DOWN THE ROAD: KICKING THE CAN. The Rising Cost of Inadequately. Funding Our Roads

Transcription

1 KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD: The Rising Cost of Inadequately Funding Our Roads R E P O R T O F T H E S T R A T E G I C P L A N N I N G P R O C E S S V O L U M E I I

2 KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD: The Rising Cost of Inadequately Funding Our Roads REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS 2011 Volume II Eric S. Wilson Chairman Gregory C. Jamian Vice-Chairman Ronald J. Fowkes Commissioner Brent O. Bair Dennis G. Kolar Managing Director Deputy Managing Director/ County Highway Engineer Quality Life Through Good Roads We Care.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 3 II. OVERVIEW 5 A. The Strategic Planning Process 5 B. Demographic and Economic Changes in Oakland County 5 1. Population Figures Population and Job Forecasts 9 3. Residential Construction Nonresidential Construction Housing Vacancy Rate and Residential and Commercial Foreclosures 15 III. NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITIES 18 A. Long-range Transportation Needs of the Communities Capacity Improvement Needs Gravel Road Paving Needs Reconstruction and Resurfacing Needs Spot Safety Improvement Needs Maintenance Needs Drainage Improvement Needs Innovations and New Technologies 24 B. Immediate Needs, Comments on Services and Inquiries Most Effective Services Least Effective Services 27 IV. STRATEGIES TO FULFILL COMMUNITY ROAD NEEDS 31 V. TOWNSHIP MEETING SUMMARIES 32 VI. CITY MEETING SUMMARIES 92 VII. VILLAGE MEETING SUMMARIES 176 APPENDICES A. Capacity Improvement Needs 204 B. Gravel Road Paving Needs 212 1

4 LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1: Oakland County Population Change 2000 to Table 2: Population Growth History and Projection, Oakland County 9 Table 3: Job Growth History and Projection, Oakland County 9 Table 4: Oakland County Authorized New Housing and Demolitions Table 5: Oakland County Nonresidential Development Table 6: Southeast Michigan, Nonresidential Development Table 7: Community Foreclosure Rates 16 Table 8: Ten Year Road Needs for Oakland County 2011 (RCOC Jurisdiction) 19 Table 9: Example Costs of Road Improvements in Oakland County 20 Table 10: Community Requests, Table 11: Effectiveness of RCOC Services LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1: Oakland County Population Change, Figure 2: Oakland County Net Residential Permit Issued, Figure 3: Nonresidential Development, Figure 4: Oakland County Foreclosure Rate Figure 5: Road Operations Effectiveness Survey Responses,

5 KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD: The Rising Cost of Inadequately Funding Our Roads Report of the Strategic Planning Process 2011 Volume II I. INTRODUCTION In July 2011, the Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC) completed its latest round of Strategic Planning meetings with the communities of Oakland County. Managing Director Brent Bair and Deputy Managing Director/County Highway Engineer Dennis Kolar conduct meetings biennially with the officials of virtually all cities, villages and townships in the county. The most recent round of meetings was the 14th time RCOC has undertaken this process in 26 years to maintain communications and gain input from the communities it serves. The meetings were held between February 7 and July 11, The meetings provide a unique opportunity for the leaders of RCOC and the leaders of the communities to review needs and concerns and to share news on recent developments. These face-to-face meetings provide invaluable insight that helps to plot the long-term course for RCOC. As in the past, the information in this report is helping RCOC to identify ways to improve its service to the communities and motorists, while also revealing the larger trends related to the long-term plans of the communities and their impacts on county roads. During the 2011 round of meetings, community officials have made it clear: The current road funding mechanism does not work. Road surfaces in the county are becoming severely worn and deteriorated. Decades of underfunding have resulted in pavement cracking, rutting and potholes all of which negatively impact commuters and commercial transportation in the county. Revenues from the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) no longer provide adequately for the increasing costs of preventive maintenance of the road system. Congestion and deteriorating road surfaces result in decreased safety, mobility and productivity. The time has come to address these challenges and develop a stable, adequate and long-term funding mechanism that will make our road network a reliable basis for economic recovery. The Strategic Planning process is an important tool for identifying the top road-related concerns of the communities. Here are some of the observations made following the meetings held in Because RCOC has been able to address only a fraction of the road needs identified by communities, the list of needs reported by communities remains almost the same as in 2009, the last time the process was completed. - The communities cumulatively ranked RCOC s FAST-TRAC system (adaptive traffic signals) and dust control on gravel roads as the most effective RCOC services. 3

6 - The surface conditions of RCOC roads continue to be a major concern for communities, especially potholes, joints/cracks and drainage problems. - The communities complimented RCOC s snow and ice removal on main roads even though these activities are funded with inadequate MTF dollars and had to be cut in recent years. The communities indicated that snow and ice control on subdivision streets did not meet the communities needs and should be improved. This report contains an overview of the Strategic Planning process as well as summaries of the meetings with each community. 4

