candidate. Bridge is closed to traffic. 1

80 JUNE 2018 REPORTING ON BRIDGE CONDITION, CONTINUED MPO Targets: MPOs are required to establish four-year targets for these measures and have two options for target selection: agree to plan and program projects that support MDOT targets or commit to their own targets for their Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). MPO Targets Due: MPO targets are due on November 16, 2018, 180 days after MDOT s targets. These targets are not reported to FHWA but must be reported to MDOT in a manner both parties agree to. MPOs will include targets in their TIPs and LRPs and explain how their projects and programs support either MDOT s or the MPO s targets. Significant Progress: FHWA will determine significant progress on the Mid- and Full Performance Period Progress Reports. Significant progress is defined as achieving a condition that is equal to or better than the target, or better than the baseline condition. If significant progress is not achieved, MDOT must document how it plans to achieve it for the next report. End of 2017 NHS Bridge Condition by Count Statewide (for reference only) Owner Good Fair Poor Total Trunkline % % 138 5% % Bridge Authority 3 38% 5 62% 0 0% 8 <1% Local 92 41% 94 42% 39 17% 225 8% Total % % 177 6% 2962 End of 2017 NHS Bridge Condition by Deck Area - Statewide Owner Good Fair Poor Total (sft) Trunkline 11,145,968 34% 18,568,765 56% 3,221,383 10% 32,936,116 88% Bridge Authority 291,482 15% 1,707,000 85% - 0% 1,998,482 5% Local 782,324 32% 1,197,624 49% 446,003 18% 2,425,951 6% Total 12,219,774 33% 21,473,389 57% 3,667,386 10% 37,360,549 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM While the National Bridge Inspection Standards applies to all publicly owned highway bridges, the TPM Targets are only applied to those bridges carrying routes on the NHS including bridge on- and off-ramps connected to the NHS. The NHS consists of roadways important to the nation s economy, defense, and mobility. The NHS includes the following subsystems of roadways: interstate, other principal arterials, strategic highway network, major strategic highway network connectors, and intermodal connectors. condition totals as a percentage of the total deck area of bridges in a state. Local agencies own 6 percent of the NHS bridge deck area in Michigan, while MDOT and the Bridge Authorities maintain ownership of approximately 94 percent of bridge deck area (see table above). MDOT and MPO targets must cover the entire NHS, regardless of ownership. To account for this, the rule requires MDOT and MPOs to coordinate target setting, planning, and programming, ensuring targets are feasible, and projects are geared toward achieving them. 2

