MACATAWA AREA COORDINATING

COUNCIL

2035 LONG RANGE

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

UPDATE

FEBRUARY 2011

Prepared By:

THE MACATAWA AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL

301 Douglas Avenue

Holland, MI 49424

(616) 395-2688

MACATAWA AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL

2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

UPDATE

February 28, 2011

Preparation of this document was financed through grants from the Federal Transit Administration,

Federal Highway Administration and local membership contributions.

Any questions or comments about the MACC 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan should be

addressed to:

Steve Bulthuis, Executive Director or Elisa Hoekwater, Senior Planner

Macatawa Area Coordinating Council

301 Douglas Avenue

Holland, MI 49424

(616) 395-2688

www.the-macc.org

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background As the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the Holland urbanized area, the Macatawa Area Coordinating Council (MACC) is responsible for the development of a multi-modal long range transportation plan (LRTP). This plan attempts to ensure that proposed improvements to the transportation system enhance the movement of goods and people in a safe, efficient and economic manner. The plan must also be fiscally constrained, project specific, meet the principles of environmental justice, include the public throughout the planning process, and meet air quality standards established for the MACC area. This LRTP has a 25 year planning horizon and looks out to the year 2035. Overview of the 2035 LRTP Planning Process Public participation was sought early and throughout the entire planning process. A survey placed in newspapers and sent to stakeholders, an open house, the MACC’s web site and the MACC’s regularly scheduled Policy and Technical Committee meetings (Policy Committee meetings are broadcast on public access television) were used to disseminate information and gather input. Chapter 1 provides more detail on the public participation process. A set of goals and objectives were identified to help guide the planning process. The goals and objectives for the 2035 LRTP center around the following themes:

• Comprehensive Planning • Economic and Financial Considerations • Efficiency • Mobility • Land Use and Environmental Impacts • Accessibility • Safety and Security

In addition to the 2035 LRTP’s goals and objectives, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) encourages the MACC when developing the LRTP to consider projects and strategies that meet distinct areas. More detail on the 2035 LRTP’s goals and objectives and SAFETEA-LU objectives can be found in Chapter 2. Throughout the planning process many issues and topics of concern related to the transportation system in the MACC were identified. Chapter 3 notes many of these issues. Recommendations/suggestions from this chapter include:

• Advocates for increased funding for transportation • Promotes completion of all components of US-31 project

- Six lane roadway on existing alignment - Four lane freeway on new alignment

• Encourages periodic assessment of the feasibility of expanding transit into areas currently not served

• Encourages MACC members to consider land use design which is sensitive to transit • Proposes studying the potential for implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

and participating in ITS regional architecture development

ii

• Urges the implementation of transportation demand management strategies (e.g. non-motorized modes, telecommuting, compressed work week)

• Encourages continued emphasis on safety in the planning process • Encourages a study of various growth scenarios and their impact on the transportation system

The 2035 LRTP is multi-modal in its approach to the transportation system. Chapter 4 covers transit issues, including the current operating characteristics of the Macatawa Area Express system as well as local public school transportation systems. An analysis identifying potential future transit service areas in the MACC area was previously completed. In 2010, three surveys were conducted to assess current service satisfaction and identify expansion potential. Information about the MACC’s airports, harbor, rail (passenger and freight) and non-motorized modes are included in Chapter 5. An extensive travel demand modeling process is completed as part of the development of the 2035 LRTP. The first step in this process is the development of socio-economic data for a current year scenario and a forecast year, in this case 2009 and 2035 respectively. Information on dwelling units, population and employment (retail, service, and other employment) was collected to establish totals in 2009 and projected for the year 2035. This data was used as inputs in a computer travel demand forecast model for the MACC area. The purpose of the modeling process is to predict where demand for travel is likely to occur in the future based on the dwelling unit, population and employment projections. It also measures the impact proposed roadway projects have on congestion problems. More discussion on development of the MACC’s travel demand model is included in Chapter 6. The output from the modeling process is a list of roadway segments that are nearing or are in a congested state for either 2009 or 2035, or both. Chapter 7 discusses the results of the modeling process in detail. MACC Technical Committee members reviewed the specific roadway segments and corridors that were identified as being deficient by the model. They determined what, if anything, should be done to address the projected deficiencies. This process resulted in a list of projects for the MACC area that would improve the capacity of various roadways. A list of the 21 capacity-enhancing projects, totaling $65.2 million, included as part of the 2035 LRTP is attached at the end of this executive summary. With the implementation of the 2035 LRTP’s capacity-enhancing projects, the model suggests the number of congested miles will continue to increase suggesting that we cannot build our way out of congestion. The model projects an increase in the daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT) in the MACC area as well. VMT will increase from the current 2.8 million VMT to 3.3 million VMT by 2035, a 19% increase. In addition to the capacity-enhancing projects, other projects were identified for the 2035 LRTP and include preservation projects, transit and future pavement rehabilitation projects. The complete list of all 63 projects, totaling $73.3 million, can be found in Chapter 8. The LRTP’s capacity-enhancing projects were shared with federal, state and local entities responsible for economic growth and development, environmental protection, airport operations, freight movement, land use management, natural resources, conservation and historic preservation. The goal of the effort is to eliminate or minimize conflicts with other agencies’ plans that impact transportation. More details on this consultation process can be found in Chapter 9. A financial analysis was conducted to ensure that there is a reasonable expectation that funding will be available to complete the projects in the LRTP. Chapter 10 details various federal, state, and local projected revenues for the time frame covered by this LRTP. Revenue sources were identified for transit as well as roadways. Sufficient revenues were identified to cover the costs of the projects contained in

iii

this plan as well as maintain/operate the existing system, thereby fulfilling the federal requirement that the 2035 LRTP be fiscally constrained. Chapter 11 evaluates the LRTP’s programs and projects against its goals and objectives and SAFETEA-LU’s planning factors. It also provides evidence that the LRTP meets the principles of environmental justice, is in conformance with air quality standards and considered environmental mitigation strategies for projects identified during the consultation process. The 2035 LRTP provides the basis for the MACC’s ongoing transportation planning activities. It will be updated within the next four years and is also open to amendment as unforeseen situations arise. Projects contained in the 2035 LRTP will be selected for inclusion in the MACC’s Transportation Improvement Program, a three year program of transportation programs and projects within the MACC scheduled to receive federal funding. Questions concerning this LRTP can be directed to:

Steve Bulthuis, Executive Director or, Elisa Hoekwater, Senior Planner Macatawa Area Coordinating Council (MACC)

301 Douglas Avenue Holland, Michigan 49424

(616) 395-2688 www.the-macc.org

iv

v

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 1 Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

MACC Public Participation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Transportation Plan Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Other Public Input Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Treatment of Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Chapter 2 Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Listing of Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Chapter 3 Transportation Topics/Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Issues/Corridors of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Increased Funding for Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Transportation Impacts of Various Growth Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 M-231 / US-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Intelligent Transportation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Tulip City Airport Runway Expansion & Regional Organizational Structure . . . . . . . 13 Passenger/Freight Rail Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Transit Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Transportation Demand Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Transit Sensitive Land Use Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Growth Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Long Range Plan Alternative Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Emergency Access to Limited Access Highways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Emerging Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Chapter 4 Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

School Transit Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Public Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Transit Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

MACC 2035 LRTP Update Table of Contents (continued)

vi

Transit System Linkages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Transportation Demand Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Transit Sensitive Land Use Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter 5 Intermodal Transportation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Passenger Rail Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Freight Rail Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Intercity Bus Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Non-motorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Chapter 6 Travel Demand Forecast Model Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Model Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Trip Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Model Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Applications of the Calibrated Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Chapter 7 Congestion Deficiency Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Time Frames/Networks for Deficiency Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Severity of Congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Chapter 8 Plan Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Types of Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Listing of Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

• Improve and Expand Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 • Preservation Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 • Transit Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 • Illustrative Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Project Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Chapter 9 Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Entities Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Information Sent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Responses Received and Treatment of Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

MACC 2035 LRTP Update Table of Contents (continued)

vii

Chapter 10 Financial Summary & Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Calculations of Regional Transportation Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Detail of Planned Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Expenditure Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Sources of Transportation Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Process of Estimating Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 61 Detail of Projected Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Federal Transportation Funds for Local Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Federal/State/Local Transit Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 State Transportation Funds for Maintenance/Operation of Local Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 State & Locally-Raised Funds for Construction of Local Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Federal and State Transportation Funds for State Trunklines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Revenue Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Demonstration of Financial Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Chapter 11 Plan Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Effectiveness of the LRTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Environmental Justice Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Environmental Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Air Quality Conformity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

APPENDICES

Appendix A - LRTP Survey & Public Participation Materials Appendix B – Socio-economic Data for Travel Demand Model Appendix C – US-31 Priority Segments/Alternative F/J1 Appendix D – Congestion Deficiency Maps Appendix E – Air Quality Conformity Findings and Model Run – Kent/Ottawa Counties Appendix F – Air Quality Conformity Findings and Model Run– Allegan County Appendix G – Public Comments on LRTP Appendix H – Consultation Appendix I – Mitigation Maps Appendix J – Environmental Justice Analysis Maps

List of Tables

Table 1 School Transit Provider Summary Operating Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 2 Macatawa Area Express Service Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 3 Projected Air Cargo Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 4 Summary of Planned Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Table 5 Summary of Available Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Table 6 Demonstration of Financial Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Table 7 Air Quality Conformity Final Results – Kent/Ottawa Counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Table 8 Air Quality Conformity Final Results – Allegan County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

MACC 2035 LRTP Update Table of Contents (continued)

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1 MACC Metropolitan Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Figure 2 Displays at Public Open House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 3 Public Open House Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 4 MAX Fixed Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 5 Potential Future Transit Service Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 6 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Proposed Rail Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 7 Freight Rail Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 8 Tulip City Airport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 9 Commodities Handled at Holland Harbor - 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 10 All Commodities Along U.S. Waterways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 11 MACC Area Nonmotorized Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 12 Sample of Model Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 13 Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 14 Trip Assignment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 15 Sample Model Deficiency Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 16 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Roadway Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 17 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Roadway Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Figure 18 Environmental Justice Analysis – Minority Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Figure 19 Environmental Justice Analysis – Low Income Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The following individuals were instrumental in the update of the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Those individuals who participate on the MACC’s Transportation Technical Committee are noted *. City of Holland Olive Township Linda LeFebre (MAX)* Todd Wolters* Brian White* City of Zeeland Port Sheldon Township *Scott Nienhuis Howard Baumann* Fillmore Township Keith Potter* Holland Township Don Komejan* Laketown Township Al Meshkin* Park Township Jerry Felix*

Zeeland Township Glenn L. Nykamp* Al Myaard Allegan County Road Commission Larry W. Brown * William Nelson Ottawa County Road Commission Brett Laughlin* Ottawa County Planning Mark Knudsen*

Michigan Department of Transportation Michael Bippley*

Sandra Cornell-Howe Ray Lenze* Steve Redmond* Jennifer Osborne* Michelle O’Neill Dalrois McBurrows Federal Highway Administration

Sarah VanBuren*

1

INTRODUCTION The Macatawa Area Coordinating Council (MACC) was formed in 1988 out of recognition of the need for greater cooperation among units of government in the Holland/Zeeland area. The MACC’s membership currently includes: City of Holland City of Zeeland Port Sheldon Township Olive Township

Park Township Holland Township Zeeland Township Fillmore Township Laketown Township Ottawa County Board of Commissioners Allegan County Board of Commissioners Ottawa County Road Commission Allegan County Road Commission Michigan Department of Transportation As a result of the 1990 Census, the Holland/Zeeland area was designated as an urbanized area with a population of greater than 50,000. Federal law requires that metropolitan areas with an urbanized area population of greater than 50,000 establish a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The MPO ensures that the area has a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process. The MACC was designated as the MPO for the Holland/Zeeland area in 1993. The MACC’s planning process covers the area within its metropolitan planning area (MPA). The current MPA is approximately 200 square miles.

Figure 1: MACC Metropolitan Planning Area

2

There are a number of transportation planning activities that the MACC, as the MPO, is required to perform. One such task is the development of a long range transportation plan (LRTP) for the MACC planning area. The LRTP, which must cover at least a 20 year period, attempts to ensure that proposed transportation facilities enhance the efficient, economic movement of goods and people. It also identifies local transportation issues that should be identified and addressed in a coordinated, regional manner. This plan covers the time period from 2011-2035. There are several factors that significantly impact the development of the LRTP: SAFETEA-LU The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) is the federal legislation requiring the development of a LRTP. It also requires that the LRTP include a financial component that clearly indicates that there is sufficient funding for the facilities included in the plan. SAFETEA-LU encourages the consideration of eight factors when identifying projects for the plan. These factors are detailed in Chapter 2, “Goals and Objectives”. Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act and its amendments require that the federal government review transportation plans to assess their impacts on air quality. The air quality impact analysis is done on a countywide basis and the two counties that the MACC covers, Ottawa and Allegan, belong to two different air quality analysis areas. Thus, air quality impact analyses are performed separately for each county. The results of the conformity analysis for the LRTP can be found in Chapter 11, “Plan Development and Evaluation” and in much greater detail in Appendix E and Appendix F. Public Participation SAFETEA-LU requires that there be opportunities for public participation throughout the LRTP development process. The comments and information gained through public input must be considered when developing the LRTP. Opportunities for public participation related to the development of the LRTP can be found in Chapter 1, “Public Participation”. The remaining chapters contain various components of the LRTP and the planning process. As noted above, Chapter 1 reviews the public participation opportunities provided during the planning process. Chapter 2 details the goals and objectives that impacted the development of this plan. Chapter 3 identifies a number of transportation-related issues that are of concern to MACC members, and Chapter 4 describes transit issues as they relate to the LRTP. Chapter 5 identifies intermodal facilities (airports, rail and harbor) and issues in the MACC area. An overview of the computer traffic modeling process and specific information regarding the MACC traffic model are contained in Chapter 6. An analysis of the results of the computer traffic modeling process and the identified congestion deficiencies/problems are discussed in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 contains the list of selected roadway projects and describes the process used to select them. Chapter 9 provides an overview of the consultation process which was followed in order to compare plans and programs of federal, state and local agencies with the LRTP. Chapter 10 outlines the estimated revenues from various sources that will be available to fund the LRTP’s projects. The effectiveness of the LRTP and results of the environmental justice, environmental mitigation and air quality analyses on the LRTP are the subject of Chapter 11.

3

Chapter 1 Public Participation Public involvement in the MACC’s transportation planning process is based on the MACC’s Participation Plan (MPP) which was approved by the MACC Policy Committee in June of 2006. The MACC considers public involvement, early in the planning process, essential in order to fully assess all the social (including environmental justice), economic, and environmental impacts of transportation decisions. SAFETEA-LU, while retaining the emphasis noted above, has placed additional emphasis on stakeholder participation, specifically requirements to: 1. Hold public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times 2. Employ visualization techniques to describe metropolitan plans and TIPs 3. Make public information available in electronically accessible formats and means (such as the

World Wide Web) as appropriate to afford reasonable opportunity for consideration of the information.

The MPP outlines a proactive procedure to be undertaken whenever significant planning initiatives occur such as updates to the MACC’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Suggested outreach methods include surveying and this was one method selected to encourage input. A survey was developed asking respondents to answer broad questions regarding the area’s transportation system as well as rank the importance of various transportation issues. A notice of the survey (with an online link) was published in the Grand Rapids Press and the Holland Sentinel. The survey was also highlighted on the MACC website with a link for online access. Noted below are the questions that were asked in the survey and a summary of the results. A copy of the survey, charts that display the results of the survey’s ranking and rating questions as well as how the survey appeared in the newspapers can be found in Appendix A. This first section of the survey asked respondents to rank or prioritize a series of statements regarding the transportation system in order of importance. The statements included: Maintenance and resurfacing of existing roads. Making transit (Macatawa Area Express) more convenient to use. Redesigning roads, traffic signs and signals to improve traffic safety and reduce traffic crashes. Building new or wider roads to reduce traffic congestion. Repairing existing non-motorized facilities (i.e. bike paths, sidewalks etc.) and building new paths which eliminate gaps in the system. Reducing energy consumption and air pollution from motor vehicles. The survey respondents were also asked to rate each of these statements. This provided the respondent with the opportunity to show that a particular statement may not be ranked very high yet is still very important.

4

Noted below are some of the major themes that were drawn from the survey results. As noted earlier, charts that detail the results of the survey can be found in Appendix A. • Maintenance and resurfacing of existing roads received the highest ranking with 67% of all

respondents choosing this statement as their number one priority. 82% of respondents rated this as very important, higher than any other statement.

• Improving traffic safety by redesigning roads/traffic signs/traffic signals was considered to be the

highest priority by nearly 8% of survey respondents while building new or wider roads was the highest priority for 5% of respondents. Reducing energy consumption and air pollution from motor vehicles was ranked the top priority by 10% of respondents while making transit more convenient to use was the top priority of 3% of survey respondents. Nearly 8% of respondents ranked repair and construction of non-motorized paths as their top priority.

• While maintaining/resurfacing existing roads was ranked the top priority by the largest

percentage of respondents, many still felt that the other statements were very or somewhat important. For instance, nearly 8% of respondents ranked the repairing/construction of non-motorized facilities as the top priority yet 87% rated this statement as very or somewhat important. Likewise, with the statement related to construction of new or wider roads, it was ranked as the top priority by 5% of survey respondents yet was considered very or somewhat important by 58%.