7 II. OVERVIEW A. The Strategic Planning Process The Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC) Strategic Planning process began in The process provides a forum in which requests and comments of the officials of virtually every community in the county (townships, cities and villages) are collected during biennial meetings with the leaders of RCOC. It also provides an inclusive look at the county s road system by RCOC and the representatives of the communities, allowing for the development of a comprehensive list of long-range road needs. To our knowledge, RCOC is the only road agency in Michigan that implemented this process. During the meetings, community officials are asked to identify road improvements needed to address capacity, safety concerns and road conditions in their communities for the next decade. The community officials and RCOC leaders then discuss road-related issues specific to each community and consider potential actions. In addition, the local officials provide feedback on the effectiveness of the services provided by RCOC. An important element of the meetings is the managing director s update on RCOC s efforts to improve the effectiveness of its operations and maintain services in spite of the current funding shortage, staff cuts and program eliminations. The managing director also describes the current financial climate and funding difficulties the agency is facing. B. Demographic and Economic Changes in Oakland County 1. Population Figures The road system in Oakland County provides mobility for the county s 1.2 million people, supporting the economy, carrying employees to work and materials and products to markets. Almost a million people work in Oakland County. They rely on the county s road network for their transportation needs. The challenges faced by the county s road system are felt outside the county as well, as some 300,000 Southeast Michigan residents commute to Oakland County each day to work, battling congestion and poor surface conditions on the road system. Leaders of RCOC believe it is useful to keep an eye on local development activities to track shifts in commuting patterns and changing demands on the road system. Therefore, this report includes a brief analysis of demographic and economic trends. The 2010 Census revealed that the State of Michigan s population fell by 0.6 percent to 9.9 million compared to the 2000 Census data. The population of the seven-county region of Southeast Michigan decreased by 2.7 percent. The City of Detroit saw a 25 percent decrease, significantly contributing to Wayne County s overall decrease of 11.7 percent. Conversely, Oakland County saw growth of 0.7 percent, which was minimal compared to neighboring counties of Livingston (15.3 percent growth), Macomb (6.7 percent growth) and Washtenaw (6.8 percent growth). Oakland County had 1,202,362 residents in 2010 according to the Census. In general, the southeast portion of Oakland County (urban in character) saw a decrease in population, while the north and west portions (rural in character) saw 5

8 an increase in population. The greatest population growth occurred in Holly, Lyon, Oxford and Oakland townships. Each of these communities gained 28 to 37 percent more residents in 10 years. Cities and villages of the county as a group lost about 1 percent of their population since All cities and villages as a group in the state decreased in population by 6.5 percent. Residents of townships in Oakland County make up about 37 percent of the county s population. Townships of the county as a group saw their population increase by 4.3 percent since All townships as a group in the state increased in population by 6.6 percent. Table 1 and Figure 1 provide an overview and representation of the population change by community. 6

9 Table 1 OAKLAND COUNTY POPULATION CHANGE 2000 TO 2010 COMMUNITY YEAR 2000, CENSUS YEAR 2010, CENSUS CHANGE IN NUMBER PERCENT CHANGE CITIES Auburn Hills 19,837 21,412 1, % Berkley 15,531 14, % Birmingham 19,291 20, % Bloomfield Hills 3,940 3, % Clarkston % Clawson 12,732 11, % Farmington 10,423 10, % Farmington Hills 82,111 79,740-2, % Ferndale 22,105 19,900-2, % Hazel Park 18,963 16,422-2, % Huntington Woods 6,151 6, % Keego Harbor 2,769 2, % Lake Angelus % Lathrup Village 4,236 4, % Madison Heights 31,101 29,694-1, % Northville (Part) 3,352 3, % Novi 47,386 55,224 7, % Oak Park 29,793 29, % Orchard Lake Village 2,215 2, % Pleasant Ridge 2,594 2, % Pontiac 66,337 59,515-6, % Rochester 10,467 12,711 2, % Rochester Hills 68,825 70,995 2, % Royal Oak 60,062 57,236-2, % South Lyon 10,036 11,327 1, % Southfield 78,296 71,739-6, % Sylvan Lake 1,735 1, % Troy 80,959 80, % Walled Lake 6,713 6, % Wixom 13,263 13, % VILLAGES Beverly Hills 10,437 10, % Bingham Farms 1,030 1, % Franklin 2,937 3, % Holly 6,135 6, % Lake Orion 2,715 2, % Leonard % Milford 6,272 6, % Ortonville 1,535 1, % Oxford 3,540 3, % Wolverine Lake 4,415 4, % TOWNSHIPS Addison 6,107 5, % Bloomfield 43,023 41,070-1, % Brandon 13,230 13, % Commerce 30,349 35,874 5, % Groveland 6,150 5, % Highland 19,169 19, % Holly 3,902 5,276 1, % Independence 32,581 34,681 2, % Lyon 11,041 14,545 3, % Milford 8,999 9, % Oakland 13,071 16,779 3, % Orion 30,748 32,421 1, % Oxford 12,485 17,090 4, % Rose 6,210 6, % Royal Oak 5,446 2,419-3, % Springfield 13,338 13, % Waterford 73,150 71,707-1, % West Bloomfield 64,860 64, % White Lake 28,219 30,019 1, % Source: SEMCOG 7

10 Figure 1 OAKLAND COUNTY POPULATION CHANGE, Holly Groveland Ortonville Brandon Oxford Leonard Addison Oxford Holly Lake Orion Rose Springfield Independence Orion Oakland Village of Clarkston Lake Angelus Auburn Hills Rochester Highland White Lake Waterford Rochester Hills Pontiac Sylvan Lake Keego Harbor Milford Milford Commerce Orchard Lake Village Bloomfield Hills Troy Wolverine Lake West Bloomfield Bloomfield Lyon Wixom Walled Lake Novi Farmington Hills Birmingham Clawson Franklin Beverly Hills Bingham Farms Royal Oak Madison Heights Berkley Lathrup Village Huntington Woods Southfield South Lyon Farmington Oak Park Pleasant Ridge Ferndale Hazel Park Northville Royal Oak Population Change % to -6% -5% to 0% 0% to 9% µ 10% to 21% 22% to 37% Source: SEMCOG 8