81 JUNE 2018 BRIDGE DETERIORATION MODELS As a bridge ages, its condition declines and an increasing amount of work is required to restore condition or extend the usable life of the bridge. By tracking the rate at which bridges have declined in the past, MDOT is able to predict the rate at which a bridge will decline in the future. MDOT has an established process through which trends in bridge deterioration rates can be evaluated at regular intervals. These periodic reviews will show whether preventive maintenance and other small actions taken on bridges are effective over time. This process is documented in the report A Process for Systematic Review of Bridge Deterioration Rates which is available on the MDOT website at: Systematic_Review_of_Bridge_Deterioration_Rates_ _7.pdf. As shown in the image above, the minimum NBI condition rating is the y axis, and the number of years in each condition state is the x axis. As the Target setting periods are two and four years, the key transition times for this analysis are the Transition from Good to Fair (the time it takes to drop from 7 to 6) and the Transition from Fair to Poor (the time it takes to drop from 5 to 4). Outside of the initial drop for 9 (Excellent) to 8 (Very Good), a bridge would not be predicted to fall multiple condition ratings over a span of four years as it is based on statewide averages. This can sometimes occur in practice and is part of the error involved in predictions. PROJECT IMPACTS MDOT PROJECT SELECTION - As the product of ongoing asset management by MDOT and our local agencies, projects are programmed each year to extend life or improve condition throughout the bridge network. MDOT analyzes the candidates for each of the major work types preventive maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement and identifies a strategy that is the most cost-effective means to achieve and sustain a state of good repair within financial constraints. Starting from this initial strategy, the regions then perform more detailed analysis and scopes, coordinating with other programs such as road, and selecting projects through the annual Call for Projects process. A small number of MDOT bridges are managed centrally within the Big Bridge Program. The Big Bridge Population is a unique subset of MDOT s trunkline bridge population that includes twenty-three large deck bridges (deck area in excess of 100,000 sq ft), thirteen complex bridges, and twelve moveable bridges. These forty-eight bridges are unique not only from an engineering standpoint, but they also represent large capital investments in terms of their initial construction costs and in terms of their long-term preservation and rehabilitation costs. Because of the significant investment these bridges represent, MDOT s goal is to preserve and maintain the Big Bridge inventory in a continuously good or fair condition state. This population is also of unique importance to the Performance Management Target Settings as the 37 structures that carry NHS comprise 14% of the trunkline NHS deck area. LOCAL AGENCY PROJECT SELECTION - As the product of ongoing asset management by MDOT and our local agencies, projects are programmed local agency bridge projects included in this analysis are those that have been selected through the local bridge program. Legislation enacted October 1, 2004 created a local bridge fund, a local bridge advisory board (LBAB) and seven regional bridge councils (RBC). The legislation places control of the funding allocations of the local bridge fund in the hands of the local agencies of Michigan through the LBAB and RBCs. A call for applications is sent to all local agencies on an annual basis. The submitted applications are reviewed by the staff of MDOT local agency program s bridge unit for completeness and funding eligibility. Formula rating points are computed and each region s applications are submitted to their respective RBC for addition of discretionary points. A 3-year bridge program is maintained by each RBC. Local Agencies may also identify bridge projects through their Metropolitan Planning Organization or Rural Task Force, although because of the dollar amounts available these projects are rare. Many local agencies do projects on their bridges with their Act 51 fund distributions. These projects, however, do not have to be entered as a programmed project within the Planning Schema and would not be reflected in the results. Due to the relatively small amount of local agency deck area, this is considered an acceptable omission at this time, but is an area identified for future improvement. 3

82 JUNE 2018 DEVELOPING TARGETS Starting from the condition reported with the NBI submittal on March 14 th of 2018, the expected improved condition from projects and reduced condition from deterioration was summarized into expected condition in 2020 and in The deck areas in good, fair and poor conditions at each year was summarized. To account for uncertainty, the amount of deck area in good condition was conservatively reduced by 1%, and the amount of deck area in poor condition was increased by 1%. A 1% reduction for uncertainties reflects about 30 average size structures that either deteriorated faster than predicted or that did not see as much of an improvement as predicted. ANALYZING TARGETS Overall, the number of good bridges is expected to decline significantly as preservation efforts tend to extend life in fair condition. While the amount of bridges in good condition is predicted to decrease, the amount of deck area in poor condition is also predicted to decrease. While the decrease in poor deck area is important towards achieving and then maintaining a state of good repair, the amount of fair deck area will require a sustained commitment to preservation in order to prevent an unsustainable amount of fair bridges from falling into poor condition. 4

83 JUNE 2018 PENALTY MDOT will be penalized if it does not meet the NHS bridge condition requirement. If FHWA determines that a State DOT's Interstate pavement condition is below the minimum condition level for 3 consecutive years, then that State DOT would be subject to the penalty under the rule. The FHWA will notify MDOT annually of its compliance status regarding the minimum condition requirement prior to October 1 of the year in which the determination is made. The minimum NHS bridge condition level is that no more than 10 percent of total deck area of NHS bridges can be classified in poor condition. If the minimum condition level is not met for 3 consecutive years, the State must set aside NHPP funds for eligible bridge projects on the NHS. For More Information Rebecca Curtis MDOT Bridge Preservation and Management Administrator CurtisR4@michigan.gov Amy Gill MDOT Bridge Program Performance Engineer GillA@michigan.gov 5

