Documenta
Room
C (^"{J l )
Saginaw
County
Metropolitan
Planning
Commission
January 1971
GOALS OBJECTIVES and EVALUATION CRITERIA
Arterials
Collectors
Locals
Mobility
:Land Access
PLANNING PROGRAM
A continuing planning program for Saginaw County and its Metropolitan
Area is being undertaken collaboratively by existing Local, State and
Federal agencies. The basic planning process of Organization and Ad¬
ministration, Inventory, Analysis, Projection and Forecast, and Plan
Implementation are the basic elements of this program.
The objective is to promote development decisions that will enhance
the livability and efficiency of the man-made environment; and, pro¬
mote the preservation and conservation of the natural environment.
COOPERATING AGENCIES
The preparation of this report was financed in part
through an urban planning grant from the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, under the provisions
of Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended.
SAGINAW COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
TITLE :
AUTHOR :
SUBJECT:
DATE :
ABSTRACT
TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Saginaw County Metropolitan Planning
Commission
Presentation of transportation goals,
objectives and evaluation criteria.
January 1971
LOCAL PLAN-
NING AGENCY;
SOURCE OF
COPIES:
HUD PROJECT
NO:
NUMBER OF
PAGES :
ABSTRACT:
Saginaw County Metropolitan Planning
Commission
Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and
Technical Information, Washington, D. C.
P-299
55
Presentation of transportation goals,
objectives, and evaluation criteria
including standards and measures.
Intermodal consideration is given to
Highways, Roads and Streets; Urban
Public Transportation; and, Aviation.
A detailing of evaluation criteria is
prepared for Highways, Roads and
Streets.
Table of Contents
Preface • 1
Definition of Terms .3
Introduction -4
PART I
General Development Goals. 1.1
PART II
Transportation Goals, Objectives and
Evaluation Criteria 2.1
A. Highways, Roads and Streets.. 2.3
B. Air Transportation 2.9
C. Urban Public Transportation.. 2,13
PART III
Getting the Most From Highways,
Roads and Streets.....,.»,.. 3«1
1. Land Development Arrangements 3.2
2. Travel Desire by 1990 3«^
3. Levels of Service 3.7
4. Design Criteria 3. IM¬
PART IV
Development of Capital Improvements
Program......... • 1
PREFACE
"The transportation system in an urban region has a profound effect
on the physical development of that region. It also influences, both
directly and indirectly, the social and economic patterns of the urban
complex. In planning an urban transportation system, therefore, an
evaluation method which is broad and systematic must be used to identify
and encompass all the pertinent factors so that transportation decisions
for the urban region may have a sound basis."*
The concept of a utility function is fairly common in economic
analysis. It is a method of combining various goals and objectives into
a single measure of performance. Since it is not always possible to
reduce, .these alternative goals to a common base, tho degree to which
each goal or objective is satisfied is used as the measure of utility.
The measure of utility can be accomplished by using care in de¬
fining goals and objectives, and in defining evaluation criteria
Standards and Measures. The relative importance of reaching each goal
and objective can be determined by their relative value as expressed as
a "weighting" factor. By evaluating each goal and objective, the de¬
termination of priorities is facilitated. The limited resources
available places a high value on priority evaluation if we are to use
those resources wisely.
»Evaluating Urban Transportation Systems. U, S. Department of Trans¬
portation FHA-BPR., August 19&9~¡~p, 1•
1
Saginaw County
SAGINAW COUNTY
LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The system of preference that governs action in the
community
Statements of aspiration within one's value system;
ends that one strives to attain
Components of goals as steps necessary to achieve goals
Designs or courses of action which seek to achieve goals
and objectives
Standards. criteria used as the basis to determine the
ability of plans to attain goals and objectives
Measure. units in which effectiveness is estimated
Stipulated course of action toward plan implementation
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
■ IIIIII, il 1—1» UM iw m»! Ii
The purpose of this report is to outline transportation goals,
objectives, and the specific recommendation for evaluation criteria
including Standards and Measures. Intermodel consideration is given
to Highways, Roads, and Streets; Urban Public Transportation; and, Air
Transportation, A detailing of evaluation criteria is prepared for
Highways, Roads, and Streets in conformity with the overall program
"Study Design" manual.