11 2. Population and Job Forecasts According to the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), by 2035 Oakland County s population is expected to grow to over 1.3 million, an 11 percent increase between 2010 and SEMCOG also predicts that the population of the county will grow at a slower pace than it grew in the past. Due to the ongoing serious economic problems, between 2000 and 2010, Oakland County lost more than 5 percent of the jobs located in the county. However, SEMCOG predicts that the region s population pool will track upward again as a result of the expected recovery of the economy. Similarly, SEMCOG forecasts that the number of jobs in Oakland County will be about 11 percent higher in 2035 than it was in Tables 2 and 3 summarize the historic and anticipated population and job growth of Oakland County between 1960 and The tables illustrate that neither population nor job growth will be as robust as in previous decades. Table 2: Population Growth History and Projection, Oakland County Year Population Growth , ,083,592 57% ,194,156 10% ,202,362 1% ,336,761 11% Source: SEMCOG (2035 Forecast for Southeast Michigan, 2011) Table 3: Job Growth History and Projection, Oakland County Year Jobs Change , , % ,000 34% , % ,418 11% Source: SEMCOG (2035 Forecast for Southeast Michigan, 2011) 9

12 3. Residential Construction The seven-county Southeast Michigan region is struggling with job losses, a depressed economy and a housing market saturated with foreclosed homes. According to SEMCOG, new home construction will remain slow until the excess inventory is reduced and the economy starts to recover. Residential building permit data are an effective measure of community growth both demographic and economic. It is assumed that when a permit is authorized, the home/condominium/apartments will be built and occupied. In , Oakland County authorized 1,293 new units and the demolition of 669 units. During the two-year period, the City of Novi authorized the most new residential permits (245) followed by Lyon Township (179 new units) and the City of Rochester Hills (116 new units). Table 4 contains the number of authorized new housing units and demolitions by community in Oakland County in Figure 2 displays the net residential permits issued by community in Oakland County in Nonresidential Construction SEMCOG collects and reports information on nonresidential development projects in Southeast Michigan in the following 10 development types: entertainment/recreational hotel/motel industrial/research/hi-tech institutional (schools, local government offices, churches) medical (hospitals, medical centers) mixed-use (buildings with two or more uses) office retail/commercial transportation/utility, and warehouse/distribution The SEMCOG report indicates that in , in Oakland County a total of 6.4 million square feet nonresidential development was completed or under construction. Table 5 shows the nonresidential development in Oakland County by community. During the two-year period, the largest amount of nonresidential development occurred in the cities of Pontiac and Novi, followed by West Bloomfield Township. When comparing the area of nonresidential development to the land area of the community, the cities of Auburn Hills, Birmingham, Hazel Park and Pontiac exhibited the highest relative growth. Closely behind them were the Village of Milford, City of Novi, City of Royal Oak and West Bloomfield Township. Figure 3 displays the relative nonresidential development by community in Oakland County in (square feet of development per square mile). According to SEMCOG, in , about 80 percent of the non-residential development in Oakland County was medically related or commercial, including both new construction and expansion of existing facilities. Industrial and institutional development represented the remaining nonresidential development in Oakland County. 10

13 Table 4 OAKLAND COUNTY AUTHORIZED NEW HOUSING AND DEMOLITIONS (Based on Residential Permits Issued) Community Single Two Attached Multi Multiple Total New Units Family Family Condo Family Residential Net Total Units Units Demolished Units Units Units Units Units Addison Twp Auburn Hills Berkley Beverly Hills Bingham Farms Birmingham Bloomfield Twp Bloomfield Hills Brandon Twp Clarkston, Village of Clawson Commerce Twp Farmington Farmington Hills Ferndale Franklin Groveland Twp Hazel Park Highland Twp Holly Holly Twp Huntington Woods IndependenceTwp Keego Harbor Lake Angelus Lake Orion Lathrup Village Leonard Lyon Madison Heights Milford Milford Twp Northville (part) Novi Oak Park Oakland Twp Orchard Lake Village Orion Twp Ortonville Oxford Oxford Twp Pleasant Ridge Pontiac Rochester Rochester Hills Rose Twp Royal Oak Royal Oak Twp South Lyon Southfield Springfield Twp Sylvan Lake Troy Walled Lake Waterford Twp West Bloomfield Twp White Lake Twp Wixom Wolverine Lake County Total: Source: SEMCOG 11

14 Figure 2 OAKLAND COUNTY NET RESIDENTIAL PERMITS ISSUED Holly Groveland Ortonville Brandon Oxford Leonard Addison Oxford Holly Lake Orion Rose Springfield Independence Orion Oakland Village of Clarkston Lake Angelus Auburn Hills Rochester Highland White Lake Waterford Rochester Hills Pontiac Sylvan Lake Keego Harbor Milford Milford Commerce Orchard Lake Village Bloomfield Hills Troy South Lyon Lyon Wixom Wolverine Lake Walled Lake Novi Northville West Bloomfield Farmington Hills Farmington Bloomfield Birmingham Clawson Franklin Beverly Hills Bingham Farms Royal Oak Madison Heights Berkley Lathrup Village Huntington Woods Southfield Pleasant Ridge Oak Park Ferndale Hazel Park Royal Oak Net Residential Permits Issued to 0 1 to to to 236 µ Source:SEMCOG 12