84 JUNE 2018 TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT WHAT IS TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY? New federal rules require states to measure, monitor, and set goals based upon a composite index of travel time reliability metrics. Travel time reliability measures how consistent the travel time is from one point to another, from one day to the next. To determine reliability, data on travel time is examined to see how it varies over time. Travel time for each discrete segment of the National Highway System (NHS) is placed in order from the shortest time (fastest speed), which is the 1 st percentile speed, to the longest time (slowest speed), which is the 100 th percentile speed. Three performance measures are examined to compare the normal travel time, (which is defined as the 50 th percentile travel time) on a segment, with either the 80 th percentile or the 95 th percentile travel time to determine the overall reliability. If the difference between the normal travel time and the longer travel time (80 th or 95 th percentile time) is greater than 50%, then the segment is unreliable. To help understand this concept and how travel time reliability is applied, consider the following highly simplified hypothetical example. Suppose an individual person s normal travel time from home to work is 20 minutes. The 80 th percentile is defined as one out of every five days, or approximately once a work week. If in a typical week, it takes this individual 30 minutes or longer to travel to work (one or more times), then his/her route would be designated as unreliable. Comparatively, the truck travel time measure uses the 95 th percentile which is one out of every twenty days. Travel Time Reliability is not the same as Congestion. Reliability is important, because travelers prefer a consistent travel time to their destination over whether or not the route is congested. If people understand that a route is congested, they can plan accordingly, but if a route is unreliable, they really have no understanding of how long it will take to get to their destination, which creates greater frustration. In addition, segments of roads can be both congested, and reliable (e.g., reliably congested), whereas others can be congested, but unreliable. Example of Unreliable Corridor Day 1 50 th Percentile (Average or Normal Travel Time) Day 2 80 th Percentile Longer Travel Time) 1

85 JUNE 2018 TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY MEASURES Federal regulations require states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to use three performance measures for assessing travel time reliability. Travel time data used to calculate each measure is purchased by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and made available for use by states and MPOs. The vehicle probe data set used for the federally required measures is called the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS). The data is processed through an analytical software tool known as Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS). The travel time reliability measures, as defined in the PM3 federal rule are: + Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) on the Interstate: % of person-miles traveled on Interstate that are reliable + LOTTR on the Non-Interstate NHS: % of person-miles traveled on the Non-Interstate NHS that are reliable + Freight Reliability Measure on the Interstate: Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index Performance Measure Description Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) 2- and 4-Year Targets** Interstate and Non-Interstate NHS Four (4) Time Periods Fifteen (15) Minute Travel Intervals Longer Travel Time: 80th Percentile Normal Travel Time: 50th Percentile Threshold: Reliability is <1.50 Factors Applied: Vehicle volumes (HPMS) and Vehicle Occupancy Factor (provided by FHWA) Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR 2- and 4-Year Targets Interstate Five (5) Time Periods Fifteen (15) Minute Travel Intervals Longer Travel Time: 95th Percentile Normal Travel Time: 50th Percentile Threshold: None Factors Applied: No additional factors are applied ** The Non-Interstate NHS Travel Time Reliability measure is being phased-in and does not require a 2-year target for the first performance period only. Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) Example Segment: Longer Travel Time (80 th ) Normal Travel Time (50 th ) = # seconds # seconds = LOTTR Monday Friday 6am - 10am LOTTR = 44 sec 35 sec = am - 4pm LOTTR = pm 8pm LOTTR = 1.54 Weekends 6am 8pm LOTTR = 1.31 Reliability: LOTTR below 1.50 during ALL of the time periods Segment is NOT reliable Measure: Percent of person-miles traveled on the [Interstate/Non-Interstate NHS] that are reliable 1. Length x Volume (AADTx365) x Occupancy = person miles 2. (Reliable Person-Miles) (Total Person-Miles) = Reliability Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR (This is an index, not a reliability threshold) Example Segment: Longer Travel Time (95 th ) Normal Travel Time (50 th ) = # seconds # seconds = TTTR Monday Friday 6am - 10am TTTR = 72 sec 50 sec = am - 4pm TTTR = pm 8pm TTTR = 1.49 Weekends 6am 8pm TTTR = 1.31 Overnight 8pm 6am TTTR = 1.20 Maximum TTTR 1.49 Measure: Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index 1. Length x MaxTTTR = Length-weighted TTTR 2. (All segment length weighted TTTR) (All segment lengths) 2