The second portion of the survey contained two statements. Respondents were asked to choose that statement which most closely reflects their opinion. The statements, followed by the percentage of respondents who selected that statement, are given below. Maintain the quality of roadway and transit services in already developed areas 95% OR Build new roads and expand transit service in outlying/less developed areas 5% Widen roads to relieve traffic congestion 42% OR Minimize road widenings and place greater emphasis on encouraging carpooling/bus service to relieve congestion 58% Invest in traditional road improvements such as widening roadways, adding turn lanes, and traffic lights 34% OR Minimize traditional road improvements and encourage investing in high technology road improvements such as computerized traffic signal systems 66% Reduce air pollution by limiting travel, driving less, increasing the use of transit and carpools 64% OR Reduce air pollution by testing automobiles in alternate years and making needed repairs 36% Accept fewer transportation improvements in the Holland/Zeeland area as a result of limited dollars 34% OR Provide more money to improve the transportation system through increased user fees or taxes 66% Again, preservation of the existing system was a high priority among survey respondents. Another interesting finding is the willingness of survey respondents to impose fees or taxes on themselves in order to fund transportation improvements.

5

Open House Opportunity In addition to the survey, an open house was held to allow the public to comment on identified congestion problems and proposed projects to address the problems. Information was also provided on transportation issues and corridors of concern within the region.

Figure 2: Displays at Public Open House Figure 3: Public Open House Participants The open house ran from 9:00 a.m.-6:30 p.m. at the MACC office. MACC and MDOT staff members were available to answer questions and record responses. Sheets were also available to make written comments. Participants at the open house included interested citizens, elected officials, planning commission members, employers, and local government employees. Day-of-meeting newspaper coverage, MACC website notice and invitations sent to MACC Transportation Stakeholders announcing the open house can be found in Appendix A. Other Input Opportunities The LRTP has been a topic on several Technical and Policy Committee (Policy Committee meetings are broadcast on public access television) agendas giving the public an opportunity to learn more about development of the LRTP. It has also been noted to stakeholders and the general public that a

Maps, charts and other displays were used to convey the information contained in the 2035 LRTP at the Public Input Open House

6

copy of the LRTP is available for review at the MACC office. The LRTP was posted to the MACC’s website with an email link to MACC staff to allow for comments. Treatment of Comments Received All comments received, whether as a result of the open house, the public comment period, or MACC Policy/Technical meetings were cataloged and shared with the Policy and Technical Committees. All comments received, and a description of how they were treated, is contained in Appendix G – Public Comments on LRTP.

7

Chapter 2 Goals and Objectives The goals and objectives of the updated MACC 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) were used in guiding the development of the LRTP’s projects/policies. They are also used for the overall transportation planning process undertaken by the MACC. The goals and objectives are meant to provide a means for gauging the effectiveness of the LRTP. The goals and objectives were developed following a review of the goals and objectives contained in the original 2035 LRTP (adopted in April 2007), the results of the 2035 LRTP public survey (described in Chapter 1) as well as federal and state documents and law. The goals and objectives are centered upon seven major themes:

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ACCESSIBILITY SAFETY AND SECURITY

While it is recognized that there may be some potential conflict between specific objectives, the MACC’s planning process attempts to find a balance between such objectives. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - Transportation planning and the system it designs shall be comprehensive and coordinated with other planning efforts. • The MACC LRTP shall be coordinated with and complement MACC members’ master/land

use and other plans. • The MACC LRTP shall be coordinated with the State Long Range Transportation Plan (MI

Transportation Plan) as well as other Michigan Department of Transportation plans. • The MACC LRTP will consider the eight factors contained in the Safe Accountable Flexible

Efficient Transportation Equity Act- A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS - Planning efforts must recognize funding availability when designing the system, ensure the best allocation of those resources, and promote the development of a system that is an economic asset to the region. • The transportation system will encourage employment retention and attract new employment

to the MACC area. • Transportation improvements will be cost-effective and maximize long term benefits.

8

• Transportation system investments from federal and state sources will be actively pursued. • Transportation system investments from the private sector and private/public partnerships

will be encouraged. EFFICIENCY - The transportation system shall be configured and utilized in the most efficient manner possible. • Transportation projects that reduce distance and time spent traveling shall be promoted. • The existing transportation infrastructure system shall be preserved and maintained. • The transportation system shall encourage the multiple use of transportation right-of-ways by

different modes. • Expansion of the transportation system, to accommodate the MACC-area’s growth, will be

completed and regionally coordinated. MOBILITY - The transportation system will ensure basic mobility to all persons and goods and allow them to arrive at their destination in a timely manner. • Special consideration will be given to the development of transportation services that provide

opportunities for persons who currently have limited mobility. • Transit and non-motorized alternatives will be considered with street and highway

improvements. • The transportation system will provide continuous service and needed capacity across large

portions of the region. LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - The transportation system shall maximize positive impacts and minimize disruption of existing and anticipated land uses in the MACC area, as well as maintain and improve the quality of the environment. • The transportation system shall minimize interference with existing neighborhoods and

minimize negative effects on commercial and industrial facilities. • The impacts of the transportation system shall not be disproportionately adverse on minority

or low-income populations • The impacts of the transportation system on open spaces and prime agricultural lands shall

be minimized. • The impacts of the transportation system on air pollutant emissions shall be minimized.

9

• The impacts of the transportation system on water quality, including storm water quality,

shall be minimized. • The transportation system shall minimize the energy resources consumed for transportation. ACCESSIBILITY - The transportation system will be available to all persons. • The transportation system will be designed to provide access to employment, education,

medical/essential services, shopping, and recreational opportunities for those who do not own cars or have other transportation barriers

• The transportation system will provide appropriate access to and from major land uses. SAFETY AND SECURITY - The transportation system shall be safe and secure for all its users. • The transportation system shall minimize traffic crashes and the severity of casualties from

crashes. • The transportation system shall minimize rail/auto/transit conflicts. • The transportation system shall minimize motorized/non-motorized conflicts. • The MACC, recognizing the fact that prudent driver behavior and compliance with traffic

safety laws are a necessary component of a safe transportation system, encourages the promotion of driver safety and other safety education programs.

• The MACC encourages the development of appropriate emergency relief and disaster

preparedness strategies for motorized and non-motorized users.

10

SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors The Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act- A Legacy for Users encourages MPOs to consider projects and strategies that will: 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global

competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency. 2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users. 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users. 4. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight. 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of

life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns.

6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between

modes, for people and freight. 7. Promote efficient system management and operation. 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. In Chapter 11, these goals are reviewed and the proposed roadway projects/recommendations contained in the plan are compared to these goals to evaluate if they have been achieved.

11

Chapter 3 Transportation Topics/Concerns Issues/Corridors of Concern There are many issues facing the MACC area that have a direct or indirect impact on the transportation system. This section is intended to identify these concerns and suggest appropriate actions to be considered. Listed below are various roadway corridors that are of special concern and need to be carefully monitored. The following list is not prioritized. Specific issues or concerns are identified for many of the corridors. CORRIDORS LIMITS 16th Street/Adams Street River Avenue – 80th Avenue Significant improvements to this roadway out to the I-196 interchange have been completed. This segment is a non-motorized priority corridor linking the Zeeland and Holland areas that has received significant federal aid for non-motorized facilities. A critical gap in facilities is the Adams Street bridge / I-196 overpass, which is to be completed in the Spring of 2011.

Waverly Road/120th Avenue M-40 – Fillmore Street The MACC has funded capacity enhancement improvements to several sections of this corridor. Other improvements to capacity will be made as needed. Consideration of this corridor as a relief route to US-31 will continue. Ottawa Beach Road/Douglas Avenue Holland State Park – Lakewood Blvd. Continued development of Park Township and the access this corridor provides to Holland State Park, as well as other recreational opportunities, contribute to the regional significance of this corridor. Capacity improvements will be considered as necessary. Washington Avenue (Zeeland) Main Street – Chicago Drive Proposed redevelopment of land uses adjacent to this corridor and the potential for increased traffic volumes necessitate close monitoring of this corridor. 96th Avenue/State Street Ottogan Street – Fillmore Street The ongoing development along this corridor and increasing traffic volumes heightens the need for monitoring of this north/south facility through the eastern portion of the MACC area. Improvements to the State/I-196 BL intersection and the State/Main Street intersection were completed over the last three years and funds have been committed to resurface segments of the 96th Avenue corridor (136th to 142nd Street; Ottogan to Adams Street; I-196 BL to Roosevelt).

M-121 (Chicago Drive) I-196BL – 48th Avenue Continued development of eastern Ottawa County will require close monitoring of this corridor. The bridge over the Macatawa River on the westbound lanes was replaced and MDOT’s 2009 – 2013 Plan called for reconstruction of the roadway in Zeeland Township (48th Ave. – 80th Ave.). Port Sheldon Street 144th Avenue – 96th Avenue With plans for M-231 / US-31 proceeding forward, the Port Sheldon Street corridor shall be closely monitored. The Strategic Improvement Plan, adopted by the Ottawa County Road Commission (September 23, 2010) lists anticipated funding sources and proposes road projects during the years 2011 – 2016. The need for future resurfacing of this facility was recognized in this Strategic Improvement Plan, however funds have not yet been identified.

12

CORRIDORS LIMITS River Avenue Michigan/State – 136th Avenue This corridor provides one of four crossings of the Macatawa River in the MACC area. A six-lane vehicular bridge over the Macatawa River was completed in 2006 along with non-motorized bridges on both sides of the vehicular bridge. Most recently, intersection improvements were made at Howard / Douglas Ave in 2009 and River Ave is to be widened north of Lakewood Boulevard. With the anticipated growth in the northern portion of the MACC, demands on this corridor will continue to increase. Pine Avenue 9th Street – S. River Avenue A lengthening of the three lane cross section and addition of non-motorized facilities were completed in 2005 for this northern gateway into the City of Holland. As with the River Avenue corridor above, anticipated growth in the northern portion of the MACC will result in increased volumes in this corridor. I-196 BL/US-31 BR I-196 – I-196 Reconstruction of this segment in the vicinity of the I-196 interchange was completed in 2006. A significant portion of the US-31 BR was turned over to local agencies and reconstruction of the portion of US-31 BR from 27th Street to 9th Street was completed as part of that process. New Holland Lakeshore Avenue – 48th Avenue Quincy Street Lakeshore Avenue – 64th Avenue Riley Street Lakeshore Avenue – Chicago Drive James Street Lakeshore Avenue – 104th Avenue Lakewood Boulevard Lakeshore Avenue – 112th Avenue Byron Road I 196 – 48th Avenue These six corridors are vital east/west routes serving the growing population in the northern and eastern MACC area. Capacity improvements are being planned for various segments of some of these corridors and continued monitoring is necessary. Butternut Avenue 136th Avenue – Lakeshore Drive 136th Avenue Butternut Ave – Port Sheldon Road These two corridors are vital north/south routes serving t he growing population in the northern MACC area. Significant improvements have been made to the southern segments of these corridors and continued monitoring is necessary. M-40 136th Avenue – US-31 A recent resurfacing of the roadway from Hamilton to I-196, capacity improvements north and south of the interchange with I -196, and the segment north of 48th Street are some of the recent improvements to this corridor. An operational assessment of the interchange is needed to determine if other improvements are necessary. Blue Star Hwy. I-196 – Tulip City Airport Close monitoring of this corridor will be necessary including traffic volumes on 58th Street south of Blue Star Highway. I-196 Through Entire MACC Area Close coordination with MDOT officials to ensure the preservation and efficient operation of this segment of Interstate is necessary.

13

Increased Funding for Transportation As the financial analysis chapter indicates, significant financial resources are necessary to maintain the existing system and make improvements as necessary. The MACC will review, and endorse if deemed necessary, efforts that seek to increase funding for transportation (whether through an increase in the gas tax, or through other efforts to generate future state/local revenues). Consideration will also be given to monitor the impact of electric vehicles on the regional roadway network and identify potential fees based on miles driven. Transportation Impacts of Various Growth Scenarios Managing growth in the MACC area is an issue receiving considerable attention. The results of growth, and the configuration of that growth, have various impacts on the transportation system. As part of ongoing growth management discussions, the MACC, in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Transportation, initiated a study of the impacts of various configurations of growth on the area’s transportation system. This was achieved using the MACC’s geographic information system (GIS) and computer traffic model, as well as the assistance of a consultant utilizing a software planning analysis tool. Staff will refine and retest various development scenarios for impacts on the transportation network. Results from the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan will be compared with other development scenarios. M-231 / US-31 The Michigan Department of Transportation completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as part of the US-31 Location Design Study and selected F/J1 as the preferred alternative. F/J1 has two components in the MACC area: a six-lane boulevard on the existing alignment from 32nd Street – New Holland Street and a new four-lane limited access freeway from I-196 – Fillmore Street.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was completed in 2010. The preferred alternative of the FEIS was a scaled down version of F/J1 with one component in the MACC area: improvements to existing US-31 from Lakewood Boulevard to Quincy Street. Improvements include adding through lanes, turning lanes and intersection modifications, primarily within existing ROW.

The MACC will continue to assist MDOT with this project and advocate the views and positions of its members regarding on-alignment and off-alignment improvements, both short-term and long-term, to this important corridor. The MACC views preservation of the proposed new highway corridor as an important component in the development of this project. While the anticipated capacity improvements to the existing alignment identified in Chapter 8 address critical congestion and safety needs, this plan encourages a continuation of capacity improvements to the south on the existing alignment. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) The MACC seeks to be an active participant in the revisions to MDOT’s Regional ITS Architecture and Deployment Plan. It is recognized that ITS can provide important benefits to the transportation system and that the MACC will consider ITS solutions to potential problems. Tulip City Airport Runway Expansion & Regional Organizational Structure The runway at Tulip City Airport was extended to 6,000 feet. In early 2007 the City of Holland, City of Zeeland, and Park Township voted to form an airport authority, which was formed in 2008. The West Michigan Airport Authority is now completing various tasks, including the preparation of a 10-year airport capital projects plan and planning for a new terminal.

Passenger/Freight Rail Issues This plan recommends the continued promotion of passenger rail (Amtrak) service in the MACC area through participation in the Westrain Collaborative. It also recognizes the vital need to analyze passenger rail service options for Southwest Michigan. The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is developing a comprehensive plan to serve as the basis for future federal and state investments in rail transportation. Public

14

meetings were hosted by MDOT across the state during September of 2010 to provide input opportunities and discuss priorities and strategies to enhance and preserve rail service. Transit Expansion The potential future transit service areas analysis, found in Chapter 4, notes the need to continue monitoring the growth of the MACC area and, in conjunction with the MAX Transportation Authority, to periodically assess the feasibility of providing public transit services in areas currently not served.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) TDM strategies such as car/vanpools, carpool lots, encouraging non-motorized transportation, flexible work schedules, compressed workweeks, and telecommuting are all designed to help reduce the number of vehicle trips. The MACC endorses and encourages the implementation of these various TDM strategies. It is recommended that the MACC continue working toward the implementation of these strategies with local employers, the Holland and Zeeland Chambers of Commerce, and other interested organizations. More information on this topic can be found in Chapter 4: Transit. Transit Sensitive Land Use Design Planning for land development which is sensitive to the operational and economic requirements of public transit must be done at the system-wide level as well as the district and site-specific level. There are certain land uses and access criteria that enhance and promote the use of transit. These criteria include density of land use, concentrated locations, mix of uses, and location of streets. There is still a substantial amount of land in the MACC that is vacant. This plan urges local units of government to consider these criteria noted above as development proposals are reviewed. More information on this topic can be found in Chapter 4: Transit Growth Management SAFETEA-LU emphasizes that this plan be congruent with planned growth. With regard to future growth in the region, MACC staff will review the issue of managed growth and assess potential impacts on the projects and other issues identified in the LRTP. The alternative scenarios, described below, will take into account different growth scenarios as part of that process. Long Range Plan Alternative Scenarios This task would reexamine the assumptions used in this plan’s modeling process in terms of rates of growth, configuration of future growth, the density of future development, the percentage of persons using transit/non-motorized modes to meet their travel needs, etc. This plan recommends that such alternative scenarios be refined and retested using the MACC’s travel demand model and compared to the results contained in this plan. This task would overlap significantly with the alternative growth scenarios issue stated earlier in this chapter.

Safety The MACC’s state and federal partners continue to stress the need for safety conscious planning and increased integration of safety into the transportation planning process. More work in this area is needed to better understand data collected by local partners, data gaps that may exist, how to amend the project selection process to focus more on safety benefits/concerns and be more supportive of local education programs focused on safety. Looking at the issue of motorized and non-motorized uses of the MACC’s public rights-of-way should be considered.

15

Emergency Access to Limited Access Highways Laketown Township and Zeeland Township have been working towards approval of emergency access to the limited access highways that traverse their jurisdictions for many years. These emergency access points would greatly reduce response times by emergency responders. They would also improve safety to the general motoring public by reducing the amount of emergency vehicle travel on local roads. The MACC Policy Committee and all local emergency response providers have endorsed this concept. The MACC will continue to support and encourage approval of these emergency access points.

Emerging Issues During the updating of the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, businesses in the food production industry and lithium battery manufacturing announced plans to expand existing facilities located along Greenley Street (at US-31) and along 48th Street. These announcements were followed by the launching of wind turbine production which may be on East 40th Street or another location in the immediate area, and the groundbreaking of a second battery plant facility – also south, in the City of Holland.

Alternative fuel and electric vehicle battery production in the Macatawa area have led to discussions of a charging network for electric vehicles. Consideration of a future charging network and other infrastructure components to support this network may be explored by MACC staff.

Other issues may be identified in the future and the plan amended to include these.