15 Table 5 OAKLAND COUNTY NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Community Completed and Under Construction (sq ft) SQ FT of Nonresidential Development per SQ MI Area Auburn Hills 504,692 30,327 Berkley 20,010 7,699 Birmingham 252,887 52,552 Bloomfield Hills 44,500 8,836 Bloomfield Twp 25, Brandon Twp 2, Clawson 30,500 13,870 Commerce Twp 207,732 7,359 Farmington 6,300 2,365 Farmington Hills 412,482 12,389 Ferndale 31,400 8,043 Franklin 2, Groveland Twp 0 0 Hazel Park 112,632 40,055 Highland Twp 0 0 Holly 0 0 Holly Twp 15, Independence Twp 177,000 4,879 Keego Harbor 0 0 Lake Orion 18,200 13,965 Leonard 0 0 Lathrup Village 0 0 Lyon Twp 31, Madison Heights 36,002 5,080 Milford 75,405 29,939 Milford Twp 53,590 1,642 Novi 804,334 25,715 Oakland Twp. 0 0 Orchard Lake 50,850 12,348 Orion Twp 125,113 3,611 Oxford 0 0 Oxford Twp 0 0 Pleasant Ridge 4,200 7,390 Pontiac 805,134 39,686 Rochester 0 0 Rochester Hills 646,496 19,643 Royal Oak 304,319 25,777 Royal Oak Twp 3,027 5,394 South Lyon 0 0 Southfield 208,994 7,953 Springfield Twp 0 0 Troy 181,179 5,388 Walled Lake 0 0 Waterford Twp 29, West Bloomfield Twp 776,748 24,837 White Lake Twp 273,311 7,375 Wixom 120,187 12,848 Total 6,394,134 Note: Does not include development listed as "on-hold" Source: SEMCOG 13

16 Figure 3 NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, Square Feet of Development per Square Mile of Land Area Holly Groveland Ortonville Brandon Oxford Leonard Addison Oxford Holly Lake Orion Rose Springfield Independence Orion Oakland Village of Clarkston Lake Angelus Auburn Hills Rochester Highland White Lake Waterford Rochester Hills Pontiac Sylvan Lake Keego Harbor Milford Milford Commerce Orchard Lake Village Bloomfield Hills Troy Wolverine Lake West Bloomfield Bloomfield Lyon Wixom Walled Lake Novi Farmington Hills Birmingham Clawson Franklin Beverly Hills Bingham Farms Royal Oak Madison Heights Berkley Lathrup Village Huntington Woods Southfield South Lyon Farmington Oak Park Pleasant Ridge Ferndale Hazel Park Northville Royal Oak SQ FT of Nonresidential Development Per SQ Mile No Development 1 to 4,999 5,000 to 9,999 10,000 to 29,999 30,000 to 52,552 µ Source: SEMCOG 14

17 Table 6 indicates the negative trend of nonresidential development due to the serious economic troubles of the region. Table 6: Southeast Michigan, Nonresidential Development (Completed development in square feet of floorspace) Year Oakland County Southeast Michigan Region ,093,076 17,006, ,059,479 17,361, ,793,774 15,269, ,555,735 14,330, ,410,814 17,470, ,427,228 14,459, ,599,772 8,915, ,794,362 4,935,819 Source: SEMCOG 5. Housing Vacancy Rate and Residential and Commercial Foreclosures According to the 2010 Census, in 10 years, the housing units in the Southeast Michigan region increased by about five percent, with most of the residential construction occurring in the first half of the decade. In 10 years, the vacancy rates nearly doubled from 5.5 percent to 10.5 percent in the region. In Oakland County, the housing vacancy rate of 4.2 percent in 2000 increased to 8.3 percent by According to SEMCOG, the number of foreclosures declined in 2010 in the region and the inventory of total foreclosed residential units has been slowly declining. The overall housing foreclosure rate remains high, with one foreclosure for every 40 housing units in the region and one foreclosure for every 46 housing units in Oakland County. Each residential foreclosure leads to an average loss of $3,302 in annual property tax revenue to local communities of Oakland County. Given the current inventory of foreclosed homes (more than 8,000 in the county in 2010), SEMCOG estimated that the annual property tax loss to Oakland County is almost $38 million. Commercial property foreclosures continue to rise. There were 1,001 commercial property foreclosures in the region during In addition, there were 1,363 foreclosures of other types of property, mainly vacant lots in stalled residential developments. Table 7 and Figure 4 illustrate the residential foreclosure rate by community in Oakland County. The foreclosure rate shows the relationship between foreclosures and total housing units in a community, e.g., a foreclosure rate of 40 means that there is one foreclosure for every 40 housing units. 15

18 Table 7 COMMUNITY FORECLOSURE RATES (1 foreclosure per total homes) Community Forclosure Rate Addison Twp 40 Auburn Hills 59 Berkley 49 Beverly Hills 62 Bingham Farms 122 Birmingham 59 Bloomfield Twp 64 Bloomfield Hills 77 Brandon Twp 43 Clawson 57 Commerce Twp 46 Farmington 88 Farmington Hills 61 Ferndale 26 Franklin 74 Groveland Twp 55 Hazel Park 19 Highland Twp 43 Holly 38 Holly Twp 36 Huntington Woods 110 Independence Twp 49 Keego Harbor 40 Lake Angelus 71 Lake Orion 39 Lathrup Village 23 Leonard 32 Lyon Twp 76 Madison Heights 36 Milford 60 Milford Twp 80 Northville (Oakland) 95 Novi 86 Oak Park 27 Oakland Twp 75 Orchard Lake Village 78 Orion Twp 49 Ortonville 24 Oxford 33 Oxford Twp 49 Pleasant Ridge 56 Pontiac 34 Rochester 78 Rochester Hills 55 Rose Twp 35 Royal Oak 57 Royal Oak Twp 65 South Lyon 53 Southfield 33 Springfield Twp 42 Sylvan Lake 41 Troy 82 Walled Lake 41 Clarkston, Village of 54 Waterford Twp 37 West Bloomfield Twp 41 White Lake Twp 41 Wixom 89 Wolverine Lake 36 Source: SEMCOG 16