86 JUNE 2018 TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY TARGETS AND METHODOLOGY PM3 Reliability Measures Final State of Michigan Targets Baseline from Jan 2017 to May 2018 (Source: Measure NPMRDS RITIS) Interstate Travel Time Reliability % % Non-Interstate NHS Travel Time Reliability % % Freight Reliability Recommended 2-Year Target(s) CYE 12/31/2019 Recommended 4-Year Target(s) CYE 12/31/ % 75% -- 70% Baseline Data: 2017 and 2018 data shows that the Michigan s interstate highways and non-interstate NHS highways have been between 85 and 86 percent reliable, meaning that greater than 85% of the person miles traveled on the NHS system are meeting the threshold, as defined in the federal rules (the ratio between the 50th percentile and the 80 th percentile is below 1.5). For trucks, due to the higher threshold of comparing the 95 th percentile to the 50 th percentile, the overall truck travel time index on the interstates has remained near 1.5. Target Methodology - Targets have been set conservatively for this first reporting cycle. There is only 17 months of data to establish a baseline, and month-to-month comparisons vary due to weather, construction, data coverage gaps and other factors. As more data is collected over the next 2 years, the detection of trends should become more observable and distinctive and MDOT will re-evaluate the targets for possible adjustments. In the interim, the trends and influencing factors reflect the best information available. Application of these measures in MDOT s prioritization process: These three measures are monitored and considered as factors in the overall decision making process for transportation investments in Michigan. MDOT is currently evaluating the types of projects and funding templates that will have an impact on travel time reliability, and have developed an initial list of project types to be considered; however, due to the lack of historical data, it is not possible to truly quantify the level of impacts for each of these project types at this time. The initial list of project types includes: capacity improvements or widenings, ITS and operational improvements, safety projects that improve operational flow, and road and bridge reconstruction and rehabilitation projects that improve segments from poor condition to good/fair condition. 3

87 JUNE 2018 REPORTING ON TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY The Transportation Performance Management (TPM) System Performance Rule designates recurring four-year performance periods for which two and four-year targets are required to be established for travel time reliability on the NHS for person miles and freight. There are three sets of targets: 1) percent of person miles traveled on the Interstate System that are reliable, 2) percent of person miles traveled on the Non-Interstate NHS that are reliable, and 3) truck travel time reliability index on the Interstate. The first performance period takes place from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2022, with state targets due on May 20, MDOT is required to submit biennial progress reports to FHWA. There are a total of three progress reports due for each performance period: + Baseline Performance Report (due October 1, 2018) + Mid-Performance Period Progress Report (Oct. 1, 2020) + Full Performance Period Progress Report (Oct. 1, 2022) FHWA will determine significant progress using the Mid and Full Performance Period Progress Reports. Significant progress is defined as achieving a condition that is equal to or better than the target, or better than the baseline condition. If significant progress is not achieved, MDOT must document how it plans to achieve it by the next reporting cycle. MPO Coordination MPOs are required to establish four-year targets for these measures, and have two options for target selection: agree to plan and program projects that support state targets, or commit to their own targets for their Metropolitan Planning Area. MPO targets are due on November 16, 2018, 180 days after state targets are established. MPO targets are not reported to FHWA, but must be reported to MDOT using mutually agreed upon method. MPOs will include targets in their Transportation Improvement Programs and Long-Range Transportation Plans, and explain how their projects and programs support either MDOT s or the MPO s targets. 4

88 Linden Center State G E N E S E E C O U N T Y National Highway System M I C H I G A N SAGINAW COUNTY Montrose Twp SAGINAW COUNTY Vienna Twp TUSCOLA COUNTY Otter Lake Montrose Vienna Clio «54 Thetford Twp «57 Forest Twp Otisville SHIAWASSEE COUNTY Flushing Twp Flushing Clayton Twp 69 Swartz Creek E I 69 «21 Mt Morris Twp S I 75 N I Flint Twp 475 Clio Pierson Hill Ballenger Corunna Miller Bristol Mt Morris Genesee Twp Saginaw Flint 5th Fenton S I 475 N I 475 Flint Twp Dort Robert T Longway Court 9th Davison W I 69 Burton Grand Blanc Twp Richfield Twp 69 «15 Flint Davison Twp Atlas Twp Davison LAPEER COUNTY Gaines Twp Mundy Twp Gaines Grand Blanc Holly 75 Goodrich State OAKLAND COUNTY Argentine Twp 23 Fenton Twp N US 23 OAKLAND COUNTY County or Regional Parks Interstates Township Boundary Rivers and Streams City or Village Boundary County Boundary NHS - MDOT Roads (208.7 miles) NHS - Local Roads (84.4 miles) Linden S US 23 Fenton LIVINGSTON COUNTY Federal Aid Road Total = 1,027.3 miles Miles I