16

Chapter 4 Transit There are a number of transit operators in the MACC area. Many of these operators have only a few vehicles and transport a select group of persons. Such operators include local cab companies, nursing/retirement homes, senior citizen centers, and social service agencies. These providers generally provide trips to scheduled events, school, or employment. It is not the intention of this plan to analyze the transit operations noted above. However, some general characteristics regarding one component of these operators, MACC area public schools, were researched. These operators were selected because they have significant ridership. Please note that portions of West Ottawa, Zeeland, and Hamilton service areas extend beyond the MACC area.

Table 1 School Transit Provider Summary Operating Characteristics

Name of School Total Riders Annual

Mileage Total Expenditures

Service Area Size

Number of Buses (includes spares)

Number of Drivers (includes substitutes)

Hamilton Public Schools

1,900 525,000 $1,570,100 168 square miles

35 39

Holland Public Schools

828 227,213 $823,265 16.3 square miles

30 35

West Ottawa Public Schools

4,500 843,264 $2,798,073 73 square miles

70 110

Zeeland Public Schools

4,500 600,000 $1,835,720 94 square miles

52 50

Public Transit The Macatawa Area Express (MAX) provides public transit in the MACC area. MAX serves the Cities of Holland and Zeeland as well as Holland Township. As Table 2 below indicates, MAX provides both a demand response (curb to curb) and fixed route service (see Figure 4). Beginning as the City of Holland’s "Dial-A-Ride" program in the 1970’s, MAX began offering three fixed routes in 2000. The City of Holland and Holland Township formed a transit authority in 2006. The voters in those local jurisdictions approved a millage, proposed by the transit authority, to support the MAX in November, 2006. On July 1, 2007, the transit authority assumed ownership and control of MAX and daily operations (providing drivers, dispatching, and telephone operators) are managed in-house by MAX staff (as of 2010). The City of Holland continues to provide vehicle maintenance and accounting services.

17

Table 2: Macatawa Area Express Service Summary Service Type

Demand Response (Reserve-A-Max) 24 hour reservation service

Fixed Route (Catch-A-MAX) 8 routes serving Holland City core area, southern Holland Township, and the City of Zeeland.

Service Area 47.5 square miles serving the Cities of Holland and Zeeland as well as Holland Township and Zeeland Community Hospital

Ridership (2010) 339, 422 trips

Hours of Operation Demand Response Fixed Route

6:00 a.m.- midnight. Monday-Friday; 8:00 a.m.- midnight Saturday 6:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. Monday-Friday; 8:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. Saturday

Fleet 21 buses, 4 vans, 1 trolley

Fares

Demand Response Fixed Route

$3.00/$1.00 (seniors/persons with disabilities/youth)

$1.00/$0.50 (youth) (seniors/persons with disabilities are FREE)

Transit Issues Short-Term (1-5 years) A five year plan was adopted by the authority board in 2006. The plan called for expanding the fixed routes to seven routes and establishing a central transfer station where all buses converge hourly to simplify transfers. The expansion plan was the result of a two year long study of the short and longer range transportation needs of the local area, along with recommendations for better meeting residents' needs for inexpensive, alternative transportation. The five year plan committee developed its report after analyses of census data, demand response passenger data, passenger surveys and population demographics. Input also was sought from residents who represent the interests of current or potential system users. In 2010, the fixed route system included 8 routes, running hourly. New bus stops were recently added to routes 1, 2, 4, 5, 6,and 8. The MAX website was also updated to include a Google Transit page, enabling riders to view station information and schedules, find transit stops, and get step-by-step directions. Long Term A transit propensity analysis for the MACC area was conducted. Population projections were analyzed and future population densities identified. A threshold of 500 persons per square mile is the transit industry’s standard minimum density necessary for some form (typically demand response) of public transit. Figure 5 on page 26 depicts the results of this analysis. Areas where future population densities may support transit service include substantial portions of Park Township as well as northern Laketown Township and western Zeeland Township. Development in those areas will be monitored and a periodic assessment will occur to determine if expansion is warranted. If the threshold is met, the MACC, in conjunction with the MAX Authority Board, will contact the local governmental unit to determine their interest in providing service to that area.

18

In 2010, MAX conducted a survey of the general public, fixed route riders, and reserve-a-max riders in the Macatawa area. With 6% of the general population using MAX services, survey results indicated that riders use the service regularly for shopping, medical and work trips; generally don’t have access to a vehicle or don’t drive; and survey results also showed solid support for a transit millage to fund MAX. The general public survey also found that the loss of a job or ability to drive was the number one factor that would cause people to use MAX. Nearly 25% of the respondents would ride MAX if the service area reached Park and Laketown Townships. Transit System Linkages It is important to continue to look for opportunities to link with other adjacent transit systems. Indian Trails, working with Greyhound Express, provides passenger bus service to the MACC area, stopping at the Louis Padnos Tranpsortation Center. A demand response transit service in Allegan County is also in operation. This operation provides service to the communities of Allegan, Otsego, Plainwell, Pullman, Fennville, Hamilton, Holland, Wayland, Dorr, Martin and Shelbyville. The service in the Holland area provides access to major employment sites. Harbor Public Transit (Grand Haven), Interurban Transit Authority (Saugatuck) and Georgetown Seniors Transit also provide trips periodically into the MACC area. Lakeshore RIDE link is a website which was created by MAX and the Ottawa County Transit Coalition to provide information about transportation options within the Macatawa area. The website, www.lakeshoreridelink.org , lists providers within Ottawa County and consideration is being given to expand the site to also include transportation providers in Kent and Muskegon County. Comments were received during the development of the last Long Range Transportation Plan encouraging the start of inter-county bus service between Grand Rapids and Holland as well as Holland and Muskegon. With the increasing commuting flows between those areas and the completion of a fixed route transfer center in Holland, some form of inter-county transit service is more feasible than ever. It is recommended that the MACC continue to monitor, along with MAX, the feasibility of expanding this type of service. A West Michigan Transit Linkages Study is currently underway with the purpose of conducting a Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study of commuter transit services in the West Michigan area. The Study will analyze three types of commuter transit services. First it will analyze the feasibility of creating transit linkages between existing transit service areas in Grand Haven, Grand Rapids, Holland, and Muskegon. Second, it will analyze creating commuter transit opportunities for several Ottawa County communities that do not presently have transit service. Third, it will analyze the feasibility of providing transit services to major employers located in Ottawa County. Thus far, an Assessment of Existing Public Transit Services and a Needs Assessment have been completed. A list of Commuter Transit Services Options and the Feasibility Study must still be completed. It is estimated that this will take approximately 8-12 months. Transportation Demand Management There is a significant amount of commuting to the MACC area for employment. Utilizing 2000 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, Ottawa County draws 11,845 workers from Muskegon County, 10,057 workers from Allegan County and 11,772 workers from Kent County. Conversely, 4,827 Ottawa County workers travel to Muskegon County, 8,717 to Allegan County and 29,963 to Kent County. While IRS records do not detail the exact worker flow numbers for the MACC area, it can

19

reasonably be assumed that there are significant worker flows into and out of the MACC area to neighboring counties that transit and other Transportation Demand Management programs can capture. The availability of 2010 Census Data will help to update these employment-based figures for the MACC area. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are designed to maximize the people-moving capability of the transportation system by increasing the number of persons in a vehicle, or by influencing the time of, or need to, travel. Some examples of TDM programs include:

• carpools and vanpools • carpool lots • public and private transit, including service improvements to transit service • non-motorized travel, including bicycling and walking • compressed work weeks • flexible work schedules • telecommuting

The MACC financially participates in the multi-county rideshare and vanpool program, administered by the Interurban Transit Partnership. The MACC endorses and encourages the implementation of the various TDM strategies noted above to help reduce the vehicle miles of travel. It is recommended that the MACC continue gathering and disseminating information regarding these strategies as needed. Transit Sensitive Land Use Design Planning for land development which is sensitive to the operational and economic requirements of public transit must be done at the system-wide level as well as the district and site-specific level. The elements of a successful transit system include:

• A land use pattern with concentrated trip ends • A quality access system • Transit-oriented streets

There is certain land use and access criteria which enhance and promote the use of transit. These criteria include density of land use, concentrated locations, mix of uses, site design, and location of sidewalks and streets. There is still a substantial amount of land in the MACC region that is vacant. This plan urges local units of government to consider the various elements noted above as development proposals are reviewed. Additional information regarding the specific criteria can be obtained from the MACC office.

20

Figure 4: MAX Fixed Routes

21

Figure 5: Potential Future Transit Service Areas

22

Chapter 5 Intermodal Transportation Issues The updated MACC 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) attempts to identify the existing conditions and current issues of all modes and types of transportation, which are essential elements of the entire transportation system. Listed below are several existing modes of transportation in the MACC area and some relevant characteristics about each. Also identified are major issues facing various modes of transportation. Passenger Rail Service The MACC area is served by AMTRAK’s Pere Marquette line that runs between Chicago and Grand Rapids with a stop in the City of Holland at the Louis Padnos Transportation Center. At the current time, one round-trip is made each day on this line with the train leaving Holland at 8:21 a.m. and returning at 9:21 p.m. During the 12-month period between October 2009 and September 2010 total ridership on the Pere Marquette was 101,907. Though this figure reflects a slight decline of 1.3% (due to the New Buffalo station being assigned to the Wolverine and Blue Water lines in May 2010), total ridership over the last five years has remained strong. Between October 2009 and September 2010, the Holland station had approximately 18,259 boardings and 18,274 deboardings. The station continues to be the third busiest stop on the line behind Chicago and Grand Rapids. In the spring of 1995, AMTRAK announced that, due to budget cuts, service on the Pere Marquette would be cut to four days per week. In response to this situation, a number of local governments, public transit agencies, chambers of commerce, metropolitan planning organizations, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), Amtrak, interested citizens, and civic groups formed a West Michigan passenger train collaborative called Westrain. Daily train service was restored in the fall of 1995. With financial assistance from MDOT as well as Westrain members, the Westrain Collaborative promotes the Pere Marquette and seeks to enhance the service while addressing service deficiencies. The MACC is an active participant in Westrain. The Pere Marquette line may be impacted in the future by the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MRRI). The MRRI is an effort to develop an expanded and improved passenger rail system in the Midwest. It is a cooperative effort among nine Midwest states – Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin along with Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration. The MRRI proposes to reroute the Pere Marquette along a lightly used rail line between Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo. Under the proposed reroute, the train would originate and terminate in Holland. In Kalamazoo the Pere Marquette would enter the Detroit-Chicago corridor which will be a high-speed rail corridor. The potential positive and negative benefits of the reroute are still being examined. Although no definite timelines have been established, it appears that this would not occur until 2020 or beyond. The MACC will continue to monitor the progress of the MRRI.

23

Figure 6: Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Proposed Rail Configuration

Freight Rail Service There are two main rail lines that cross through the MACC area with spurs servicing specific sites. Line A in Figure 7 below continues on to Grand Rapids and Chicago while Line B heads north to Muskegon. CSX Corporation is responsible for track maintenance and owns both of these lines. Though Line A has averaged 10-20 trains per day, current train volumes have declined as Canadian Pacific is running fewer trains through the region. Line B, which runs north to Grand Haven, Muskegon, and Fremont, averages 1-2 trains per day. The portion of the line north of West Olive was recently leased to Michigan Shore Railroad. The major rail users in the Macatawa region continue to be Padnos, Heinz, the Hamilton Farm Bureau, as well as Bueler Prince, and Dr. Pepper/ Seven-Up Bottling.

Figure 7: Freight Rail Service

24

Since the last LRTP update local law and government officials have worked with CSX officials on efforts to minimize the blockage of high-volume roadways by stopped trains. The number of incidents of stationary trains blocking roadways and causing serious congestion and potential safety hazards has dropped substantially due in part to the installation of automated switching equipment. While recognizing the progress made on this issue, this plan urges that the following activities continue to be explored:

• Feasibility of grade separations at rail/roadway crossings • Feasibility of rail/roadway closures • Feasibility of technology to minimize train whistle noise

Intercity Bus Service Indian Trails, working with Greyhound Express, provides passenger bus service to the MACC area stopping at the Louis Padnos Transportation Center. At the current time 4 buses stop daily at the Center providing service to Grand Rapids and Benton Harbor with morning, afternoon and evening departures. Allegan County Transportation also provides up to 4 daily paratransit buses with door-to-door service from the City of Allegan area to the City of Holland. This service is provided on a need-basis and accounts for between 2,700 – 3,000 trips annually. Airports There are three airports in the MACC area. A general description and some basic operating characteristics for each of them are noted below with more detailed information provided for the Tulip City Airport. Tulip City Airport Tulip City Airport is a general aviation airport owned and managed by the West Michigan Airport Authority. Formed in 2008, the WMAA is made up of representatives from three local municipalities: City of Holland, Park Township and City of Zeeland. Residents of these municipalities voted to approve the support of the airport and creation of an authority. The WMAA oversees the budget and operation of Tulip City Airport, as well as the relationship with the Fixed Base Operator: Tulip City Air Service (Source: Tulip City Airport Website, http://tulipcityairport.org/about/governance/). The airport has a paved runway of 6,000’ in length and can accommodate 40,000 take offs and landings. Over 90% of the operations are considered business in nature. Revenue sources include land leases, hangar leases, a fixed base franchise fee, fuel flowage fees, investment income, and a .10 millage rate charged to properties within the three governments participating in the Airport Authority.

Figure 8: Tulip City Airport

25

In May of 2010, the West Michigan Airport Authority received results from a Strategic Planning Session held at Holland City Hall which assisted in determining the top five goals for the West Michigan Airport Authority: (1) upgrading the Instrument Landing System (ILS), (2) engineering, acquisition and construction of a new terminal, (3) Providing a GPS navigational approach from the West, (4) Creation of a communication strategy. Economic Assessment of Tulip City Airport The Michigan Department of Transportation completed a community benefits assessment of Tulip City Airport in 1999. Excerpts from this study revealed the following:

• A total of 358 direct and indirect jobs are created by Tulip City Airport • The total income generated by Tulip City Airport of $9,982,252 • The total output (i.e. total production resulting from the presence of the airport) of

$31,800,641 The report also ranked Tulip City as a tier 1 airport (the highest ranking) in the following categories:

• Serve significant population centers • Serve significant business centers • Serve significant tourism/convention centers • Provide access to the general population • Preserve regional capacity

Commercial Air Service Forecast Based on population/enplanement* ratios of several Michigan communities, the commercial air service demand for the Tulip City Airport Service area was estimated to be approximately 80,000 enplanements/year. Currently, other airports meet this demand. It is not anticipated that any commercial air service will be offered at Tulip City Airport during the time period covered by this plan. This projection is based on the following factors:

-Access to Grand Rapids The construction of the South Beltline has reduced travel times for persons accessing the Gerald R. Ford International Airport from the west. This road improvement influences air service demand in the Holland area, and the potential for air service at the Tulip City Airport.

-Airline Industry and Consumer Trends There are several trends in the airline industry which are influencing a shift to operations at larger regional airports. Currently, the mega-carriers are in a consolidation mode to capture the majority of the market share while streamlining operations at large hub locations. This could lead to higher fares for regional/commuter carriers and reduce service at smaller non-hub airports. Additionally, transition from turboprops to regional jets will likely induce a reduction of small airport service. Also, passenger trends are showing a willingness to drive extended distances to hub locations for cheaper air fares, more flights and jet service. These trends are obviously driven by market demand and are highly dependent upon the global economy but do indicate that airlines would have less interest in initiating or continuing service in smaller communities. * Refers to an enplaned passenger. An enplaned passenger is one that is boarding an aircraft at a

specific airport Source: MACC Area Airports Study, 1999

26

Air Cargo Forecast

Air cargo on a national level continues to grow at a rate much higher than other facets of the aviation industry. A projected national growth rate of 7.0% annually was applied to regional demand to determine future demand in the Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland area. As the Tulip City Airport develops (e.g. runway extension, development area, etc.), an increased share of the regional market is anticipated to be captured by the Tulip City Airport. Table 3 presents future air cargo weight for the Tulip City Airport. Significant growth in cargo activity could require a need for additional hangar and apron space and perhaps a dedicated air cargo area on the airport.

TABLE 3: PROJECTED AIR CARGO WEIGHT Regional Demand Tulip City Airport (freight lbs.) % of Regional

Market (freight lbs.)

1999 54,674,000 2% 1,300,000 2008 107,550,000 7% 7,636,050 2013 150,850,000 11% 16,593,500 2018 211,570,000 15% 31,735,500

Park Township Airport Park Township airport is located on land owned by Park Township and leased to a private entity which is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the airport. Financing comes from hangar leases and fuel sales. Park Township airport has one paved runway that is approximately 3000 feet and a crosswind, grass runway that is approximately 2,250 feet. There are no commercial operations at this airport. At the current time the emphasis is on improvement of the existing facilities and services. Ottawa Executive Airport - Zeeland Township The Ottawa Executive Airport is a private airport in eastern Zeeland Township. This facility services private, small engine aircraft and has a paved runway of approximately 3800 feet. At the current time the emphasis is on preservation of the existing facilities and services. Harbor The Holland Harbor serves both commercial and recreational navigation. It consists of over 5,500 feet of structures (breakwaters, piers, etc.) and 6.5 miles of maintained channel. The Holland Harbor shipped or received 431,753 tons of material in 2008. Commodities received/shipped include limestone, scrap metals, sand, gravel and coal (See Figure 9, below). Figure 10 illustrates the national shipping trend along U.S. waterways over the last 5 years.