19 Figure 4 OAKLAND COUNTY FORECLOSURE RATE 2010 Holly Groveland Ortonville Brandon Oxford Leonard Addison Oxford Holly Lake Orion Rose Springfield Independence Orion Oakland Village of Clarkston Lake Angelus Auburn Hills Rochester Highland White Lake Waterford Rochester Hills Pontiac Sylvan Lake Keego Harbor Milford Milford Commerce Orchard Lake Village Bloomfield Hills Troy South Lyon Lyon Wixom Wolverine Lake Walled Lake Novi Northville West Bloomfield Farmington Hills Farmington Bloomfield Birmingham Clawson Franklin Beverly Hills Bingham Farms Royal Oak Madison Heights Berkley Lathrup Village Huntington Woods Southfield Pleasant Ridge Oak Park Ferndale Hazel Park Royal Oak Forclosure rate is calculated by dividing the total number of foreclosed homes by the total housing stock. The result shown as 1 foreclosure per number of homes. Homes in Foreclosure Rate 1 in 19 to 24 1 in 25 to 37 1 in 38 to 57 1 in 58 to 80 1 in 81 to 122 µ Source:SEMCOG 17

20 III. NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITIES A. Long-Range Transportation Needs of the Communities During the recent meetings, local officials identified almost $2.3 billion in road needs over the next 10 years on the county road system. Many communities also shared their need for improvements on city streets and state highways, including interchanges. The costs of the city and state road improvements are not included in the following tables and discussion of county road needs. Road needs of the communities have slightly increased since the last series of Strategic Planning meetings held in Lack of significant increase can be attributed to a number of factors most importantly, to stagnant transportation needs due to economic hardships, steady construction prices and a number of recently completed high-priority projects. During the Strategic Planning visits to the communities, it became clear that due to the economic downturn, officials and planners are realistically cautious about largescale transportation projects. The sluggish economy has affected local governments that continue to make cuts in both spending and staff and were forced to make cuts in their transportation budgets. This resulted in a significant number of projects being delayed, cancelled or changed in scope. As another consequence of the economic woes, citizens are driving less. According to Michigan Traffic Crash Facts, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have been decreasing from billion miles in 2007 to 95.9 in With these factors in mind, community representatives are not emphasizing capacity projects that require the highest level of funding. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Highway Construction Cost Index (NHCCI) shows that the costs of construction materials in 2011 retracted to the 2003 levels. As less public infrastructure work has become available, contractors are bidding more competitively to obtain the projects. The road needs identified by local officials for the next decade can be categorized into the following groups: Capacity improvements Gravel road improvements Reconstruction/resurfacing Spot safety Maintenance Non-motorized Drainage New methods and technologies The following sections describe each category. Table 8 includes the estimated costs by improvement category to satisfy the long-term transportation needs identified by local officials for roads in Oakland County. Table 9 shows examples of estimated costs of road improvement activities. 18

21 Table 8 Ten-Year Road Needs for Oakland County (RCOC Jurisdiction) Total Estimated Project Costs City/Village Township Grand Improvement Category Needs Needs Total Capacity Improvements - capacity w/ grade separation $10,647,000 $4,200,000 $14,847,000 - bridges only $1,800,000 $14,000,000 $15,800,000 - capacity only $640,716,840 $411,059,250 $1,051,776,090 - new roads $14,196,000 $108,600,000 $122,796,000 Subtotal: Capacity Improvements $667,359,840 $537,859,250 $1,205,219,090 Gravel Roads - improve gravel road $3,375,000 $34,091,271 $37,466,271 - pave gravel road $21,641,400 $133,420,000 $155,061,400 - pave intersection $0 $5,762,556 $5,762,556 Subtotal: Gravel Roads $25,016,400 $173,273,827 $198,290,227 Reconstruction - intersection $20,000,000 $14,900,000 $34,900,000 - segment $70,600,000 $15,000,000 $85,600,000 - culvert $0 $18,980,325 $18,980,325 - bridge $4,300,000 $14,900,000 $19,200,000 Subtotal: Reconstruction $94,900,000 $63,780,325 $158,680,325 Resurfacing (3" or more) - intersection $346,200 $0 $346,200 - segment $35,746,000 $48,410,000 $84,156,000 Subtotal: Resurfacing $36,092,200 $48,410,000 $84,502,200 Spot Safety - improve intersection $13,116,600 $140,254,200 $153,370,800 - signal improvement $3,813,165 $822,895 $4,636,061 - signal installation $2,351,160 $18,683,784 $21,034,944 - pave shoulder $80,000 $7,105,644 $7,185,644 - sight distance $121,500 $3,238,650 $3,360,150 - passing lanes $434,500 $212,000 $646,500 - roundabout $8,250,000 $25,700,000 $33,950,000 - turn lane $3,827,500 $2,720,001 $6,547,501 - guardrail $100,000 $6,065,280 $6,165,280 - segment $2,240,784 $4,864,860 $7,105,644 - cut hill $2,180,250 $5,750,000 $7,930,250 Subtotal: Spot Safety $36,515,459 $215,417,314 $251,932,774 Maintenance - preservation overlay (1.5") $13,230,000 $77,726,250 $90,956,250 - street sweeping $4,537,588 $4,935,622 $9,473,209 - concrete repair $3,375,000 $28,350,000 $31,725,000 - snow removal $1,288,872 $31,325,276 $32,614,148 - asphalt repair $2,184,500 $7,164,612 $9,349,112 - tree trimming $1,012,500 $6,050,117 $7,062,617 - crack sealing $2,693,218 $3,303,682 $5,996,900 - dust control $175,000 $1,264,156 $1,439,156 - litter pickup $1,910,563 $955,282 $2,865,845 - joint repair $3,184,272 $540,000 $3,724,272 - aesthetics $3,343,486 $10,786,721 $14,130,207 - brushing $800,000 $7,164,612 $7,964,612 - ditching $240,000 $6,209,330 $6,449,330 - mowing $3,502,699 $10,746,918 $14,249,617 - culvert $326,000 $6,209,330 $6,535,330 - bridge $450,000 $1,432,922 $1,882,922 Subtotal: Maintenance $42,253,697 $204,164,831 $246,418,528 Non-Motorized $13,037,825 $13,267,800 $26,305,625 Drainage $3,832,920 $44,683,488 $48,516,408 ITS $27,199,988 $29,960,680 $57,160,668 Total $946,208,330 $1,330,817,515 $2,277,025,844 19