Method
In the development of future transportation plans for the area,
the general procedure will be to forecast the future development with
respect to socio-economic characteristics, quantities, and patterns,
The land-use planning process will bo designed to produce the most
livable and practical land-use arrangements as determined by various
background studies and close coordination with policy making officials
in various governmental jurisdictions. An important criterion in the
development of the future land-use plan will be a definition of Goals
and Objectives.
This report establishes specific counterpart goals and objectives,
and evaluation criteria for transportation planning. This step is a
prerequisite to sound transportation planning. Through the various
related steps in the planning process, a forcast will be prepared to
define future travel patterns and quantities. These facts will dofine
the number of future trips which will bo made from place to placo. The
actual path or route which will be used by motorists to make these
future trips will depend in a large part upon the road system available.
Therefore, the planning of the future road system must consider land-
use arrangements, traffic desires, and levels of service. Transpor¬
tation goals would indicate general aims such as population to bo
served, efficiency, inter-relationship of travel modes and proximity of
the population to places of work. Specific criteria would also be
outlined, for measuring the attainment of the goals, such as least cost,
least travel miles, and median trip length. An additional factor of
very real importance is the cost of the system and the potential
financial resources available.
Recommended standards for levels of service are established for
the different type of roadways that will serve the needs of the area.
These will include freeways, other arterial streets, collectors, and
local streets. Recommended design standards are included to guide
sound roadway system development.
.4
PART I
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS
PART I
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS
1. Nature of Goals
A goal is the end toward which action is aimed: providing a
direction to be traveled, rather than a location to be arrived at»
Tt is a desired ideal and expresses the real purpose underlying
action. It is, as such, expressed in abstract terms and deals with
subjective values.
2. Over-All County Development G-oals
The following listed goals provide the general frame of refer¬
ence for the preparation of more specific goals and objectives for
transportation systems.
A) Social Fabric: To protect individuals from physical danger and
infringement of rights, and to guarantee access to the necessi*-
ti.es of life, as well as promote a sense of stewardship of public
wealth, and to provide for the widest range of opportunities
for the enrichment of the life of all citizens. Maintenance of
safety and provision of cultural opportunity are key objectives.
Natural Resources: To promote the best use of natural resources
while protecting the natural environment and conserving needed
and useful natural resources for their own value. A coordinated
environmental management program is a key objective,
C) Open Space and Recreation; To enhance the social, economic,
natural, and aesthetic development of the Saginaw County en¬
vironment , to establish a harmonious relationship between the
natural landscape and man's use of the land, and to promote
and provide for open space lands of an appropriate character
and scale to meet the neighborhood, community, metropolitan,
and regional open space and recreation needs of Saginaw County.
Immediate land acquisition and long-term development are vital
objectives.
D) Residential: To provide a wide choice and adequate supply of
housing in safe, healthful, and blight-free residential neigh¬
borhoods. Design and planning innovation are key environmental
objectives for residential development.
E) Housing ; To provide a quality supply of housing in a sufficient
quantity to offer a variety of type, style, and size of dwell¬
ings as well as a choice in living environments for all income
levels, family sizes and age groups. A housing construction
program fit to demand level is a key development objective.
Commercial : To provide adequate supply of goods and services
at accessible and attractive sites which are in harmony with
the surrounding land uses and the transportation system. A
functional system of commercial use clusters represents a key
development objective.
G) Industrial: To attract and promote a diversified and balanced
industrial base, with an efficient and harmonious distribution
of industrial facilities throughout the County in order to
achieve an expanded and stable County economy. County economy
1.1
diversification is a key growth objective.
Utilities ; To provide adequate and efficient water, sewer,
drainage, telephone, power and solid waste facilities in order
to serve the public's health, safety and convenience, and at
the same time to provide the maximum protection to the natural
environment. Coordinated planning and capital expenditure for
facilities on a feasible basis is a vital objective.
Transportation; To provide a balanced intermodel transportation
system including traffic x/ays, urban public transportation,
airports, railway and water to maximize the capacities of exist¬
ing travel modes and to develop a coordinated land use pattern
and transportation network. The correlation of transportation
(local, regional, and state) with land development is a key
objective,
1 „2
PART II
TRANSPORTATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES
AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
PART II
TRANSPORTATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. Transportation and the Environment
The patterns of community uso relate directly to transportation
routes and their terminals, The location and development of highways,
aviation facilities and urban public transportation as well as soil
and water provide the framework for distribution of people, services
and goods.
i Primarily, the problem of transportation facilities can be re¬
lated to ease of movement, environmental impact, and variety of
modes of travel. Keeping these in mind, and considering the scale
of transportation needs to bringing about other aspects of County
development that will be consistent with general development goals,
we are required to establish specific objectives and evaluation
criteria for transportation systems.