Source: MACC Area Airports Study, 1999

27

Figure 9: Commodities Handled at Holland Harbor – 2008 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

Commodities Handled at Holland Harbor2008

Iron Ore/Scrap

Coal

Limestone

Figure 10: All Commodities along U.S. Waterways – 2006-2010

WCSC Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, New Orleans, LA

28

The navigation season begins in March and continues through December (weather permitting). Since 2000, Holland has also received between three and seven passenger ship visits per year. The City of Holland has a long-term goal to develop a dock/pier suitable for passenger vessels and exhibition vessels traveling the Great Lakes. At the current time the emphasis is on periodic dredging of the harbor only. A Corps of Engineers report notes 20,000-35,000 cubic yards of material must be dredged from the Lake Macatawa channel on a 2 to 4 year cycle. A lack of dredging results in a loss of 1-2 feet of channel depth. This results in light loading restrictions and increased transportation costs of between $114,000-271,000 annually. The last dredging occurred in 2009. Non-Motorized The non-motorized network within the MACC Area is extensive with more than 150 miles of non-motorized facilities. For the purposes of this plan, a non-motorized facility could include a traditional concrete sidewalk, an asphalt pathway separated from the roadway (used by bicyclists as well as pedestrians and commonly referred to as a “shared use path”), a footpath-boardwalk, or a paved roadway shoulder regularly used by bicyclists. A map showing these facilities can be found on the following page. It is estimated that local governments in the MACC area expend approximately $1,025,000 annually for the construction/resurfacing of non-motorized facilities and another $327,500 annually for maintenance activities such as sweeping, snow removal, tree trimming and spot repairs. Funding for these activities is provided from a number of sources including general fund, voter-approved millages and special assessments. The MACC also provides federal aid for non-motorized construction projects. A draft non-motorized plan for the MACC area is underway and is to be completed in the next 6 -12 months. This plan will integrate the non-motorized plans of MACC members, as well as other organizations, and recommend a comprehensive non-motorized network. In August of 2010, Complete Streets legislation was signed into law by Governor Granholm (Public Acts: HB 6152 and HB 6151), making Michigan the 14th state to adopt this legislation in the U.S. During the LRTP Open House in December of 2010, comments were received recommending that the MACC area communities consider “Complete Streets” elements, such as on-street bicycle lanes as well as pedestrian considerations incorporated by the City of Holland along 40th Street. Suggestions were also received which addressed measures to increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety along US 31, 16th Street and Central Avenue in the City of Holland. MACC staff will consider these recommendations in greater detail, while finalizing the non-motorized plan, later this year.

29

30

Chapter 6 Travel Demand Forecast Model Development The urban area travel demand modeling process for the Macatawa Area Coordinating Council (MACC) was a cooperative effort between the MACC, being the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). MDOT provided the lead role in the process and assumed responsibility for modeling activities with both entities reaching a consensus on selective process decisions. Travel demand modeling and capacity deficiency identification and analysis were undertaken as part of the continuing phase of the transportation planning process required by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency ACT (ISTEA), TEA-21, and Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The travel demand modeling of the transportation system is utilized for aiding in the policy determinations that result in both long range plans and short range studies (corridor studies and sub-area studies). Emphasis in this current effort was on the development of the 2035 Long Range Plan. The results of the modeling effort provide an important decision making tool for plan development. The modeling process is a systems-level effort. Although individual links of a highway network can be analyzed, the results are intended for determination of system-wide impacts. At the systems level, impacts are assessed on a broader scale than the project level. Vehicle miles of travel (VMT), vehicle hours of travel (VHT), link volumes and adjusted speeds are model outputs from the traffic assignment process which are used to generate outputs for measuring impacts. These additional outputs include air quality emissions and measures of congestion (volume/capacity ratios [capacity deficiencies]). An integral part of impact analysis involves measuring these indices against community goals and objectives. Capacity deficiency identification and analysis is a key ingredient in an area's long range transportation plan. Both the identified deficiencies and the plan are dynamic; initiated under ISTEA, continued under TEA-21, and continuing under SAFETEA-LU, they are to be updated at a minimum every four years to reflect changing transportation and land use conditions. The purpose of capacity deficiency identification and analysis is to determine where future congestion is projected to occur. Deficiency identification and analysis is done with a computerized network model of the street and highway system. The identification and analysis of deficient corridors and links is intended to serve as the basis for system improvement/expansion funding decisions. The MACC model is run using TransCAD, transportation model software with Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities. The MACC model is a peak period model that allows for the analysis of traffic during three periods of time. The model is run for the peak periods of AM (7-9), PM (3-6), and Off Peak (all other hours of the day not included in AM or PM). These time periods may also be combined for a Daily analysis. Model Development Process The travel demand model development process consists of 5 basic steps. Each step was undertaken by a cooperative effort between MACC Staff and MDOT.

1) Data Collection: Socio-economic and roadway network system data are input into the model.

31

2) Trip Generation: Calculates the number of trips produced in or attracted to a traffic analysis zone (TAZ).

3) Trip Distribution: Procedures that determine where the trips go. 4) Trip Assignment: Procedures for predicting the path the trips produced will take. 5) Model Calibration: Compares trips produced by the model to real world observations

and adjusts.

There are two basic systems of data organization in the travel demand forecasting process. The first system is the street and highway network (links). The network generally includes only links of the "collector" functional classification and higher. The second data organization mechanism involves the traffic analysis zones (TAZ's). These geographic subareas are determined based on similarity of land use and human activity, compatibility with jurisdictional boundaries, presence of physical boundaries, and the links that make up the road network. The two data systems, the highway network (links) and the zones (socio-economic data), are interrelated through the use of "centroids." Each zone is portrayed on the network by a point (centroid) which represents the center of activity for that zone. The centroid is connected by a set of links to the adjacent street system; that is, the network is provided with a special set of links for each zone which connects the zone to the street system. Since every zone is connected to the street system by these "centroid connectors,” it is possible for trips from each zone to reach every other zone by way of a number of paths through the street system. Wherever possible, centroid connectors are represented by local streets. This provides the most realistic picture of access/interface between the two data systems. Step 1: Data Collection Employment by type, dwelling unit, and population data is gathered for the entire MACC area plus the township of Overisel. Two years were modeled for the LRTP, the base year for calibration of 2009 and the LRTP horizon year for analysis of 2035. Data inputs into the model included 2009 and 2035 population and employment projections which are assigned to traffic analysis zones (TAZs). As noted above, the MACC model uses six inputs: dwelling units, population, retail employment, service employment, non-retail employment, and autos. Described below is how the data for each of these inputs was developed for the modeling process. Dwelling Units Dwelling units are based on the 2000 census count of occupied dwelling units. The number of dwelling units by census block was aggregated to the TAZ level. The projected dwelling unit figures for the years 2009 and 2035 were developed based on a number of factors: the increases between 1990 and 2000 census, the availability of vacant land, an inventory of 2009 dwelling units (based upon aerial photos and land use/land cover inventory completed in 2009), and 2035 dwelling unit projections. Population The population for the calibrated base year of 2009 was obtained from the 2000 Census data at the census block level and aggregated to the TAZ. The projected figures for the year 2009 and 2035 were based on the projected dwelling unit increases/decreases and an assumed average persons/dwelling unit figure. Generally, it was assumed that the average persons/dwelling unit would decrease slightly over the next 35 years.

32

Employment Determining employment figures for the MACC area is the most difficult of the data inputs to estimate and project accurately. In transportation planning, the concern in gathering employment data is projecting trips to and from employment sites. Therefore, whether a person works full time or only 2 hours per day at a site, both employment positions are counted since each worker must travel to that site. It is necessary to remember this when viewing employment figures used for the LRTP. The 2009 and 2035 projected employment totals were based on growth trends experienced between 1990-2000, changes that occurred in the economy between 2000 and 2009, projections developed by other organizations, availability of vacant land, and 2015 and 2020 MACC employment projections. An employment database (Claritas) as well as parcel ownership data, field surveys, and direct contacts with employers were also used to update employment totals. A sample of the model input data is shown below. A copy of the model input for all TAZs is included in the Appendix. Figure 12: Sample of Model Inputs

Population Dwelling Units Retail Employment Service Employment Other Employment

ZONE 2009 2035 2009 2035 2009 2035 2009 2035 2009 2035 20 41 69 6 13 0 0 7 9 53 70 21 60 117 19 48 15 15 80 82 244 250 22 830 783 232 283 2 2 238 251 12 13 23 185 169 83 98 0 0 90 92 360 368 24 957 892 276 333 0 0 82 91 5 6 25 196 201 64 85 11 13 35 40 95 109

Step 2: Trip Generation Trip generation is the process by which the traffic model translates the inputs noted above into numbers of trips. Generally, households produce trips and places of employment attract trips. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) are used to help in this quantification process. TAZs vary in size with the smallest about the size of a city block or two (in a downtown area) to several square miles in more rural areas. For each zone the number of trips produces and attracted (referred to as productions and attractions) to that zone are determined based on the socioeconomic characteristics of that zone. The MACC model, which covers the MACC area as well as Overisel Township, has 274 zones. The six trip purposes used in the model are home-based work (HBW), home-based other (HBO), non-home based (NHB) trips, external home-based work (EHBW), external home-based other (EHBO), external non-home based (ENHB) trips. External trip purposes are trips that originate or end outside the model area rather than originating and remaining within the model area. Through the use of mathematical equations, the person trips generated from the socio-economic data are converted from person trips to vehicle trips. Step 3: Trip Distribution In this step of the modeling process, trip distribution procedures determine where the trips produced in each zone go—how they will be divided among all other zones in the study area. Figure 13 shows where Zone 3’s trip productions are distributed. There are several different types of trip distribution analyses or methods that can be used to determine where the trips in

33

each TAZ will go. The MACC model utilizes the gravity model method. The gravity model is a very popular trip distribution method used by many other metropolitan planning organizations as well as the Michigan Department of Transportation in their modeling efforts. The gravity model compares the many factors regarding the relative attractiveness and accessibility of all zones before it decides how to distribute the trips.

Figure 13: Trip Distribution

Step 4: Trip Assignment The final step in travel demand forecasting is trip assignment. Trip assignment is the procedure by which the model predicts the paths the trips will take. The trip assignment process begins by constructing a map representing the roadway network in the MACC area. The network shows the possible paths that a trip can take. Traffic assignment takes the trips produced in a zone and distributes them onto the roadway network using an “equilibrium” process. The equilibrium method assigns the trips based on the shortest time path, but when the assigned volume of trips nears the capacity of the roadway links, trips begin to be diverted to the next quickest route, etc. The network consists of intersections (nodes) and links (sections between the nodes). Attributes are given to each link such as speed limit, parking restrictions, lane width, number of lanes, etc. These attributes are used to determine the capacity of the link. Figure 14 below shows a sample of the MACC network following the assignment process. The MACC model is a Peak Period model. Assignments are created for each of the three time periods; AM Peak, PM Peak, & Off Peak. A Daily assignment period can also be created. The peak periods allow for an analysis of how the system is operating for high travel and congestions times.

Example only. Not MACC TAZ

34

Figure 14: Trip Assignment

The results of the modeling process for the 2035 LRTP are discussed in detail in Chapter 7. Step 5: Model Calibration Model calibration compares the base year (2009) volumes that the model produces to actual traffic counts. Adjustments are made to the model to achieve statistically valid model outputs. Bernardin-Lochmueller & Associates, Inc. was the consultant that calibrated the MACC model to the 2000 base year. Once the model was calibrated it was used to forecast travel in the LRTP horizon year of 2035. Scenarios were created using 2035 projected socio-economic data with the 2014 E+C (Existing plus Committed) network and with the 2035 network that included projects listed in the LRTP. The 2014 E+C network is all projects included in the 2014 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Applications of the Calibrated Model Forecasted travel is produced by substituting forecasted socio-economic and transportation system data obtained from MACC for the base year data. The same mathematical formulae are used for the base and future year data. The assumption is made that the relationships expressed by the formulae in the base year will remain constant over time to the target date.

35

Once the base and future trips are simulated, a number of system analysis procedures can be conducted:

• Network alternatives to relieve congestion can be tested for the plan. Future traffic can be assigned to the existing network to show what would happen in the future if no improvements were made to the present transportation system. From this, improvements can be planned that would alleviate demonstrated capacity problems.

• The impact of planned roadway improvements or network improvements can be assessed. • Links can be analyzed to determine what zones are contributing to the travel on that link.

This can be shown as a percentage breakdown of total link volume. • The network can be tested to simulate conditions with or without a proposed bridge. The

assigned future volumes on adjacent links would then be compared to determine traffic flow impacts. This, in turn, would assist in assessing whether a bridge should be replaced and/or where it should be relocated.

• The impacts of land use changes on the network can be evaluated (e.g., what are the impacts of a new major retail store being built).

• Road closure/detour evaluation studies can be conducted to determine the effects of closing a roadway. This type of study is very useful for construction management.

• Model runs are also done as part of air quality conformity analysis.

36

Chapter 7 Congestion Deficiency Analysis Chapter 6 described the travel demand modeling process used to forecast the travel demand on the roadway network for the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This chapter summarizes the results of the modeling efforts. Time Frames/Networks for Deficiency Analysis The MACC used specific time periods and assumptions when conducting the modeling process. The figures on the following pages reflect these different time frames and assumptions. The time frames and assumptions are as follows:

• 2009 Network - This time frame is intended to provide a “current conditions” baseline that is used to evaluate and compare to future forecasts. The roadway network as it was in 2009 was used as the base year.

• 2035 Network With Projects - This time frame/network has taken into account future

population/dwelling unit and employment growth to the year 2035, the completion of the projects contained in the MACC’s FY 2011-2014 TIP and also assumes that the capacity-enhancing roadway projects listed below have been constructed.

NAME LIMITS WORK Riley Street 112th – 100th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes

Intersection Improvements Matt Urban Drive City Limits to S. Washington Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes 48th Street E. City Limits to M-40 Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes 48th Street Regent to Lincoln (M-40) Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes Lincoln Avenue 16th Street to 24th Street Widen from 2 to 3 lanes 8th Street Fairbanks Roundabout/Traffic Circle Frontage Road Along M-40

Interchange drive to 1,250 ft South- along M-40

Construct 2 lane section

136th Avenue Riley Street to Quincy Street Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes Intersection Improvements

Riley Street 100th – 96th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes Intersection Improvements

Riley Street Butternut Drive to 136th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes 96th Avenue Adams Street to Gordon Street Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes 32nd Street US 31 to Waverly Road Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 5 lanes US 31 Lakewood Blvd. – Quincy St. Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 6 lanes 120th Avenue Riley Street to Quincy Street Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes

Douglas Avenue River Avenue to 144th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 5 lanes

James Street Beeline Road to US 31 Reconstruct and widen from 3 to 5 lanes

James Street 112th Avenue to Chicago Drive Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes

River Avenue CSX Crossing to 136th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 5 to 7 lanes Intersection Improvements

Washington Avenue Fairview Road to new M-121 (Chicago Dr.) Reconstruct and widen to 3 lanes Intersection Improvements

Waverly Road 24th Street to 32nd Street Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 5 lanes

James Street Butternut Drive to Beeline Road Reconstruct and widen from 3 to 5 lanes

37

Severity of Congestion Congestion deficiencies for the LRTP were categorized by level of severity. As the figures on the following pages indicate, there are three tiers of congestion. The tiers are based on a volume to capacity (V\C) ratio that is a standard traffic engineering measure of congestion. How the tiers are determined is noted below:

Tier 1: Roadway segments in Tier 1 are the most severely congested. These segments have a V/C ratio of greater than 1.20. For example, a roadway with a capacity of 7,954 and a traffic volume of 10,205 would have a V/C ratio of 1.28 (10,205/7,954) and would be classified as a Tier 1 deficiency.

Tier 2: Roadway segments categorized as Tier 2 are moderately congested. These segments have a V/C ratio between 1.0-1.2.

Tier 3: Roadway segments categorized as Tier 3 are those which are approaching congested levels. These segments have a V/C ratio less than 1.0.

Figure 15: Sample Model Deficiency Map

38

Discussion As the congestion deficiency maps in Appendix D indicate, the model predicts that increasing levels of congestion will be found along M-40 (146th to I-196), along US-31 (24th Street to Riley Street), and on many east/west corridors in the MACC area such as Riley Street, James Street, and Lakewood Boulevard. Despite the implementation of the capacity-enhancing projects in this LRTP, several corridors are projected to have congestion problems by 2035. These include:

- M-40 (146th Avenue – I-196) - US-31 (24th Street – Lakewood Boulevard) - Riley Street (Waverly Road – State Street) - James Street (Beeline Road – 104th Avenue) - Lakewood Boulevard (Douglas Avenue – Beeline Road) Conclusions Travel between North and South thoroughfares will continue to be congested, especially along US-31 and M-40. - In reviewing the Tier 2 and Tier 3 roadway segments for the year 2035 it is observed that major North-South corridors will continue to be deficient. When compared to previous modeling exercises, the trend shows congestion moving along north-south routes, to a lesser extent, eastward.

Vehicle Miles of Travel Continue to Increase - Another interesting statistic from the modeling process is in regards to the vehicle miles of travel (VMT) predicted for the MACC area. It is estimated that in 2009 there were approximately 2.8 million miles traveled daily. In 2035 it is expected that VMT will be 3.3 million, a 19% increase. Congestion Levels Will Increase - This LRTP does not anticipate the area’s growth to continue at the rate experienced over the past two decades. Despite this assumption and the construction of capacity-enhancing projects, the trend continues towards increasing levels of congestion. Need to Pursue Alternatives - Since increased congestion levels are widely considered to be an erosion of quality of life, it is prudent for the MACC to review the potential application of travel demand management options (e.g. transit, nonmotorized, telecommuting, intelligent transportation systems, etc.) for the area.