22 Table 9: Example Costs of Road Improvements in Oakland County EXAMPLE COSTS OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IN OAKLAND COUNTY (As of June 2011) ACTIVITY EST. COST Contractor Payments Only* Apply new gravel to gravel road (3 Depth) $ 30,000/mile Pave 3 Wide Shoulders (per mile-one side) $ 65,000/mile Pave a subdivision approach to a main road $ 60,000 each Build a passing lane $ 80,000 each Pave a more major road approach $ 100,000 each Build a right-turn lane: Rural Location $ 90,000 each Urban Location $ 125,000 each Preservation Overlay (1 1/2 inch cap on 2-lane) $ 175,000/mile Pave gravel subdivision streets $ 300,000/mile Add center left turn lane (depending on location, $ 2 million/mile drainage, etc.) Rehabilitation/resurface two-lane asphalt road, $ 1 million/mile adding selected passing turn lanes, and various safety improvements. Rehabilitate/resurface five-lane concrete road, $ 1 million/mile Remove and replace five-lane concrete road $5.5 million/mile Widen an intersection for signalization $ 1 million each Pave a main gravel road (including minor soil $ 1.5 million/mile and/or drainage correction) Widen from two lanes to five lanes $ 6.5 million/mile Widen from two lanes to four-lane boulevard $11 million/mile Widen from two lanes to six-lane boulevard $13 million/mile *Add 10% for preliminary engineering and 15% for construction engineering. *Add any necessary right-of-way (ROW) acquisition costs. 20

23 1. Capacity Improvement Needs Road capacity improvement needs arise from increased traffic demands due to development. The capacity improvement category includes building new roads, adding lanes to existing roads, and widening bridges and other structures. Traditionally, this improvement category accounts for the largest share of the cost of road needs. As shown in Table 8, capacity improvement needs identified by community officials totaled about $1.2 billion (53 percent of the total needs). Capacity improvement needs were reported throughout the county especially in areas where the population density has increased. The need for capacity increase is less than it was two years ago due to the current economic troubles manifested in decreased traffic demands and more cautious transportation planning by the communities. Specific examples of capacity improvement needs identified by local officials around the county include Opdyke Road from South Boulevard to Walton Boulevard (widen from five lanes to four lane boulevard) City of Auburn Hills Novi Road from Eight Mile Road to Ten Mile Road (widen from two to five lanes) City of Novi John R Road from Square Lake Road to South Boulevard (widen from two to five lanes) City of Troy Construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Wixom Road and Sleeth Road Commerce Township Construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Fourteen Mile Road and Haggerty Road City of Novi Appendix A contains maps and tables describing the capacity improvements requested by community representatives during the 2011 meetings. 2. Gravel Road Paving Needs Community officials have identified almost $200 million worth of gravel road paving needs. Gravel road paving requests can be divided into three groups: Short segments needed to complete paved corridors High-volume gravel roads that function as major corridors Gravel approaches at intersections with major paved corridors Examples of gravel road paving projects requested by local officials during the Strategic Planning meetings include: Clyde Road from Hickory Ridge Road to Fish Lake Road (Highland Township) Pontiac Lake Road from end of pavement north of M-59 to Teggerdine Road (White Lake Township) Lake George Road from Stoney Creek Road to Predmore Road (Oakland Township) Appendix B contains maps and tables that include the location and cost for the gravel road paving requests of community representatives during the 2011 meetings. 21