Our attention, for the purpose of this report, is directed to
Highways, Roads and Streets," Urban Public Transportation, and Air
Transportation. Additionally, a detailing of evaluation criteria
is provided for Highways, Roads, and Streets,
The environmental base is promoted by the patterns and quality
of land, water and air. Man, however, modifies this base to his
demands and with respect to transportation appropriate objectives
and standards must be employed to minimize the adverse effects upon
the environment while maximizing the desired effects of ease of
movement and a variety of modes of travel.
2. Major Categories of Transportation Goals
It is in the interest of Saginaw County, the Saginaw Urbanizing
Area, the State of Michigan, and the Federal government to encourage,
promote and develop a transportation system embracing various modes
of transportation.
The U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has established
the following major goals:*
A) Economic efficiency in transportation
B) Optional use of environmental resources
C) Safety
D) Support of other national interests
These major goals set the general focus for DOT in the conduct
»Manual B of the National Transportation Planning Study. U. S. Depart¬
ment of Transportation. BOB No, OÛ-S69053, February 1970. p. P-2.
2.1
of needs studies and the formulât!on of recommended programs for
transportation system development during the seventies.
The major categories of county goals for highways, airports,
and urban public transportation include the following:
A) Develop a balanced intermodel transportation system for
equality of access to urban opportunity.
B) Promote a safe system.
C) Promote existing or impending congestion relief.
D) Offer urban development options.
E) Reduce cost of service to user and/or general public, and
promote economic growth.
P) Enhance environmental and aesthetic values.
G) Enhance sociological values.
H) Develop institutional framework for implementation and
promotion of potentials, and fulfillment of transportation
needs.
3. Statement of Objectives and Evaluation Criteria
The first step toward an evaluation of alternate transportation
systems is the formulation of specific goals, objectives and evalu¬
ation criteria. It is the purpose herewith to provide a statement
of key goals, objectives and evaluation criteria by each of three
(3) major transport modes including:
A) Highways. Roads, and Streets;
B) Air Transportation : and,
C) Urban Public Transportation.
Later phases of the land use-transportation planning process
will employ this information for specific plan alternative evaluation.
Statement of goals, objectives and evaluation criteria are listed
in the remaining portion of Part II.
2.2
A. HIGHWAYS. ROADS AND STREETS
arterials
collectors
locals
(1) GOAL: BALANCED SYSTEM
(a) C omprehensivenes s
HIGHWAYS, ROADS AND STREETS
Objective
Evaluation Criteria
Standard Measure
Provide direct service
to major generators.
Provide direct service to
sec ondary genera tors.
Provide a primary arterial
grid system for existing
and predicted corridors,
having trip length and
travel density character¬
istics indicative of state¬
wide, regional or metro-wide
travel.
Major 0-D pairs
with substantial
trip ends.
Travel time-
distance for
major 0-D
pairs.
All traffic zone
trips.
% Corridor
route coverage,
Functional Class. 5-10$ total
Syst. including ex- system,
prèssways and
principal arterials.
2.3
HIGHWAYS, ROADS AND STREETS
Evaluation Criteria
Objective
Standard
Measure
Provide a secondary arte¬
rial grid system for exist¬
ing and predicted corridors
having trip length and travel
density characteristics in¬
dicative of support to pri¬
mary arterials and lesser
mobility needs*
Provide a collector street
system for collection and
distribution of trips to and
from arterials.
(fo) Attractiveness
To provide service with
minimal indirection of
travel.
To provide rapid travel
within arterial corridors.
Improved street lighting at
high density travel
locations.
Improved traffic informa-
Functional Class.
Syst, including
minor arterials.
Functional Class.
Syst,
Zone to Zone air
distance in miles,
Design Speed,
Candlelight per
street length.
Standardized signs
tional and directional signs, and placement,
Minimise off-street parking
deficiencies.
Minimise travel time.
(c) Accessibility
Provide CDD rapid and con¬
venient accessibility to
primary service population.
Parking-use stan¬
dards related to
zone trip attrac¬
tion.
Zone to Zone
travel time.
Trip time to CED
less than 15 min.
Attainment of
15-25^o total
system.