Chapter 8

Plan Development

After completion of the modeling process (see Chapter 6) and identification of the congestion deficiencies (see Chapter 7) it was necessary to decide what, if any, action should be taken to address the deficiencies. MACC local government representatives and road agencies met with MACC staff to develop solutions. In an effort to provide a more complete and comprehensive plan, MACC members were asked to identify projects that would help preserve the current roadway network or improve operations, at least for the first ten to fifteen years of the twenty five year time span of the MACC 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). These might include projects such as resurfacing projects, or other projects included in local governments’ capital improvement plans. Based on the process described above, a list of proposed projects was created and is included on the following pages. Costs listed include current costs (shown in 2010 dollars) as well as

future year dollars.

The listing is categorized by project type:

Improve & Expand (I&E) – these projects include new roads as well as roadways that will be widened. There are 21 I&E projects in the plan totaling $65.2 million. Corridors with I&E projects include Waverly Road, Douglas Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, River Avenue, James Street, Riley Street, 136th Avenue and 120th Avenue.

Preservation – these projects include primarily reconstruction and resurfacing of existing roadways. There are 63 preservation projects in the plan totaling $73.3 million. Transit – these projects include construction of new facilities and replacement of buses Illustrative – these projects have been identified by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) but are not included in MDOT’s current five-year plan. No costs have been identified for the project listed.

39

P a g e 1 December 6, 2010

MACC 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE ROADWAY PROJECT LIST

Improve and Expand Projects

NAME LIMITS WORK Year Open

to Traffic Distance (miles)

APPROXIMATE TOTAL COST

(000’S)

AGENCY

Riley Street 112th – 100th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes, Intersection improvements

2011 1.5 2,450 OCRC

Matt Urban Drive City Limits to S. Washington Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes 2011 0.7 1,470 HC 48th Street E. City Limits to M-40 Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes 2011 1.05 2,335 HC 48th Street Regent to Lincoln (M-40) Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes 2011 1.42 1,275 HC Lincoln Avenue 16th Street to 24th Street Widen from 2 to 3 lanes 2012 0.5 2,400 HC

8th Street Fairbanks Roundabout/Traffic Circle 2013 0.1 1,000 HC Frontage Road along M-40

Interchange Drive to 1,250 ft. South - along M-40

Construct 2 lane section 2014 0.24 770 HC

136th Avenue

Riley Street to Quincy Street Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes, Intersection improvements

2015 1.0 2,542

OCRC

Riley Street 100th – 96th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes, Intersection improvements

2018 0.5 200 OCRC

Riley Street Butternut Drive to 136th Avenue

Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes, Intersection improvements

2018 0.8 1,808 OCRC

96th Avenue Adams Street to Gordon Street

Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes, Intersection improvements

2018 1.5 3,390 OCRC

32nd Street US 31 to Waverly Road Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 5 lanes 2018 0.4 1,017 HC

US 31 Lakewood Blvd. – Quincy St.

Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 6 lanes with boulevard. Intersection improvements.

2018 2.5 26,000 MDOT

120th Avenue Riley Street to Quincy Street

Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes, Intersection improvements

2025 1.0 2,750 OCRC

Douglas Avenue

River Avenue to 144th Avenue

Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 5 lanes 2025 1.3 3,300 OCRC

James Street Beeline Road to US 31 Reconstruct and widen from 3 to 5 lanes, Intersection improvements

2025 0.6 1,320 OCRC

James Street 112th Avenue to Chicago Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes, 2025 1.1 3,025 OCRC

P a g e 2 December 6, 2010

Drive Intersection improvements River Avenue CSX Crossing to 136th

Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 5 to 7 lanes Intersection improvements

2025 0.4 1,430

OCRC

Washington Avenue

Fairview Road to New M-121 (Chicago Dr.)

Reconstruct and widen to 3 lanes, Intersection improvements

2025 1.0 2,200 ZC

Waverly Road

24th Street to 32nd Street Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 5 lanes 2025 0.4 1,100 HC

James Street Butternut Drive to Beeline Road

Reconstruct and widen from 3 to 5lanes 2035 1.0 3,500 OCRC

TOTAL COST IMPROVE & EXPAND PROJECTS: $ 65,282

$ 83,437 Current

Future Yr

Please note, this list of projects developed for the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Update is not considered to be all-inclusive, as the Technical Committee has acknowledged that the list may not include all supplemental projects to be completed by the year 2035.

P a g e 3 December 6, 2010

MACC 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE

ROADWAY PROJECT LIST

Preservation Projects

NAME LIMITS WORK TIME PERIOD (5 YEARS)

APPROXIMATE TOTAL COST

(000’S)

JURISDICTION

New M-121 80th Avenue – 40th Ave. Reconstruction 2011 - 15 8,395 MDOT - Grand 48th Street 142nd to 136th Ave Resurface existing roadway 2011 - 15 750 ACRC 64th Street Blue Star Highway to

Ottogan (32nd Street) Resurface existing roadway 2011 - 15 750 ACRC /

Laketown TS Blue Star Highway 58th Street to I-196 Resurface existing roadway 2011 - 15 750 ACRC 64th Avenue Ottogan Street to

Byron Road Resurface existing roadway 2011 - 15 672 OCRC

96th Avenue Ottogan Street to Adams Street

Resurface existing roadway and shoulder

2011 - 15 335 OCRC

120th Avenue Macatawa River to Lakewood Boulevard

Resurface existing roadway 2011 - 15 319 OCRC

136th Avenue Butternut Drive to Riley Street

Resurface existing roadway 2011 - 15 750 OCRC

136th Avenue Quincy Street to Port Sheldon Road

Resurface existing roadway and add 3’ paved shoulder

2011 - 15 1,395 OCRC

Byron Road 64th Avenue to 48th Avenue

Resurface existing roadway and add 3’ paved shoulder

2011 - 15 350 OCRC

James Street 136th Avenue to US 31 Resurface existing roadway 2011 - 15 825 OCRC Lakeshore Drive Butternut-New Holland Resurface existing roadway and add 3’

paved shoulder 2011 - 15 830 OCRC

Central Avenue 8th Street to State Street Reconstruct roadway 2011 1,995 HC Geurink Boulevard Washington Avenue to East

terminus Reconstruct roadway 2012 525 HC

South Washington 27th Street to Matt Urban Drive

Reconstruct roadway 2013 1,025 HC

Hope Avenue Paw Paw Drive to 16th Street

Reconstruct roadway 2015 1,345 HC

9th Street Kollen Park Drive to 8th Street

Reconstruct roadway 2015 1,000 HC

24th Street Lincoln Ave to Waverly Rd Resurface existing roadway 2011 - 15 224 HC

P a g e 4 December 6, 2010

MACC 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE ROADWAY PROJECT LIST

Preservation Projects (continued)

NAME LIMITS WORK TIME PERIOD (5 YEARS)

APPROXIMATE TOTAL COST

(000’S)

JURISDICTION

Lincoln Avenue 32nd Street to City Limits Resurface existing roadway 2011 - 15 672 HC Old Orchard South Shore Drive

To 32nd Street Resurface existing roadway 2011 - 15 201 HC

64th Street Airport Court to M-40 Resurface existing roadway 2011 - 15 630 HC Waverly Road 8th to 24th Street Resurface existing roadway 2011 - 15 448 HC Centennial Street Cooperation Drive to

Washington Avenue Mill and Resurface roadway

2011 - 15 336 ZC

Centennial Street Lincoln Avenue to Main Avenue

Mill and Resurface roadway 2011 - 15 336 ZC

W. Central Avenue Lee to Taft Reconstruct existing roadway

2011 - 15 1,036 ZC

Division Main to Rich Reconstruct existing roadway

2011 - 15 485 ZC

Riley Street 196 to Fairview Road Mill and Reconstruct roadway 2011 - 15 150 ZC Roosevelt Avenue State to Fairview Road Reconstruct existing roadway 2011 - 15 1,700 ZC

State Street Roosevelt Avenue to BL

196 Resurface existing roadway 2011 - 15 392 ZC

Wall Street Main Street to

E. Rich Avenue Reconstruct existing roadway 2011 - 15 840 ZC

E. Washington Avenue

Fairview Road to Arbor Lane

Resurface existing roadway

2011 - 15 514 ZC

William Street 101st Street to 103rd Avenue Reconstruct existing roadway 2011 - 15 225 ZC I 196 Northbound US-31 split North to Allegan

County Line Rehabilitate existing roadway 2011 - 15 11,897 MDOT

TOTAL COST PRESERVATION PROJECTS 2011 - 15 $ 42,097 $ 45,638

Current Future Yr

P a g e 5 December 6, 2010

MACC 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE ROADWAY PROJECT LIST

Preservation Projects (continued)

NAME LIMITS WORK TIME PERIOD (5 YEARS)

APPROXIMATE TOTAL COST

(000’S)

JURISDICTION

M-40 I 196 to US-31 Mill and Resurface 2016 - 21 800 MDOT I 196 Southbound US-31 split north to the

Allegan County Line Rehabilitate existing roadway 2016 - 21 13,399 MDOT

60th Street

City Limit to 136th Ave

Resurface existing roadway

2016 - 21

700

ACRC

66th Street Ottogan Street to 146th Avenue

Resurface existing roadway 2016 - 21 125 ACRC

146th Avenue 66th Street to City Limits Resurface existing roadway 2016 - 21 550 ACRC 96th Avenue Roosevelt / Felch to Riley Reconstruct existing roadway 2016 - 21 1,120 OCRC/ZC 112th Avenue BL196 to Lakewood

Boulevard Resurface existing roadway 2016 - 21 34

OCRC

Adams Street Quarterline Road to 96th Avenue

Resurface existing roadway 2016 - 21 252 OCRC

Adams Street 96th Avenue to 64th Avenue

Resurface existing roadway and add 3’ paved shoulder

2016 - 21 560 OCRC

Beeline Road Riley Street to Lakewood Boulevard

Resurface existing roadway 2016 - 21 179 OCRC

Butternut Drive Quincy Street to Lakeshore Drive

Resurfacing existing roadway 2016 - 21 1,500 OCRC

Lakeshore Drive

New Holland-168th Avenue Resurface existing roadway and add 3’ paved shoulder

2016 - 21 739 OCRC

Ottawa Beach Road

152nd Avenue – Holland State Park

Resurface existing roadway and add 3’ paved shoulder

2016 - 21 448 OCRC

16th Street South Shore Drive to Waverly Road

Resurface existing roadway 2016 - 21 379 HC

24th Street Ottawa Avenue to Van Raalte Ave

Resurface existing roadway 2016 - 21 146 HC

Graafschap Road South Shore Drive to 40th Street

Reconstruct roadway 2016 2,985 HC

P a g e 6 December 6, 2010

MACC 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE ROADWAY PROJECT LIST

Preservation Projects (continued)

NAME LIMITS WORK TIME PERIOD (5 YEARS)

APPROXIMATE TOTAL COST

(000’S)

JURISDICTION

Van Raalte Avenue 32nd Street to Kollen Park Drive

Resurface existing roadway 2016 - 21 224 HC

Waverly Road 32nd Street to E. 48th Street Resurface existing roadway 2016 - 21 392 HC

101st Street BL 196 to Lee Street Mill and Reconstruct roadway 2016 - 21 95 ZC Alpine Avenue N. Jefferson Street to

N. Colonial Street Mill and Reconstruct roadway 2016 - 21 125 ZC

Carleton Street E. Washington to E. Main Street

Reconstruct existing roadway 2016 – 21 840 ZC

E. Cherry Avenue S. Elm Street to Dead End Reconstruct existing roadway 2016 – 21 600 ZC Church Street Lincoln Avenue to

Washington Avenue Reconstruct existing roadway 2016 – 21 1,120 ZC

N. Colonial Street W. Main Avenue to W. Washington Avenue

Reconstruct existing roadway 2016 – 21 800 ZC

E. Garfield Avenue N. Centennial Street to East and West Dead End

Mill and Reconstruct roadway 2016 – 21 205 ZC

S. Park Street E. Main Avenue to E. Rich Avenue

Reconstruct existing roadway 2016 – 21 650 ZC

Plainfield Avenue S. Fairview Road to Goodrich Street

Mill and Reconstruct roadway 2016 – 21 125 ZC

E. Rich Avenue S. Maple Street to Cul-de-sac

Reconstruct existing roadway 2016 – 21 450 ZC

Riley Street N. Fairview Road to Arbor Lane

Mill and Reconstruct roadway 2016 – 21 500 ZC

Washington Avenue West to City Reconstruct existing roadway 2016 - 21 1,210 ZC TOTAL COST PRESERVATION PROJECTS 2016 - 21 $ 31,252

$ 40,940 Current

Future Yr

P a g e 7 December 6, 2010

Transit Projects

NAME LIMITS WORK TIME PERIOD APPROXIMATE TOTAL COST

(000’S)

JURISDICTION

Transit Facilities

Service Area Construction of needed facilities

2011-2035 2,263 MAX

Bus Replacement Service Area

Replacement of buses 2011-2035 15,557 MAX

TOTAL COST

$17,820

Future Yr

P a g e 8 December 6, 2010

MACC 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE

Illustrative Projects

NAME LIMITS WORK APPROXIMATE CONSTRUCTION

COST (000’S)

JURISDICTION

US 31 I-196 to 32nd Street

Pavement rehabilitation 13,000 MDOT - Southwest

* Illustrative projects are projects under consideration

Future Transportation Projects

Improve & ExpandPreservation Projects

0 5 102.5 Miles

´

Fillmore St.

Port Sheldon St.

New Holland St.

Quincy St.

Riley St.

James St.Lakewood Blvd.

146th Ave.

32nd St.

141st Ave.

48th

St.

48th

Ave.

58th

St.

Blue Star Hwy.64th

St.

66th

St.

Inset Map of Projects within the City of Zeeland

kj Roundabout / Traffic Circle

136th

Ave.

Riley St.120th

Ave.

96th

Ave.

Washington Ave.M-121

Byron Rd.

Adams St. 64th

Ave.

I 196

48th St.

M 40

Lake

shor

e Dr.

60th

St.

9th St.kj

49

Chapter 9 Consultation SAFETEA-LU requires that the MACC consult with federal, state and local entities that are responsible for:

• Economic growth and development • Environmental protection • Airport operations • Freight movement • Land use management • Natural resources • Conservation • Historic preservation

The goal of this process is to eliminate or minimize conflicts with other agencies’ plans that impact transportation. Entities Contacted MACC staff began the consultation process by reviewing its current stakeholder list as several of the types of organizations noted above were already receiving information regarding the LRTP. With the assistance of FHWA, MDOT and other MPOs additional entities were identified including: Allegan County Drain Commission Disability Network- Lakeshore Federal Aviation Administration-Michigan Section Holland Chamber Commerce Holland Historical Trust Lakeshore Advantage Land Conservancy of West Michigan Latin Americans United for Progress Macatawa Area Coordinating Council-Watershed Project Michigan Department of Agriculture Michigan Department of Community Health Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Michigan Department of History, Arts and Library Outdoor Discovery Center - Macatawa Greenway Ottawa County Drain Commission Ottawa County Farm Bureau Ottawa County Parks Tulip City Airport U. S. Army – Corps of Engineering, Detroit District U. S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resource of Conservation Service U. S. Department of Commerce-National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development U. S. Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, NEPA/EPA U. S. EPA, Region 5-Office of Strategic Environmental Analysis

50

West Shore Aviation Zeeland Chamber of Commerce

Information Sent The agencies were sent a packet of information that contained the following:

1. Cover letter 2. List of LRTP Improve & Expand Projects 3. A map showing the projects and referenced to the list 4. Back ground information regarding who the MACC is, what is the LRTP, what is the list of

candidate projects we are asking them to review, and why we are asking for consultation. The following pages are a sample of what was included in the packet.

51

2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Update Background and Information

Who is the MACC? The Macatawa Area Coordinating Council (MACC) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Holland, Michigan, urbanized area and is required by federal legislation to provide coordinated transportation planning. The MACC is made up of various governmental agencies, including: - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) - Ottawa County Road Commission - Allegan County Road Commission - The Counties of Ottawa and Allegan - The Cities of Holland and Zeeland - The Townships of Port Sheldon, Olive, Park, Holland, Zeeland, Laketown and Fillmore

Each of these agencies is represented on the MACC’s Policy Committee. These committee meetings are open to the public. More information on the meeting schedule for the Policy Committee can be found at www.the-macc.org. The MACC’s transportation program is funded by planning funds from the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Michigan Department of Transportation and local dues. What is the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Update? The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is the statement of the ways the region plans to invest in the transportation system. The plan includes strategies/actions that lead to the development of an integrated intermodal transportation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods.