24 3. Reconstruction and Resurfacing Needs Reconstruction and resurfacing projects serve a vital function in maintaining acceptable quality of road surfaces by replacing those that already have failed and preventing others from deteriorating to that point. The process typically involves extensive base repair and the application of three or four inches of new asphalt, providing a road surface expected to last approximately 20 years. Pavement deterioration accelerated by high volumes of heavy vehicles remains a critical problem in the county. Reconstruction and resurfacing needs over the next 10 years have been identified by local officials on RCOC roads and total about $243 million. Compared to the data from the 2009 Strategic Planning meetings, the need for reconstruction and resurfacing has increased by about $84 million (53 percent). Previously, this category of road projects showed a slightly decreasing trend. Between 1998 and 2005, RCOC made great strides in repairing many of its major paved roads through reconstruction and resurfacing projects. However, since 2005, RCOC has no longer had funding available to perform preventive maintenance activities on the county s road network. Consequently, the needs for reconstruction and resurfacing have already started to increase. Specific examples of reconstruction and resurfacing improvements requested by local officials during the 2011 Strategic Planning meetings include: Resurface South Boulevard between Opdyke Road and I-75 (Bloomfield Township) Rehabilitate Ten Mile Road from Novi Road to Haggerty Road (City of Novi) 4. Spot Safety Improvement Needs Spot safety improvement projects help to eliminate traffic congestion or road function problems in specific areas. They include intersection improvements (sight distance, widening and signalization), guardrail installation, adding turning lanes, improving traffic signs and signal operations, and other minor road work. These improvements are cost-effective ways to improve traffic operations and enhance traffic safety. Community requests for spot safety improvements have significantly increased. Spot safety improvement needs identified by local officials on RCOC roads totaled about $251 million. Specific examples of spot safety improvements requested by local officials during the 2011 Strategic Planning meetings include: Improve the intersection of Opdyke Road and Square Lake Road by adding longer storage for turning lanes (Bloomfield Township) Improve the intersection of Lahser Road and Fourteen Mile Road by adding left-turn lanes on Fourteen Mile Road (Village of Beverly Hills) Improve the intersection of Lake George Road and Lakeville Road by adding right- and left-turn lanes and installing traffic signals (Addison Township) Straighten sharp, downhill S-curves on Leonard Road at Dequindre Road (Addison Township) 22

25 5. Maintenance Needs Every dollar spent on preventive pavement maintenance saves $3 to $4 in future road repairs according to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. The most frequent pavement maintenance activities are concrete repair, crack sealing, surface patching and preservation overlay (adding an inch-and-a-half of new asphalt). Sign replacement and traffic signal maintenance also are important maintenance activities. In addition to ride quality, winter maintenance (snow and ice removal) and litter pickup were the most frequent maintenance requests of local officials during the 2011 Strategic Planning meetings. Tree trimming, brush removal and establishing an effective aesthetic maintenance program (more frequent mowing and sweeping) also were frequently requested by community officials. Maintaining gravel roads is a high priority for rural communities. Freeze/thaw cycles, inadequate drainage and high traffic volumes contribute to rapid deterioration of gravel roads and, consequently, low ride quality for motorists. To reduce dust and improve gravel surfaces, RCOC crews spray calcium chloride brine approximately every four weeks throughout the summer on primary gravel roads. However, increasing traffic volumes on gravel roads have resulted in greater maintenance needs. More frequent grading and dust control were frequent requests by local officials. For the next 10 years, the estimated additional maintenance needs identified by communities on RCOC roads amount to about $246 million, a significant increase since the 2009 Strategic Planning meetings. 6. Drainage Improvement Needs In 2011, local officials identified storm water drainage as a major problem. On gravel roads, drainage problems are common because many gravel roads evolved from trails or farm access lanes without drainage considerations. Inadequate drainage causes fast and extensive deterioration of the gravel surface. In urban areas where most roads are paved, drainage problems occur when heavy rainfall or melting snow saturates the ground. Much of the poor drainage in urban areas is due to overburdened storm sewers. Recently, local officials have identified almost $49 million in drainage improvement needs. This figure does not include ditching (cleaning out and re-digging ditches) because it is considered a maintenance activity. Specific examples of drainage improvements requested by local officials during the 2011 Strategic Planning meetings include the following: Eliminate erosion and improve drainage of Dutton Road at hill area west of Paint Creek (Oakland Township) Improve drainage along Lakeville Road (Addison Township) 23

26 7. Innovations and New Technologies FAST-TRAC Many communities expressed their satisfaction with the intelligent traffic signals on the county s roads. They consider the Faster And Safer Travel Through Routing and Advanced Controls system, known as FAST-TRAC, a necessary part of operations, clearly producing valuable benefits. RCOC is proud to be a worldwide leader in the application of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and other advanced transportation technologies. Due to lack of funds to perform enough capacity improvements on congested roads, in the early 1990s, RCOC turned to technology as an alternative to traditional road widening, and developed its highly successful FAST-TRAC traffic signal system. FAST-TRAC, an integrated technology system utilizing computers and video, reacts to the traffic flow and adjusts traffic signals accordingly. FAST-TRAC makes better use of existing roadways by employing advanced traffic management technologies to respond, in real time, to actual traffic flow, consequently minimizing congestion and improving traffic safety. The system includes diagnostic capabilities allowing many signal problems to be repaired via computer. The system also creates a database of traffic information to be used in traffic studies and for operational purposes. FAST-TRAC is the second largest deployment of adaptive traffic signals in North America. On Oakland County roads there are more than 1,500 intersections with traffic signals maintained by RCOC. Of those, about 675 are included in the FAST- TRAC system. A backbone of this system is the nearly 2,500 cameras that form the world s largest video imaging vehicle detection system used to provide data to adaptive traffic signals. RCOC is developing a plan to upgrade the existing dedicated phone lines connecting the FAST-TRAC signals and the regional computers where the processing occurs to make the traffic signals operate in adaptive mode. Several communications options exist, especially in the wireless arena. The goal is to provide a long-term solution for this critical element of the FAST-TRAC system. Connected-Vehicle Technology RCOC has been involved with a coalition of public and private entities that has worked on the research and deployment of the latest ITS concept referred to as connected-vehicle technology (formerly known as IntelliDrive and Vehicle- Infrastructure Integration). Connected-vehicle technology is a suite of technologies and applications that uses wireless communications among vehicles, infrastructure and other devices in order to deliver safety, mobility and environmental improvements in surface transportation. Connected-vehicle technology applications provide connectivity: among vehicles, between roadway infrastructure and vehicles, and among vehicles, infrastructure and wireless devices carried by drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. Like the Internet, which provides information connectivity, connected-vehicle technology provides a starting point for transportation connectivity that ultimately will enable countless applications and spawn new industries. 24