Attainment of
5-10% total
system.
Attainment of
shortest
-practical
distance.
Ratio of oper¬
ation speed to
design speed.
Ratio of night
time candle
light available
to desired
standard.
No measure
formulated.
Ratio of actual
to desired
parking.
Ratio of actual
to desired
travel time.
$ of population
within trip
time. Corridor
route capacity.
Provide rapid and convenient
accessibility to intermodel
transport terminal for pri«
mary service population.
Provide rapid and convenient
accessibility to intermodel
transport terminal for pri¬
mary service population.
Trip time to air¬
port less than 30
minutes.
Trip time to air¬
port less than 30
minutes.
/a of population
within trip
time. Corridor
route capacity.
$a of population
within trip
time, Corridor
route capacity.
2.4
HIGHWAYS, ROADS AHD STREETS
Objective
Evaluation Criteria
Measure
Provide convenient accessi¬
bility to major employment
centers.
Provide accessibility to
major institutional
functions.
Provide accessibility to
major shopping facilities.
(2) GOAL: SAFETY
Minimize vehicle accidents.
Minimize fatalities.
Minimize existing and
potential pedestrian-vehicle
accidents.
Maintain pedestrian safety.
(3) GOAL: CONGESTION RELIEF
Minimize congestion.
Provide metro-wide traffic
management system.
Improved advance ROW pre¬
servation or acquisition.
Improve existing system
operational capability.
Improved interstate system,
Improved Primary Highways
("A" System) .
Improved Secondary fiigh-
ways ("B" System) .
Traffic zone trip
origination to em¬
ployment centers.
Traffic zone trip
, origination to
Delta and SVC.
Traffic zone trip
origination to
centers.
Mo Standard
formulated.
Mo Standard
formulated.
Mo Standard
formulated.
Mo Standard
formulated.
Corridor design
capability.
Mo Standard
formulated.
Transportation
Plan. Zoning set
back criteria.
Design capability
miles of deficiency
to service volumes.
Design capability:
miles of deficiency
to service volumes.
Design capability:
miles of deficien¬
cy to service
volumes,
Design capability;
miles of deficien¬
cy to service
volumes.
Corridor route
capacity.
Corridor route
capacity.
Corridor route
capacity.
Number of
accidents.
Number of
fatalities.
Number of
accidents.
Number of con¬
flict points
with traffic
hazards.
ADT and Peak
Volumes ratio
to standard.
Efficiency
criteria.
Capacity re¬
quired. Build¬
ing set back.
Ratio of exist¬
ing and fore¬
casted traffic
to capacity.
Ratio of exist¬
ing and fore¬
casted traffic
to capacity.
Ratio of exist¬
ing and fore¬
cast traffic
to capacity.
Ratio of exist¬
ing and fore¬
cast traffic to
capacity.
2.5
HIGHWAY, ROAD AND STREETS
Objective
Improved Urban Extensions
("C" System)«
Minimize barriers to move¬
ment over waterways and
rail lines on the arterial
grid system.
GOAL: URBAN DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
Improved "Joint Development"
of transportation system
and land use.
Enhance regional accessi¬
bility.
Enhance accessibility to
open lands of prime develop¬
ment potential.
Reduce "urban sprawl'
potential.
Provide trucking route de¬
signation for efficiency
in movement of goods.
Enhance concentration of
development along arteria.l
corridors in organized
pattern.
Compliment the urban public
and aviation systems.
GOAL: SYSTEM ECONOMICS
Achieve a metro-wide priority
system for total network ex¬
penditure and expenditures
among functional classifi¬
cation systems.
Preserve Public Investment
in existing arterial system.
Increase economic viability
of the Metro Area.
Minimize User Cost,
2.6
Evaluation Griteria
Standard Measure
Design capability: Ratio of exist-
miles of deficiency ing and fore-
to service volumes, cast traffic
to capacity.
Design capability.
Urban Design and
economics.
Economic.
Land use plan.
Land use plan.
Land use plan.
Cluster develop¬
ment .
Terminals and ex¬
change points.
Transportation
Capital Improve¬
ment Program
(CIP) .
System capability.
Economic growth.
Cost-benefit,
Ratio of exist¬
ing and fore¬
cast traffic
to capacity.
No measure
formulated.
Employment
growth.
Intensity of
arterial and
collector
service.
Ratio of
density change
to land use
plans.
Busine s s-in¬
dus trial lo¬
cations served.