The plan has several elements, for example:

• Identifies goals, concerns, and projects

• Determines project demand for transportation services over the next 25 years

• Focuses at the systems level, including roadways, transit, and non-motorized transportation

• Estimates costs and identifies reasonably available financial sources for operation, maintenance, and capital investments

• Determines ways to preserve existing roads and facilities and make efficient use of the existing system

Policy Board H * Rosemary Ervine, Chair H * Blaine Koops H * Hannes Meyers, Jr. H *Pankaj Rajadhyaksha H *William Vanderbilt

Howard Baumann, Jr. Terry Burns Kurt Dykstra Terry Hofmeyer Lester Hoogland John Kleinheksel Dal McBurrows Al Myaard Terry Nienhuis Keith Potter Amanda Price Gordon Schrotenboer Russ Te Slaa Dave Vander Kooi Todd Wolters

H *Executive Committee

52

• Is consistent with the statewide transportation plan and local members’ plans The 2035 LRTP is being updated by the MACC with the assistance of the MACC’s Transportation Technical Committee. The Technical Committee consists of representatives from local governments, road and transit agencies. To view the previously adopted 2035 LRTP, please go to http://www.the-macc.org/transportation/long-range-plan. What is the list of Candidate Projects? The Candidate Projects were identified by the Transportation Technical Committee as potential future capacity (widening) improvements over the life of the updated 2035 LRTP. These projects were based on the result of looking at the future traffic demands on the current road system in the area and then determining how to best improve the system. The projects identified on the list are proposed projects at this time and have not been designed, so right-of-way and other details have not been determined. The list does not include any preservation projects (paving, mill and resurface, etc). Why are we soliciting comment from your organization? As part of the federal transportation bill passed in August, 2005 (SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), it is a requirement of metropolitan planning organizations to seek input under Environmental Mitigation and Consultation (reference 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(B), 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(4), 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(4) and 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(D) ). Comments that are received will be incorporated into the decision making and approval process for the updated 2035 LRTP. The staff at the Macatawa Area Coordinating Council is available to meet with interested organizations and individuals regarding the Candidate Projects list and the updated 2035 LRTP. Please contact Elisa Hoekwater at ehoekwater@the-macc.org or by calling (616) 395-2688.

53

MACC 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE CANDIDATE PROJECT LIST

Improve and Expand Projects

NAME LIMITS WORK Year Open to

Traffic Distance (miles)

APPROXIMATE TOTAL COST (000’S)

AGENCY

1.Riley Street 112th – 100th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes, Intersection improvements

2011 1.5 2,450 OCRC

2. Matt Urban Drive City Limits to S. Washington Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes 2011 0.7 1,470 HC 3. 48th Street E. City Limits to M-40 Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes 2011 1.05 2335 HC 4. 48th Street Regent to Lincoln (M-40) Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes 2011 1.42 1,275 HC 5. Lincoln Avenue 16th Street to 24th Street Widen from 2 to 3 lanes 2012 0.5 2,400 HC 6. 8th Street Fairbanks Roundabout/Traffic Circle 2013 0.1 1,000 HC 7. Frontage Road along M-40

Interchange Drive to 1,250 ft. South - along M-40

Construct 2 lane section 2014 0.24 770 HC

8. 136th Avenue

Riley Street to Quincy Street Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes, Intersection improvements

2015 1.0 2,542

OCRC

9. Riley Street 100th – 96th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes, Intersection improvements

2018 0.5 200 OCRC

10. Riley Street Butternut Drive to 136th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes, Intersection improvements

2018 0.8 1,808 OCRC

11. 96th Avenue Adams Street to Gordon Street

Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes, Intersection improvements

2018 1.5 3,390 OCRC

12. 32nd Street US 31 to Waverly Road Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 5 lanes 2018 0.4 1,017 HC

13. US 31 Lakewood Blvd. – Quincy St. Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 6 lanes with boulevard. Intersection improvements.

2018 2.5 26,000 MDOT

14. 120th Avenue Riley Street to Quincy Street

Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes, Intersection improvements

2025 1.0 2,750 OCRC

15. Douglas Avenue River Avenue to 144th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 5 lanes 2025 1.3 3,300 OCRC 16. James Street Beeline Road to US 31 Reconstruct and widen from 3 to 5 lanes,

Intersection improvements 2025 0.6 1,320 OCRC

17. James Street 112th Avenue to Chicago Drive Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes, Intersection improvements

2025 1.1 3,025 OCRC

18. River Avenue CSX Crossing to 136th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 5 to 7 lanes Intersection improvements

2025 0.4 1,430

OCRC

19. Washington Avenue

Fairview Road to New M-121 (Chicago Dr.)

Reconstruct and widen to 3 lanes, Intersection improvements

2025 1.0 2,200 ZC

20. Waverly Road 24th Street to 32nd Street Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 5 lanes 2025 0.4 1,100 HC 21. James Street Butternut Drive to

Beeline Road Reconstruct and widen from 3 to 5lanes 2035 1.0 3,500 OCRC

TOTAL COST IMPROVE & EXPAND PROJECTS:

$ 65,282 $ 83,437

Current Future

Yr

54

55

December 7, 2010 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 250 East Lansing, MI 48823 RE: Request for Consultation on Updated 2035 Long Range Plan Candidate Projects In order to foster cooperation while promoting communication within Federal, State and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation and historic preservation, the Macatawa Area Coordinating Council (MACC) is seeking input on its updated 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) list of Candidate Projects. Enclosed is a table outlining the Candidate Projects for the Holland, Michigan, metropolitan area as well as a brief background and information sheet explaining who the MACC is and the development of the updated 2035 LRTP. These projects are for capacity (widening) increases only and are in the developmental stage. This is a draft list at this time and the inclusion of a specific project does not guarantee construction. A project map corresponding to the table is enclosed. Please look over the Candidate Projects and reference them to your organization. We would appreciate receiving any comments and/or concerns regarding these projects. Please contact us by email at (ehoekwater@the-macc.org) or submit by mail to:

Macatawa Area Coordinating Council

Attn: Elisa Hoekwater 301 Douglas Avenue Holland, MI 49424

Please respond on or before December 31, 2010. Your comments are an important part of the planning process. Without appropriate feedback, it is difficult to foresee potential issues with the Candidate Projects. If you wish to meet in person regarding the attached, please feel free to contact me at ehoekwater@the-macc.org or (616) 3953-2688 to schedule an appointment. Thank you in advance for your comments and participation. Sincerely, Elisa Hoekwater Senior Planner Macatawa Area Coordinating Council Enclosures

Policy Board H * Rosemary Ervine, Chair H * Blaine Koops H * Hannes Meyers, Jr. H *Pankaj Rajadhyaksha H *William Vanderbilt

Howard Baumann, Jr. Terry Burns Kurt Dykstra Terry Hofmeyer Lester Hoogland John Kleinheksel Dal McBurrows Al Myaard Terry Nienhuis Keith Potter Amanda Price Gordon Schrotenboer Russ Te Slaa Dave Vander Kooi Todd Wolters

H *Executive Committee

56

Responses Received and Treatment of Comments The MACC received responses from the following entities: • Allegan County Drain Commission • Ottawa County Drain Commission • Holland Chamber of Commerce • Department of Natural Resources & Environment • United States Department of the Interior • United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service • Holland Museum • Department of Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District A summary of comments is noted below along with the MACC’s response. A copy of the comments received can be found in Appendix H – Consultation. Allegan County Drain Commission Comments: 48th Street from Regent to Lincoln (M-40): north-south leg of this project crosses the Tulip Inter-County Drain. Assumes no additional structural changes needed which might impact the drain – however requested the opportunity to review and approve additional drainage work if needed. Response: Comment forwarded to project sponsor. Ottawa County Drain Commission Comments: Review of 10 transportation projects raised concerns of potential impact to County Drains and Inter-County Drains. Response: Comments forwarded to project sponsors and will request that crossing modifications be coordinated with the Ottawa County Drain Office. Holland Chamber of Commerce Comments: 2035 LRTP Project list distributed to Chamber of Commerce members. Response: MACC Transportation Technical Committee was informed. Department of Natural Resources & Environment Comments: General comments offered for consideration regarding construction site stormwater, municipal stormwater, environmental contamination, community water supplies, floodplains and wetlands, as well as air quality. Response: Comments forwarded to project sponsors. United States Department of the Interior Comments: Encouragement to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. Also provided references regarding endangered species and migratory birds. Response: Comments forwarded to project sponsor. United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service Comments: Four projects were identified as can potentially convert more than one acre of prime and unique farmland to other non-farm uses: Project #7 – Frontage Road along M-40; Project #11 – 96th Avenue; Project #13 - proposed widening of US-31 (Lakewood Boulevard – Quincy Street) and Project #14 – 120th Avenue. Response: The project sponsors were informed of the comments.

57

Holland Historical Trust Comments: Pleased to see projects 1-6 to add capacity. Response: Comment placed on file. MACC staff also followed up on an information request regarding Central Avenue in the City of Holland. Department of Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District Comments: Any discharge of dredged or fill material in Lake Macatawa, the Macatawa River, or in adjacent wetlands will require authorizations from the Corps of Engineers prior to starting work. Any contruction or other work to impact the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) shall also require prior Corps authorization. Response: Comments forwarded to project sponsors. In January, the MACC staff discussed these comments with the Policy and Technical Committees. Consultation is not only about informing relevant organizations of the MACC’s work but also reviewing their programs/projects and comparing them to the LRTP projects. MACC staff reviewed the websites of the entities who responded above and did not find any conflicts with the projects based on the information reviewed.

58

Chapter 10 Financial Summary and Analysis The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires that LRTPs be constrained by the amount of revenue available to transportation providers. The estimated cost of the projects and programs offered in this plan to meet future transportation system needs have been constrained to 25-year revenue projections. Revenue and cost estimates have also been developed to reflect “year of expenditure” dollars, accounting for inflation. This chapter is intended to provide the reader with an understanding of the sources and amounts of available revenue, planned expenditures and how this LRTP meets the financial constraint requirement noted above. Calculations of Regional Transportation Costs Within the Macatawa area, the regional transportation system requires capital investments to improve and expand local roadways, state trunklines, and transit projects – such as bus replacements and constructing transit facilities. Chapter 8 lists the estimated costs of these roadway improvement and expansion projects, as well as projects designed to preserve regional roadways, and accommodate future transit needs during the years 2011 through 2035. Estimating the cost to maintain and operate the regional transportation system involves a process of identifying expenditures for each of the agencies responsible for maintenance and operations in the Macatawa area. With the assistance of members of the Transportation Technical Committee, MACC staff prepared a summary of regional expenditures (detailed below) in order to demonstrate planned commitments on the part of the Allegan and Ottawa County Road Commissions, the Cities of Holland and Zeeland, Macatawa Area Express - MAX and the Michigan Department of Transportation. In looking ahead to the year 2035, this LRTP acknowledges that there will be supplemental expenditures beyond the committed and illustrative projects developed for this Plan. In order to account for these supplemental expenditures, calculations of regional transportation costs also include estimates for the preservation of the regional transportation system. Detail of Planned Expenditures OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF LOCAL ROADS For purposes of this plan, maintenance and operations can include such activities as sign repair/replacement, patching roads, striping, administrative/personnel costs, equipment purchases, etc. Annual expenses for operations and maintenance within the Macatawa region was approximately $ 6.1 million dollars in 2009. This figure was identified by summarizing annual expenses of the Allegan and Ottawa County Road Commissions, the Cities of Holland and Zeeland, and the Michigan Department of Transportation. In order to determine what this total expense would be in the year 2035, an inflation factor was used to reflect “year of expenditure dollars”. For 2010/2011, 1 percent annual growth rate is applied. For 2012/2013, 2 percent growth rate is applied. For FY 2014 and beyond, a 4.04 percent annual growth rate is applied. Using this method developed by the Michigan Department of Transportation, Statewide Systems Management Section (May 3, 2010), the projected amount over the next 25 years, is estimated to be $254,065,833.

Operations and Maintenance of Local Roads $254,065,833 Total Expenditures for Operations and Maintenance of Local Roads: $254,065,833 (Projected 25-year total in future year dollars)

59

LOCAL ROAD PROJECTS The projects included in this table are individually identified in the project list contained in Chapter 8. Current year expenditures include total costs to build all local road projects, based on 2010 dollars. If all of the local road projects were to be completed this year, this total cost would be $78.1 million dollars. Projecting this cost of building the local road projects over the next 25 years, using the growth rates of 1% (for 2010/2011); 2% (for 2012/2013); and 4.04% (for FY 2014 and beyond); to account for inflation, the total amount would be $104 million dollars.

Project Type Current Year Future Year Improve/Expand (20 projects) $39,282,000 $58,330,910 Preservation (59 projects) $38,858,000 $45,670,780

Total $78,140,000 $104,001,690 Total Expenditures for Local Road Projects: $104,001,690 (Projected 25-year total in future year dollars) STATE TRUNKLINE PROJECTS The projects included in this table are individually identified in the project list in Chapter 8. Accounting for inflation, calculations below were developed with the following growth rates: 1% (for 2010/2011); 2% (for 2012/2013); and 4.04% (for FY 2014 and beyond).

Project Type Current Year Future Year Improve/Expand (1project) $26,000,000 $34,060,000 Preservation (4 projects) $34,491,000 $40,907,980

Total $60,491,000 $74,967,980 Total Expenditures for State Trunkline Projects: $74, 967,980 (Projected 25-year total in future year dollars) OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF TRANSIT Operating expenses for the Macatawa Area Express bus system were an annual average of $3.6 million during 2008 and 2009 (MAX 2009 Annual Report listed FY 2008 Operating Expenses to be $3,623,721 and FY 2009 Operating Expenses to be $3,667,977). The 2009 Annual Report for MAX listed maintenance expenses as nearly 10% ($365,388), operations as 75% ($2,745,855), and general administrative operating as 15% of these expenses ($556,734). In order to provide a projection of these expenses through the 25 year planning period, this figure would be $91,699,425 (in current dollars), and would be approximately $152,148,767 (in future expenditure dollars), accounting for inflation. To be consistent with methods used to determine future expenditures of the roadway network, the same growth rates were used to account for inflation: 1% (for 2010/2011); 2% (for 2012/2013); and 4.04% (for FY 2014 and beyond).

Operations and Maintenance of Transit $152,148,767 Total Expenditures for Operations and Maintenance of Transit: $152,148,767 (Projected 25-year total in future year dollars)

60

TRANSIT PROJECTS The projects included in this table are noted in the project list found in Chapter 8.

Project Type Future Year Bus Replacement $ 15,556,780 Transit Facilities $ 2,263,033

Total $17,819,813 Total Expenditures for Transit Projects: $17,819,813 (Projected 25-year total in future year dollars) Expenditure Summary Table 4 indicates the total operations/maintenance expenditures for local roads as well as planned capital expenditures for local roads, transit and state trunkline projects in the MACC area during the 2035 LRTP time period. These expenditures total $601 million for planned capital and operations/maintenance expenditures over the next 25 years.

Table 4 Summary of Planned Expenditures

Operations/Maintenance Expenditures

Planned Expenditures for Operations/Maintenance of Local Roads ($254,065,833) Planned Expenditures for Operations/Maintenance of Transit ($152,148,767) Planned Capital Expenditures

Local Road Projects

($104,001,690)

State Trunkline Projects

($74,967,980) Transit Projects

($17,819,813)

TOTAL

($603,004,083)

PRESERVATION OF REGIONWIDE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM It is noted in Chapter 8 that the list of projects developed for the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Update is not considered to be all-inclusive, as the the list may not include all supplemental projects to be completed by the year 2035. In developing the list of projects for the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Update, the MACC Technical Committee acknowledged that additional expenses are anticipated in the next 25 years to complete pavement resurfacing of the more than 965 lane miles within the MACC region. This cost of preserving the region’s roadway network goes beyond the $104 million projected for local road projects, detailed above, and also exceeds planned capital expenditures of $74.9 million for state trunkline projects. If one half of local roadways and urban/rural interstates were to be resurfaced in ten years and the remaining half of the roadway network were to be resurfaced by the year 2035, it is

61

estimated that the future cost to the region would be $272,662,745 (projected in future year dollars, using the growth rates of : 1% (for 2010/2011); 2% (for 2012/2013); and 4.04% (for FY 2014 and beyond). This is an estimate based upon resurfacing costs of between $70,000 to $125,000 per lane mile for a road with curb & gutter, and between $171,000 to $225,000 per lane mile to resurface a road with a 3 to 4 foot shoulder. In addition to this minimal resurfacing cost, and pavement rehabilitation of US 31 (listed as an illustrative project in the draft project list in Chapter 8), it is also noted that future expenses to preserve the region’s state trunklines are anticipated. The MACC Technical Committee also recognizes that future transit projects and operations/ maintenance of both roadways and the region’s transit system will be required to preserve the regionwide transportation system. These additional investments may cost an estimated $151.6 million. It is thus recommended that $425.8 million be designated for the future preservation of the regional transportation system. Sources of Transportation Funding Federal Funding The development and maintenance of the nation’s transportation system has been, and is today, financed primarily by fees on the users of the system. At the federal level, gasoline and diesel fuel are taxed (trucks contribute additional federal use and sales taxes) and the receipts deposited in the Federal Highway Trust Fund and distributed to states through the programs authorized under the SAFETEA-LU. Michigan receives most of its federal highway funding from the following programs: Interstate Maintenance (IM), National Highway System (NHS), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation (BRR), Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) and the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). State Funding At the state level, user fees include a per gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel and a per vehicle registration fee based on either vehicle weight or value. State user fees are deposited in the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) and, after several deductions, are distributed to the State Trunkline Fund and to counties and cities & villages. Local Funding Local communities are not permitted to assess a gasoline tax or vehicle registration fee in Michigan. MTF allocations account for a significant share of local transportation revenue. Local communities may receive federal funds administrated by the Michigan Department of Transportation and they may support local transportation improvements with their general fund, a millage, general obligation bonds, contributions from other local governments, tax increment financing, and special assessment districts. In more recent years, a growing source of transportation financing has been provided by the the private sector. This usually involves developers paying for the construction of access drives or roadways leading to their development. Process of Estimating Revenues For financial planning purposes, a cooperative process was used to identify projected revenues in the LRTP. MACC staff identified historic trends for Federal, State, and Local funding. MACC staff conducted interviews with each of the local road agencies in order to reflect allocations for construction of non-trunkline roads, as well as operations and maintenance. Staff also coordinated

62

with the region’s public transportation operator, Macatawa Area Express (MAX), and looked at historic trends to identify revenues for capital projects, operations and maintenance. The Michigan Department of Transportation (Statewide Systems Management Section as well as the Passenger Transportation Division) provided input regarding revenues forecasted for the Macatawa area during the years 2011 – 2035. Revenues were provided in future year dollars for the following categories: preservation; capacity improvement and new roads; and transit. As multiple agencies were involved in this cooperative revenue estimation process, revenue estimates were prepared with annual growth rates recommended for each source of transportation funding. For State and Local Revenues, growth rates to account for inflation were as follows: 1% (for 2010/2011); 2% (for 2012/2013); and 4.04% (for FY 2014 and beyond). Annual growth rates used to determine future year dollars for Federal Revenues were as follows: 0% (assumed to be same as FY 2009 levels for 2010/2011); 3.2% (for 2012/2013); and 4.89% (for 2014 and beyond). Transit revenues were developed using a growth rate of 1% (for 2011); 2% (for 2012/2013); and 3.75% (for FY 2014 and beyond). Detail of Projected Revenues FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) -URBAN Federal STP-Urban funds are funds from the federal Surface Transportation Program to be spent in the MACC area. STP funds can be used for a wide variety of transportation projects. The Macatawa Area Coordinating Council FY 2008 – 2011 TIP Project Data lists projects that received Federal STP-Urban funds totaling $4,969,000 for the following years: FY 2008: $1,674,000; FY 2009: $1,684,000; FY 2010: $1,611,000. The MACC area in the past three years has averaged approximately $1,656,333 annually in STP funds. It is assumed that the area will continue to receive approximately $1,650,000 annually from this program The Macatawa Area Coordinating Council FY 2011 – 2014 TIP Project List estimates Federal Commitment for STP-Urban funds to be as follows: FY2011: $1,670,000; FY 2012: $2,156,705; FY 2013: $2,108,000; FY 2014: $1,711,000. Future estimate of annual STP-Urban funds is assumed to be $1,650,000, consistent with revenues received over the past 3 years. FEDERAL CONGESTION MITIGATION/AIR QUALITY Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funds are provided to projects which reduce traffic congestion or in other ways improve air quality. In the MACC area, CMAQ funds have been used to upgrade and coordinate traffic signals, construct non-motorized pathways, fund vanpools, undertake transportation demand management efforts, and implement an Ozone Action! Day awareness program. The Macatawa Area Coordinating Council FY 2008 – 2011 TIP Project Data lists projects that received Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality funds totaling $1,254,000 for the following years: FY 2008: $449,000; FY 2009: $386,000; FY 2010: $419,000. The MACC area in the past three years has averaged approximately $418,000 annually in CMAQ funds. It is assumed that the area will continue to receive approximately $ 405,000 annually from this program.