27 Connected-vehicle technology enables vehicles with 360-degree awareness to inform a driver of hazards and situations they cannot see. Ultimately, it may lead to crash-less vehicles. It can enhance mobility by providing travelers and transportation managers with information on the transportation network s realtime performance (traffic congestion and other travel conditions). RCOC considers connected-vehicle technology a key component in the effort to further improve safety and mobility on the county s road network. The agency plans to employ connected-vehicle technology in the future to enhance safety, mobility and convenience and to change the way transportation is managed, operated and utilized. Modern Roundabouts The modern roundabout, a relatively new form of circular intersection, is an alternative to a traditional signalized intersection. In a roundabout, traffic flows around a center island. Roundabouts are safe, efficient and often less costly than traditional signalized intersections. Since vehicles entering the roundabout are required to yield to traffic in the circle, more vehicles can move through the intersection with less delay. Studies indicate that intersections converted from traffic signals to roundabouts result in 90% fewer traffic fatalities 76% fewer injury crashes 39% fewer crashes The crashes that do occur tend to be much less serious and rarely fatal because they are typically low-speed sideswipes and rear-end collisions rather than the head-on, left-turn and high-speed broadside collisions that occur at signalized intersections. Crossing at a roundabout is generally easier for a pedestrian than at a signalized intersection because in a roundabout, the pedestrian is only crossing one direction of traffic at a time. RCOC is experimenting with a groundbreaking new type of pedestrian crosswalk signal at a multiple-lane roundabout that assists pedestrian crossing with special attention to pedestrians with visual or other disabilities. At the time of the preparation of this report, in Oakland County there were 23 roundabouts operating under traffic and one under construction expected to be completed by the end of the year. This represents the largest concentration of roundabouts in Michigan. Of the 23 roundabouts, 19 were under RCOC jurisdiction. Many were built using federal funds. Four roundabouts were built by local communities including Lyon Township, Rochester Hills and Northville. 25

28 B. Immediate Needs, Comments on Services and Inquiries During the 2011 Strategic Planning meetings, local officials once again were encouraged to make requests for services, information or other assistance and to comment on the performance of RCOC. The requests and comments were recorded and relayed to the appropriate RCOC staff for action. A number of communities requested drainage improvements and forestry services from the Highway Maintenance Department. Several communities were interested in purchasing brine from RCOC and extending maintenance contracts with RCOC. Maintenance contracts are an efficiency measure in which RCOC pays local communities to perform certain maintenance activities on county roads. Additionally, improving signal operations and performing signal warrant studies have been perennial topics of the Strategic Planning meetings and were requested during the recent visits. Several communities noted the excellent communication between RCOC s Highway Maintenance districts and the communities. This has included RCOC district superintendents and foremen meeting regularly with local officials to discuss maintenance and service needs in the communities. Local officials commended the response times to their requests and the level of service provided by RCOC staff. Table 10 summarizes the requests made at the meetings listed by community, RCOC departments and maintenance districts. Table 11 summarizes the average effectiveness ratings of the RCOC services as reported by the communities and listed by community and RCOC maintenance district. The table also shows the changes of the ratings over the last 12 years as they were collected through the Strategic Planning process. To put the ratings into proper perspective, it should be noted that RCOC maintains all roads in many communities (townships), while almost none in some communities (cities and villages). Figure 5 displays the average effectiveness rating of RCOC services reported by the communities in Most Effective Services All of the communities of the county found the following services most effective: - Signal maintenance and optimization - Dust control on gravel roads Townships indicated the following services as most effective: - Guardrail maintenance - Grading gravel surfaces - Dust control on gravel roads Cities and villages indicated the following services as most effective: - Signal maintenance and optimization - Signal modernization and installation - Snow and ice control on main roads 26

29 2. Least Effective Services All of the communities in the county found the following services the least effective and in need of improvement: - Joint and crack filling - Litter pickup - Aesthetic mowing Townships indicated the following services as least effective, needing improvement: - Snow and ice control on subdivision streets - Aesthetic mowing - Joint and crack filling - Base repair Cities and villages indicated the following services as least effective, needing improvement: - Joint and crack filling - Litter pickup - Landscaping - Cut and spray brush - Tree trimming This information was brought to the attention of the operating departments to see what can be done, with available resources, to further improve services that RCOC provides to the communities of the county. 27

30 Table 10 Community Requests HM Eng T-S PEC MD DCS COD Legal Total Addison 0 Bloomfield Brandon Commerce 0 Groveland 1 1 Highland Holly 1 1 Independence Lyon Milford 0 Oakland Orion Oxford Rose Royal Oak Twp. 2 2 Springfield 1 1 Waterford 0 West Bloomfield 1 1 White Lake Auburn Hills 0 Berkly 0 Birmingham 0 Bloomfield Hills 0 Clarkston Clawson Farmington 0 Farmington Hills Ferndale Hazel Park 1 1 Hungtington Woods 0 Keego Harbor Lake Angelus 1 1 Lathrup Village 1 1 Madison Heights Northville 0 Novi Oak Park 0 Orchard Lake Village 2 2 Pleasant Ridge 0 Pontiac Rochester Rochester Hills 1 1 Royal Oak, City of South Lyon Southfield 0 Sylvan Lake 0 Troy 0 Walled Lake 1 1 Wixom Beverly Hills 0 Bingham Farms 1 1 Franklin 2 2 Holly Village 0 Lake Orion 1 1 Milford Village 0 Ortonville 7 7 Oxford Village Wolverine Lake TOTAL