Number of
System conflict
points.
Number of ad¬
equate exchange
and quality of
interconnection
Use of CIP.
Capacity pro¬
tection.
Ratio of pro¬
jected increase
to desired rate
of increase.
Ratio of system
cost to great¬
est benefits
gained.
HIGHWAYS, ROADS AND STREETS
Objectives
Evaluation Criteria
Standard
Measure
Maintain existing Local-
State-Federal Highway Act
Programs at existing fund¬
ing levels with present re¬
strictions ,
Maintain existing Local-
State-Federal Highway Act
programs at double the pre¬
sent level of funding with
present restrictions.
Provide restructuring of
Local, State, Federal High¬
way Act programs to provide
double the funds under pro¬
ject allocation to meet
State-Local priorities.
Reduce system maintenance
cost.
Reduce arterial cost in¬
equity to units of local
government,
Achieve a single commercial
zone designation for the
region (trucking) by the ICC.
GOAL: ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
Minimise harmful effects
of pollution.
Preserve open space lands.
Preserve prime agricultural
lands.
Enhance view of transpor¬
tation facility.
Enhance view from trans¬
portation facility.
Promote neighborhood
cohesiveness.
Reduce travel on local re¬
sidential streets.
Minimise adverse effects of
intensive use facilities
and corridors.
Achieve a system of scenic
routes and accessibility to
improved recreation areas.
Transportation
Plan, existing and
impending defi¬
ciencies .
Transportation
Plan, existing and
impending defi¬
ciencies .
Transportation
Plan, existing and
impending defi-»
ciencies.
Per mile system.
Cost-benefit.
Service level.
Air and noise con¬
trol criteria.
Acres-recreation
and conservation
lands used or
created.
Acres of agricul¬
tural land,
Urban Design.
Urban Design.
Urban Design.
Vehicle-miles of
streets.
Environmental
features-sight,
sound, etc.
Natural features
and route
location.
ment.
needs fulfill
ment.
needs fulfill
ment.
fo reduction or
stabilization-:
of desired rate
User benefits
to expenditure
ratio.
55 increased
trucking
capability.
ci
Attainment
of standards.
Acres removed
or added.
Acres taken.
Subjective.
Subjective.
Neighborhood
severence.
Travel pattern.
No measure
formulated.
Deficiencies.
2.7
(7) GOAL: SOCIOLOGICAL VALUES
HIGHWAYS, ROADS MID STREETS
Ob,i ec tive
Evaluation Criteria
Standard Measure
Minimize dislocation of
resident.
Minimise.dislocation of
business.
Minimize disruption of
cohesive neighborhoods.
Enhance pedestrian access
opportunities.
Preserve sites and facilities
of historic value.
Increase safe pedestrian
mobility within disad¬
vantaged socio-economic
areas.
(S) GOAL: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Achieve a coordinated metro-
wide traffic engineering
function.
Maintain an integrated high¬
way transportation planning
and land use planning
operation.
Achieve flexible and funded
highway aid programs re¬
flective of local needs and
priorities.
Wo Standard
formulated.
Wo Standard
formulated.
Neighborhood Plans
Major 0-D pairs
with trip ends.
Official registra -
tion.
All local 0-D pair
with substantial
trip ends.
Wo Standard
formulated.
Wo Standard
formulated.
Priorities.
Number of
families dis¬
located,
Wumber of
Businesses
dislocated.
Demographic
Characteristics,
0 Pedestrian
movement desire
satisfied.
Wumber of sites,
Pedestrian
movement desire
satisfied,
Degree of
Traffic
management,
Degree of
planning.
Fulfil 7:ment
of needs.
2.8
AIR TRANSPORTATION
O)
C omprehensivene s s
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Objective
Achieve a coordinated
County-Regional airport
system development.
Provide development of a
regional air traffic "hub"
facility.
Provide development of a
"general aviation" air
traffic system with a
separate primary airport
facility.
Provide development of
secondary "general avia¬
tion" facilities.
Promote long term trans¬
portation change, for access
between cities of inter¬
mediate distance, with
advent of vertical and short
take-off landing aircraft.
Provide minimum service
coverage for citizen
need.
Evaluation Criteria
Standard Measure
General Plans.
FAA and State
Criteria.
FAA and State
Criteria.
FAA and State
Criteria.
No Standard
formulated.
Attainment of
priorities.
General Plans,
State and FAA
designations.