63

FEDERAL OTHER Funding Programs in this category include:

Highway Safety Improvement Program: These funds are given to projects where roadway improvements are made to enhance safety. The MACC area in the past three years has averaged approximately $466,000 annually in Highway Safety Improvement Program funds. The Macatawa Area Coordinating Council FY 2008 – 2011 TIP Project Data lists projects that received Safety funds totalling $1,400,000 for the following years: FY 2008: $472,000; FY 2009: $528,000; FY 2010: $400,000. It is assumed that the area will continue to receive approximately $400,000 annually from this program.

Transportation Enhancement Program: This program provides funding for projects that supplement and enhance the existing transportation system. Funding from this program can be used for non-motorized pathways, streetscapes, and historic preservation of transportation facilities, that enhance Michigan's intermodal transportation system and improve the quality of life for Michigan citizens. Competition for these funds is statewide. For this plan, it is assumed that the area would receive a Transportation Enhancement grant during the next 4 years, which would provide an average of $100,000/yr.

SOURCE: FEDERAL

STP- URBAN FEDERAL CMAQ FEDERAL OTHER

Average Amount $1,650,000 $ 405,000 $500,000 No. Years in Projection X 25 X 25 X 25 Proj. 25-year Amount (Current Dollars)

$41,250,000 $10,125,000 $12,500,000

Year of Expenditure Total Amount

$76,342,719 $18,738,667 $23,134,157

Total Federal Transportation Funds for Local Roads: $118,215,543 (Projected 25-year total in “year of expenditure” dollars)

FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL TRANSIT FUNDING The amounts noted below fund the MACC area’s public transit provider, the Macatawa Area Express. The figures are based on average funding commitments of $4,168,500 /yr contained in the MACC’s FY2011-2014 Transportation Improvement Program, as well as projected transit funds (in future dollars) provided by the Michigan Department of Transportation for the Macatawa Area. SOURCE: FEDERAL

Operating & Capital

STATE Capital

STATE Operating

LOCAL Operating & Capital

Average Amount $1,530,250 $63,000 $1,483,250 $1,092,000 Number of Years at average amount

X 25 X 25 X 25 X 25

Proj. 25-year Amount (Current Dollars)

$38,256,250 $1,575,000 $37,081,250 $27,300,000

Year of Expenditure Total Amount

$61,217,354

$2,520,303 $58,387,304 $45,296,482

Total Federal/State/Local Transit Funds: $167,421,442 Projected 25-year total in “year of expenditure” dollars)

64

STATE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE OF LOCAL ROADS - MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION FUND (MTF) The Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) revenues identified in this category are for operations and maintenance activities only. For purposes of this plan, maintenance and operations can include such activities as sign repair/replacement, patching roads, striping, administrative/personnel costs, equipment purchases, etc. Some agencies utilize MTF funds for construction activities as well. These funds are included in the “State and Locally-Raised Funds for Construction of Local Roads” category below. As noted earlier, all state fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees are deposited into the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF). This revenue, after several deductions, is shared among Act 51 “eligible agencies” which in the MACC area includes the Allegan County Road Commission, Ottawa County Road Commission, City of Holland, and City of Zeeland. MTF estimates were compiled following interviews with each of the local road agencies in order to reflect allocations for operations/maintenance activities. It is projected that approximately $6,124,976 of MTF funds will be expended annually by these four entities for operations/maintenance activities, as defined above, on local roads. This amount is based on FY2009 Act 51 allocations to local road agencies and it is assumed that the funding distribution formula under Act 51 will remain the same. It should be noted that only a portion of the MTF funding available to the Allegan and Ottawa County Road Commissions is used in jurisdictions in the MACC area.

SOURCE: Michigan Transportation Fund Average Amount $6,124,976 Number of Years at average amount

X 25

Proj. 25-year Amount (Current Dollars)

$153,124,400

Year of Expenditure Total Amount

$254,065,833

Total State Transportation Funds for Local Road Operations & Maintenance: $254,065,833 (Projected 25-year total in “year of expenditure” dollars) STATE AND LOCALLY-RAISED FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LOCAL ROADS The sources of revenue for this category vary among local units of government. Some jurisdictions allocate funds directly from their general fund or use a portion of their Michigan Transportation Fund allocation. Others have voter-approved millages. It is important to note that these millages are a vital source of roadway construction funding and it is assumed, based on past voter approvals, that these millages will continue to be renewed. It is projected that approximately $3,790,388 will be available annually for construction of local non-trunkline roads from state and locally-raised revenues. This figure was derived by examining the past several years of local expenditures for roadway construction and developing an average expenditure for each unit of government. Interviews were then conducted to confirm allocations for construction of non-trunkline roads. The averages for each unit of government were projected for the twenty five year period covered by the LRTP and summed resulting in a total of $61,250,000 ($97,478,693 in future dollars). It is important to note that the term construction is used in this plan to cover the following types of activities: paving, resurfacing, reconstruction, widenings, etc. None of this funding is allocated towards activities such as snow plowing, traffic sign repair/replacement, striping, signal repair/replacement, dust control, etc.

65

SOURCE: Michigan

Transportation Fund Locally-Raised Funds

Average Amount $1,340,388 $2,450,000 Number of Years average amount

X 25 X 25

Total Projected 25- year Amount

$33,509,700 $61,250,000

Year of Expenditure Total Amount

$55,599,673 $97,478,693

Total State and Locally-Raised Funds for Local Roads: $153,078,366 (Projected 25-year total in “year of expenditure” dollars) FEDERAL AND STATE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR STATE ROADS IN MACC AREA The Michigan Department of Transportation financial projections are provided in two categories: Preserve and IC & New Roads. These categories are not particular funding sources but rather the summation of several funding sources for projects on state trunklines. For the 25-year planning horizon of this plan, MDOT projects a funding total of $164,240,000 in the Preserve category and $171,800,000 in the IC & New Roads category resulting in total funding anticipated for trunkline projects of $336,040,000 (in future year dollars). Total revenues for Preserve , IC & New Roads was provided by MDOT Statewide Systems Management Section, 2/17/2009. It should be noted that the IC & New Road allocations do not reflect actual MDOT commitments during the Five-Year Plan or in future planning cycles.

CATEGORY: Preserve IC & New Roads

Average Amount $3,959,470 $4,141,726 Number of Years average amount

X 25 X 25

Total Projected 25- year Amount

$98,986,750 $103,543,150

Year of Expenditure Total Amount

$164,240,000 $171,800,000

Total Federal and State Transportation Funds for State Trunklines: $336,040,000 (Projected 25-year total in “year of expenditure” dollars) Revenue Summary Table 5 indicates the total federal, state, and local revenues estimated to be available for roadway construction, transit capital/operating and local road operations and maintenance activities in the MACC area during the 2035 LRTP time period. Unless specifically noted, all of the revenue estimates provided in the remainder of this summary are projected year of expenditure dollars.

66

Table 5

Summary of Available Revenues

Projected Revenues

Total

Federal Transportation Funds for Construction of Local Roads $118,215,543 Federal/State/Local Transit Funding (operating and capital) $167,421,442 State Funding for Local Road Operations & Maintenance $254,065,833 State and Locally-Raised Funding for Construction of Local Roads $153,078,366 Federal and State Funding for State Roads in MACC Area $336,040,000 TOTAL $1,028,821,184

67

Demonstration of Financial Constraint The total expenditures identified in the MACC 2035 LRTP are within the total federal, state, and local revenues estimated for the 2035 LRTP. As shown in Table 6 below, there is adequate revenue available for the capital expenditures as well as operations/maintenance indicated in this LRTP. As the MACC 2035 LRTP is demonstrated to be financially constrained and within the regional budget allowance, it is the recommendation of the MACC Technical Committee that the remaining balance of $425.8 million be designated for the future preservation of the regional transportation system.

Table 6 Demonstration of Financial Constraint

Total federal, state, and local revenues estimated to be available for roadway construction, transit capital/operating and local road operations and maintenance

$1,028,821,184

Expenditures for Operations/Maintenance of Local Roads ($254,065,833) Expenditures for Local Road Projects ($104,001,690) Expenditures for State Trunkline Projects ($74,967,980) Expenditures for Operations/Maintenance of Transit ($152,148,767) Expenditures for Transit Projects ($17,819,813) REMAINING BALANCE $425,817,102

68

Chapter 11 Plan Evaluation Effectiveness of the LRTP It is important to evaluate whether implementation of the LRTP will bring the MACC area closer to the goals and objectives stated in Chapter 2. To assist in this evaluation process measures of effectiveness (MOEs) are utilized. MOEs can be either quantitative or qualitative. Listed below are the LRTP’s goals and a discussion of how well the LRTP fulfills each of them. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - Transportation planning and the system it designs shall be comprehensive and coordinated with other planning efforts. Discussion: The LRTP was developed in conjunction with all MACC local units of

government, local road agencies, the Michigan Department of Transportation, private sector partners, and the general public. Local government master plans and the planning emphasis areas contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) were considered. Future updates to the plan should continue to strive to incorporate more private sector participation as well as special interest groups related to transportation.

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS - Planning efforts must recognize funding availability when designing the system, ensure the best allocation of those resources, and promote the development of a system that is an economic asset to the region. Discussion: The LRTP contains several projects that are adjacent to commercial areas and/or

will facilitate traffic circulation and access to major employment centers. It also recognizes the importance of maintaining the existing system that maximizes long-term benefits and is a cost-effective strategy.

EFFICIENCY - The transportation system shall be configured and utilized in the most efficient manner possible. Discussion: It is estimated that in 2009 there were approximately 2.8 million miles traveled

daily. In 2035 it is expected that VMT will be 3.3 million, a 19% increase. The improve and expand projects are regionally coordinated to minimize gaps or unnecessary duplication thus increasing efficiency.

MOBILITY - The transportation system will ensure basic mobility to all persons and goods and allow them to arrive at their destination in a timely manner. Discussion: The implementation of the proposed projects increases continuous service and

needed capacity. The non-motorized plan called for by the LRTP, as well as the potential future transit expansions and pledge to periodically review transit expansion issues, lay a foundation for improvements to the transportation system

69

for those who cannot, or choose not, to use private automobiles. The MACC will continue to identify measures that will help assess the performance of the transportation system and its impact on mobility.

LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - The transportation system shall maximize positive impacts and minimize disruption of existing and anticipated land uses in the MACC area, as well as maintain and improve the quality of the environment. Discussion: Projects contained in the LRTP such as the 120th Avenue and US-31 corridor

improvements, as well as the addition of capacity to other corridors, will have impacts on land use adjacent to them. As noted above, local government’s master plans were consulted to ensure that there were no conflicts. In terms of environmental impacts, the projects were subjected to an air quality conformity analysis as well as a consultation process. The air quality analysis ensures that the emissions generated from these projects are within the emission budgets for VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) and NOx (Nitrogen Oxide) as established by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and contained in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The consultation process ensures that agencies involved in natural resources and land management can comment on the impacts of the proposed improve/expand projects.

ACCESSIBILITY - The transportation system will be available to all persons. Discussion: As noted under the mobility goal, this plan calls for the completion of a non-

motorized plan for the entire MACC area as well as potential future transit service areas. Both of these initiatives lay the framework for increasing the accessibility of the transportation system to persons who cannot, or choose not, to use private automobiles. While both of these initiatives direct the MACC area in the right direction, more can be done to increase the accessibility of the transportation system to all persons and efforts will continue to identify logical methods to increase accessibility.

SAFETY & SECURITY - The transportation system shall be safe and secure for all its users. Discussion: The LRTP survey results showed the need for the MACC to be involved with

safety efforts. Safety forums hosted by the MACC should occur periodically. In addition, efforts should be made to continue to research various Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies that enhance safety. The non-motorized plan will also identify safety concerns of the transportation system from a pedestrian/bicyclist perspective.

SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors In addition to the MACC’s LRTP goals, SAFETEA-LU contains eight planning factors that are to be considered as part of the MACC’s overall transportation planning efforts as well as development of the LRTP and Transportation Improvement Program. These factors are considered below. Support the economic vitality of the … metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.

70

Discussion: The projects contained in this plan preserve and enhance access (by all modes) to

major employment centers. It also improves access for workers to many sites of the MACC.

Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users. Discussion: Safety improvements related to ITS and driver education are encouraged in this

plan, as are safety improvements to major projects such as the reconstruction of US-31. The safety needs of non-motorized users will be addressed by the non-motorized study described in this plan.

Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users. Discussion: The MACC will identify and advance ITS strategies that increase the security of

the transportation system. The security needs of non-motorized users will be addressed by the non-motorized study described in this plan.

Increase the accessibility and mobility options available for people and freight. Discussion: Mobility options for non-motorized, transit and roadway users are increased under

this plan with the implementation of the programs/projects proposed. Accessibility is improved but it is recognized that additional activities should be considered to increase the accessibility of the transportation system to all persons.

Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life and promote consistency between transportation and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns. Discussion: This LRTP seeks to minimize any negative impacts to the environment (Chapter 2

Goals and Objectives) as a result of its programs/projects. The implementation of the programs/projects contained in this plan will reduce gaps in the system allowing for more direct transportation routes. Consistency is achieved by evaluating local master plans and developing the LRTP in conjunction with MDOT and MACC members.

Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight. Discussion: The projects/programs of this plan reduce gaps and in other instances, such as

with the proposed non-motorized study and transit linkages components, seek to enhance connectivity and integration. Freight issues are covered in Chapter 5, Intermodal Issues.

71

Promote efficient system management and operation. Discussion: The projects/programs contained in this plan were developed in cooperation with

the MACC members, state and local transportation providers, and the general public. Such input helps ensure that the current system is efficiently managed and operated and the programs/projects proposed in this plan support the continuation of a system that is efficiently managed and operated.

Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. Discussion: The LRTP considered preservation of the existing transportation system through

the financial analysis section that identified funds for maintenance activities. Also, the project list contains preservation projects. There is an interest in the application of ITS in small urban areas as noted in Chapter 3 that could enhance the use of the existing system.

Environmental Justice Analysis Background The roadway and transit projects in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) must meet the principles of Executive Order 12898 relating to environmental justice (EJ). Specifically, the plan must identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs and policies on minority and low-income populations.

The methodology undertaken to analyze that the principles are being met entailed mapping areas of low-income and minority population concentrations, overlaying the LRTP’s proposed projects and visually analyzing the potential impacts. The maps on the following pages are the result of this multi-step process. Step 1 – Delineation of Minority Areas Guidance provided by the federal Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Policy Directive 15, Revisions to the Standards for the classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, as well as USDOT Order 5610.2 (found at the Environmental Justice page on FHWA’s website) were instrumental in selection of the groups to analyze. The groups to be considered when conducting an Environmental Justice analysis must include Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian and Alaskan Native and Low Income. Within the Macatawa area, the following percentages were identified during the 2000 Census: • Black (1.65 %) • Hispanic (13.61 %) • Asian (3.83 %) • American Indian and Alaskan Native (.39 %) Utilizing 2000 Census data, density maps of the above noted groups were created. These are included in Appendix J. A visual inspection helped identify those block groups with significant presence of the target groups (a dot density greater than 50%). Please note that the visual

72

analysis was conducted at scales other than those shown on the maps resulting, in some cases, to additional block groups being added. Step 2 – Delineation of Low Income Area The USDOT Order 5610.2 defines low-income as, “a person whose median household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.” For a family of four, this household income level was $17,050 in 2000. Utilizing 2000 Census data, a thematic map showing families below the poverty line was created. Recognizing, however, that this would not indicate individuals below poverty (presumed to be a significant cohort on a variable like poverty), a density map of individuals below poverty was overlaid on the families in poverty map. Again, a visual inspection of this map at various scales resulted in identification of those block groups that had a significant presence of low income families and individuals (with a dot density greater than 50%). These are included in Appendix J. Step 3 – Analysis of Impacts on Minority Areas With the minority areas now delineated, an analysis of the impacts can be completed. Analysis of potential impacts centers on three major areas of concern: 1. Disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts to minority

areas 2. Minimizing/blocking access of minority areas to the transportation system 3. Neglect of the transportation system in minority areas or otherwise reduce or delay the

receipt of benefits to those areas Disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts to minority areas Of the 84 projects contained in the 2035 LRTP, 31 are in the minority areas. A project was considered in a minority area if 50% or more of project length or service area was contained by the minority area boundaries. Projects on the boundary of a minority area were considered to be contained by the minority area boundaries. These projects cover project categories of road improvement/expansion, and preservation. The improve/expand projects adjacent to residential areas in the EJ area will have minimal impact on adjacent residential areas in terms of noise, right-of-way takings, or pollution. Many improve/expand projects are in predominantly commercial areas. Impacts, in the form of right-of-way acquisition, related to the US 31 project are minor in the MACC area and were documented in the Environmental Impact Statement. Environmental impacts on all projects will be mitigated according to federal and state laws. Therefore, it has been determined that there are no disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts. Minimizing/blocking access of minority areas to the transportation system Minimizing access can be characterized as the permanent closing of streets or interchanges in order to accomplish the projects contained in the LRTP. While temporary closures will be necessary as part of the construction process for many projects, no permanent closures are intended as a result of implementing the proposed projects. Therefore, it has been determined that there is no blockage of access to the transportation system or loss of mobility as a result of implementing the 2035 LRTP projects.

73

Neglect of the transportation system in minority areas The MACC area is approximately 211 square miles. The minority areas mapped are approximately 26 square miles or 12% of the entire area of the MACC. As noted earlier, there are 31 projects contained in the EJ area. These projects represent 37% of all proposed projects and 49% of all project cost contained in the LRTP. Therefore, there are more projects and federal funds spent per square mile in the EJ area than in the MACC as a whole. Access to public transit by residents in the minority areas was also analyzed. The public transit (Macatawa Area Express) service area covers the minority areas in their entirety and its fixed routes run substantially within the minority areas. None of the projects contained in the LRTP Update restrict access of residents to public transit services (fixed route or demand response). Thus it has been determined that there is no neglect, reduction or delay in the receipt of transportation benefits by those residing in the minority area. Step 4 – Analysis of Impacts on Low Income Areas With the low income areas now delineated, an analysis of the impacts can be completed. Analysis of potential impacts centers on three major areas of concern:

1. Disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts to low income areas

2. Minimizing/blocking access of low income areas to the transportation system 3. Neglect of the transportation system in low income areas or otherwise reduce or delay

the receipt of benefits to those areas Disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts to low income areas Of the 84 projects contained in the 2035 LRTP, 53 are in the low income analysis area. A project was considered in a low income area if 50% or more of project length or service area was contained by the low income area boundaries. Projects on the boundary of a low income area were considered to be contained by the low income area boundaries. These projects cover project categories of road improvement/expansion, and preservation. The improve/expand projects adjacent to residential areas in the EJ area will have minimal impact on adjacent residential areas in terms of noise, right-of-way takings, or pollution. Many improve/expand projects are in predominantly commercial areas. Impacts, in the form of right-of-way acquisition, related to the US 31 project are minor in the MACC area and were documented in the Environmental Impact Statement. Environmental impacts on all projects will be mitigated according to federal and state laws. Therefore, it has been determined that there are no disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts. Minimizing/blocking access of low income areas to the transportation system Minimizing access can be characterized as the permanent closing of streets or interchanges in order to accomplish the projects contained in the LRTP. While temporary closures will be necessary as part of the construction process for many projects, no permanent closures are intended as a result of implementing the proposed projects. Therefore, it has been determined that there is no blockage of access to the transportation system or loss of mobility as a result of implementing the 2035 LRTP projects. Neglect of the transportation system in low income areas The MACC area is approximately 211 square miles. The low-income areas mapped are approximately 26 square miles or 12% of the entire area of the MACC. As noted earlier, there

74

are 53 projects contained in the EJ area. These projects represent 63% of all proposed projects and 42% of all project cost contained in the LRTP. Therefore, there are more projects and federal funds spent per square mile in the EJ area than in the MACC as a whole. Access to public transit by residents in the low income areas was also analyzed. The public transit (Macatawa Area Express) service area covers the low income areas in their entirety and its fixed routes run substantially within these areas. None of the projects contained in the LRTP restrict access of residents to public transit services (fixed route or demand response). Thus it has been determined that there is no neglect, reduction or delay in the receipt of transportation benefits by those residing in the low income area. Conclusion This analysis of the impacts on residents in minority and low income areas as a result of implementing the projects contained in this Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) led to the following findings:

• No disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts • No blockage/minimization of access to the transportation system or loss of mobility • No neglect, reduction or delay in the receipt of transportation benefits • No restriction of access to public transit services

These findings demonstrated that implementing the projects contained in this TIP do not result in violations of Executive Order 12898 and the principles of environmental justice. Also, to supplement the analysis done here, the public participation process for the 2035 LRTP makes a concerted effort to reach out to traditionally disadvantaged populations (including minority and low income populations) to ascertain the potential effects/impacts of the proposed projects.

75

Figure 18 – Environmental Justice Analysis - Minority Area Map

76

Figure 19 – Environmental Justice Analysis – Low Income Area Map

77

Environmental Mitigation SAFETEA-LU requires that a “discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the plan. This discussion shall be developed in consultation with federal, state and tribal wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies.” Essentially, the purpose of this process, at a regionwide level, is to identify possible impacts of proposed projects on environmentally sensitive resources, list useful guidelines for mitigating these impacts and providing this information to implementing agencies. A consultation process was undertaken with the types of agencies noted above (detailed information regarding the consultation process can be found in Chapter 9). The agencies who reviewed the proposed projects in the LRTP and responded to the MACC’s request for comments focused their remarks on the following resources:

• Wetlands • Endangered species • Established intra-county or inter-county drains • Prime and unique farmland

Analysis Process Mapping Resources/Project Overlay - Maps depicting these identified resources were developed and the proposed LRTP projects overlaid on them (these maps can be found in Appendix I - Environmental Mitigation Maps). It is important to note that not all potential resources have been included in this analysis, but rather those identified through the consultation process. Future LRTPs will include additional resource inventories. Furthermore, only those identified resources that had data readily available and/or were reasonably up-to-date were included. Identification of Potential Impacts – A visual inspection for the intersection of mapped resources and proposed projects was completed. Where a project and resource are found to be adjacent or intersect, an impact is considered possible. For the purpose of this LRTP, no further analysis of potential impacts was made. The purpose of this step in the process is to draw attention to the potential impact that should be examined further at the project level. Analysis Findings The findings listed below are the result of the overlay process described above and/or comments made by resource agencies during the consultation process. Again, this analysis is being completed to draw attention to those projects that could potentially impact environmentally sensitive resources and provide general guidelines, at a regional level, for mitigating impacts. It should be noted that these guidelines are introduced for reference purposes only. The MACC has no authority to require implementation of the guidelines listed. It is anticipated that providing this information will enhance the transportation planning and decision making process.

78

The following potential impacts were identified: Project Name Limits/Area of Possible

Effect Potential Impact Mitigation Guideline

Riley St. 112th – 100th Ave Impact to Brower Drain Coordinate with Drain Commission regarding replacement of culvert

Lincoln Ave 16th – 24th St Maplewood Intercounty Drain

Coordination needed for drain alignment/road work

Frontage Road Along M-40 Conversion of prime/unique farmland

Seek alternative plan or minimize conversion

136th Ave Riley to Quincy St County Drain #18 Upgrade to enclosed stormsewer

Riley St Butternut Dr – 136th Ave Harlem and Bazan County Drains

Crossing modifications shall be coordinated with Drain Office

96th Ave Adams – Gordon St. Cedar County Drains Crossing modifications shall be coordinated with Drain Office

James St. Beeline Rd – US 31 County Drain #40 Crossing modifications shall be coordinated with Drain Office

120th Ave. Riley St. – Quincy St./ North ¾ of the project from Quincy St. south

Conversion of prime/unique farmland

Seek alternative plan or minimize conversion

Washington Ave. Fairview Rd. – New M-121/North side of road

Conversion of prime/unique farmland

Seek alternative plan or minimize conversion

48th St. E. City Limit – M-40/Both sides of project

Conversion of prime/unique farmland

Seek alternative plan or minimize conversion

48th St. Regent – Lincoln (M-40)

Tulip Inter-County Drain Coordinate with Drainage Board to minimize impact

US 31 Lakewood Blvd.-Quincy St./South of Quincy for ½ mile on east side of road

Conversion of prime/unique farmland And impact to County Drains #15 & 17

Seek alternative plan or minimize conversion also Crossing modifications shall be coordinated with Drain Office

All Projects Entire MACC Area Loss of habitat for Indiana bat, Pitcher’s thistle and eastern massasauga rattlesnake

Avoidance of unnecessary impacts to candidate species

In addition, the following guidelines pertain to some of the other resources that were identified: • Utilize Context Sensitive Solution (CSS) principles as early as possible in project

development and throughout the planning process. CSS is a process that considers the entire context within which a transportation project takes place including financial limitations and safety issues. This method involves all stakeholders in a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach to developing transportation projects.

• Identify the area of potential impact related to each transportation project including the immediate project area as well as other related project development areas.

• Perform an inventory to determine if any environmentally sensitive resources could be impacted by the project per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.

• Investigate as to whether a County Hazard Mitigation Plan exits, and if the plan speaks to the

79

impacted resources in question. (A County Hazard Mitigation Plan is a requirement for a county to be eligible to receive federal Hazard Mitigation Grant funds in order to protect communities from a variety of hazards, including those to the natural environment.

• Coordinate design and construction with local plans, such as watershed management plans, community recreation plans, preservation plans, cemetery preservation plans, local

community master plans and non-motorized plans. • Organize and conduct a meeting with local community officials, contractors/subcontractors, and relevant stakeholders prior to construction to discuss environmental protection issues,

form goals, and communicate any special requirements for the project. • Avoid impacts, as possible, to environmental resources by limiting project magnitude or

redesigning the project. • Where impacts are unavoidable, mitigate them to the extent possible as required through

local, state, and federal regulations and laws. • Incorporate storm water management into the site design. • Reduce the use of culverts where possible. Construction and Maintenance Guidelines • Include all special requirements that address environmentally sensitive resources into plans

and estimates used by contractors and subcontractors. Bring attention to the types of activities prohibited in environmentally sensitive areas.

• Minimize construction and staging areas and clearly mark boundaries. o Install flagging or fencing around sensitive areas to prevent intrusion

• Utilize the least intrusive construction techniques and materials. • Avoid disturbing the site as much as possible including:

o Protecting established vegetation and habitat - If vegetation is damaged or removed during construction, replace with native species as soon as possible. o Implementing sediment and erosion control techniques

• Minimize extent and duration of exposed bare ground. o Establish vegetation immediately after grading is complete. o Prevent tracking of sediment onto paved surfaces. o Do not stockpile materials in sensitive areas. o Protecting water quality

• Prevent direct runoff of water containing sediments. o Sweep streets to reduce sediment entering the storm drainage system. o Block/control storm drains to prevent construction debris from polluting waterways. o Implement salt management techniques. o Protecting cultural/historic resources o Prevent the disturbance of soil/material near cultural resources.

Source: Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, Environmentally Sensitive Resource Mitigation Guidelines. To reiterate, these guidelines are introduced for reference purposes only. The MACC has no authority to require implementation of these guidelines. It is hoped that providing this information will enhance the transportation planning and decision making process.

80

Air Quality Conformity Analysis Determining whether the LRTP is in conformity with air quality standards is a somewhat complex process. The Clean Air Act of 1990 (as amended) and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) establish air quality thresholds for the nation. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) determines the attainment of these standards for each county in the state. For those areas that do not meet the standards, the state must develop a plan that shows how the state intends to achieve the standards. This plan is called the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is developed by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Allegan County was designated as a non-attainment area for the eight hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2004. On September 24, 2010 the area was redesignated to attainment/maintenance. Air quality impacts of transportation improvements are scrutinized very carefully in the transportation planning process. The quantitative conformity analysis referenced above is completed, in part, by analyzing capacity-enhancing projects contained in the LRTP utilizing the MACC’s travel demand model (for more detail on the MACC’s travel demand model see Chapter 6). The LRTP projects included in the analysis included the following:

NAME LIMITS WORK Riley Street 112th – 100th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes

Intersection Improvements Matt Urban Drive City Limits to S. Washington Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes 48th Street E. City Limits to M-40 Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes 48th Street Regent to Lincoln (M-40) Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes Lincoln Avenue 16th Street to 24th Street Widen from 2 to 3 lanes 8th Street Fairbanks Roundabout/Traffic Circle Frontage Road Along M-40

Interchange drive to 1,250 ft South- along M-40

Construct 2 lane section

136th Avenue Riley Street to Quincy Street Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes Intersection Improvements

Riley Street 100th – 96th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes Intersection Improvements

Riley Street Butternut Drive to 136th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 3 lanes 96th Avenue Adams Street to Gordon Street Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes 32nd Street US 31 to Waverly Road Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 5 lanes US 31 Lakewood Blvd. – Quincy St. Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 6 lanes 120th Avenue Riley Street to Quincy Street Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes

Douglas Avenue River Avenue to 144th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 5 lanes

James Street Beeline Road to US 31 Reconstruct and widen from 3 to 5 lanes

James Street 112th Avenue to Chicago Drive Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 5 lanes

River Avenue CSX Crossing to 136th Avenue Reconstruct and widen from 5 to 7 lanes Intersection Improvements

Washington Avenue Fairview Road to new M-121 (Chicago Dr.) Reconstruct and widen to 3 lanes Intersection Improvements

Waverly Road 24th Street to 32nd Street Reconstruct and widen from 4 to 5 lanes

James Street Butternut Drive to Beeline Road Reconstruct and widen from 3 to 5 lanes

81

The results of the modeling process for the MACC area are combined with results from the other portions of Ottawa County and Kent County (Kent and Ottawa Counties are one air quality analysis area). Air Quality Conformity Results – Kent/Ottawa Counties The combined results from the modeling process are now ready to be analyzed by an emission model developed by the USEPA (Mobile 6.2). The calculated emission levels produced by the model must meet budgeted levels for VOCs and NOx. Table 7 compares the calculated emission levels, in kilograms/day, with the budgeted levels contained in the SIP for the analysis years 2009, 2014, 2018, 2025 and 2035.

Table 7 Air Quality Conformity Final Results – Kent/Ottawa Counties

(Emissions in kilograms/day)

Calculated Emissions Budgeted Emissions 2009 VOC 20,133.8 VOC 36,921.5

NOx 32,106.6 NOx 88,784.1

2014 VOC 14,270.5 VOC 36,921.5 NOx 19,162.1 NOx 88,784.1

2018 VOC 11,830.7 VOC 36,921.5 NOx 13,485.8 NOx 88,784.1

2025 VOC 9,458.6 VOC 36,921.5 NOx 9,665.0 NOx 88,784.1

2035 VOC 10,031.5 VOC 36,921.5 NOx 8,770.3 NOx 88,784.1

For more detailed information related to the Kent/Ottawa air quality conformity process, please see Appendix E. Air Quality Conformity Results - Allegan County Allegan County is a separate air quality area with different budgeted VOC and NOx levels. However, the conformity determination process is similar. Again, the results of the modeling process for the MACC area are combined with results from the other portions of Allegan County. The combined results from the modeling process are now ready to be analyzed by an emission model developed by the USEPA (Mobile 6.2). The calculated emission levels produced by the model must meet budgeted levels for VOCs and NOx. Table 8 compares the calculated emission levels, in kilograms/day, with the budgeted levels for the analysis years 2014, 2018, 2021, 2025 and 2035.

82

Table 8

Air Quality Conformity Final Results – Allegan County (Emissions in kilograms/day)

Calculated Emissions Budgeted Emissions 2014 VOC 2264.1 VOC 3565.3

NOx 3271.1 NOx 6277.8

2018 VOC 1881.5 VOC 3565.3 NOx 2311.3 NOx 6277.8

2021 VOC 1635.1 VOC 3565.3 NOx 1952.7 NOx 6277.8

2025 VOC 1503.0 VOC 3565.3 NOx 1653.2 NOx 6277.8

2035 VOC 1504.5 VOC 3565.3 NOx 1417.1 NOx 6277.8

For more detailed information related to the Allegan air quality conformity process, please see Appendix F. Air Quality Conformity Determination The results of both air quality conformity analyses, as shown in Tables 7 & 8, demonstrate that implementing the projects in the LRTP results in emissions below the budgeted levels contained in the SIP and, thus, is in conformance with air quality standards.