General Plans,
State and FAA
designations.
General Plans,
State and FAA
designations.
No measure
formulated.
Flight demand.
Number of
flight connec¬
tions per de¬
mand.
2.9
AIR TRAITS PORTATION
Objective
Evaluation Criteria
Standard
Measure
(b)
(c)
;ss
Maximize convenient
parking,
Maximize terminal amenities.
Provide and maintain com¬
mercial air passenger re¬
lated services and
facilities.
Provide and maintain air
traffic related services
and facilities.
Accessibility
Provide regional "hub"
accessibility for total
population.
Provide appropriate accessi¬
bility to general aviation
facilities.
GOAL: SAFETY
Protect airspace from
obs true tions,
Prevent air communication
interruption.
Provide airport environs
land development control,
GOAL: CONGESTION RELIEF
Minimize air facility con¬
gestion.
Minimize user congestion.
Parking-us e
Standard,
No Standard
formulated.
No Standard
formulated,
No .Standard
formulated.
Minutes travel.
Minutes travel,
Improved advance land ac¬
quisition and open land
preservation.
Improved existing x^egional
"hub" facility capability.
Improved existing "general
aviation" facility capability.
Meet future demands.
PAA-State.
PAA-Stäte.
Compatibility,
Operation design
capacity.
Design.
No Standard
formulated.
Jo Attainment of
standard.
Subjective.
Subjective.
Subjective,
Travel time,
Travel time.
Height zoning.
Disruption.
General Plan.
Jo capacity
attainment,
Jo capacity
attainment.
Acres acquii"ed
or protected.
Practical capacity. Jo attainment.
Practical capacity, Jo attainment,
Passenger-aircraft Projections.
capacity.
2.10
GOAL: URBAN DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Objective
Evaluation Criteria
Standard
Measure
Establisii economic develop¬
ment opportunities.
Employment.
Increase regional mobility. Direct flight
Increase national-world.
mobility.
Offer expanded business and
industrial site locations
with required services.
GOAL: SYSTEM ECONOMICS
Preserve public investment
in existing system.
Achieve expanded development
of aviation capability for
commodities transportation.
Increase economic viability
of the region.
Minimize user cost.
Maintain existing Local-
State-Federal funding pro¬
grams at existing levels.
Maintain existing Local-
State-Federal funding pro¬
grams at double the present
level of funding with pre¬
sent restrictions.
Provide restructuring of
Local-State-Federal programs
to provide double the present
level of funding under pro¬
ject allocations to meet
State-Local priorities.
GOAL: ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
Minimize adverse effects of
noise and air pollution.
Implement environmental
land use controls.
Enhance opportunities of
open lands as conservation
and recreation areas.
Enhance beautification of
airport facilities.
connection.
Flight connection,
General Plans.
System capability.
Forecasts and
potential.
Economic diversi¬
fication.
Cost-benefit.
General Plans.
General Plans.
General Plans.
Air and noise
control criteria,
General Plans-
Z oning.
General Plans.
Subjective.
Projected
growth rate to
desired rate.
Coverage.
Coverage.
Increase in de¬
veloped sites.
Capacity pro¬
tection.
Fulfillment.
L in employment
sectors.
Ratio of costs
to benefit.
Needs fulfill¬
ment .
Needs fulfill¬
ment .
Needs fulfill¬
ment .
Attainment of
standard.
Implementation
and enforcement
Land Utiliza-;,
tion.
No measure
formulated.
2.11
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Objective
GOAL: SOCIOLOGICALVALUES
Enhance mobility for cul¬
tural and recreation
accessibilit3?-.
GOAL: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Achieve flexible and funded
air programs reflective of
local needs.
Achieve County Airport Com¬
mission for development of
general aviation facilities
and promotion of regional
"hub" facility.
Achieve recognition of air¬
port facilities within
appropriate State and
Federal agencjr plans.
Achieve regional support
for operation of regional
"hub" facility.
Evaluation Criteria
Standard Measure
Flight Pattern.
Priorities.
State Statutes,
Recognition.
3 County.
Connection to
prime destina¬
tions .
Fulfillment of
Meeds.
Adoption-Admirf.
tration.
Adoption.
Support
2.12
C. URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
GOAL: LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICE
(a) Comprehensiveness
URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Objective
Evaluation Criteria
Standard Measure
Provide direct service to
major generators.
Provide service to secondary
generators.
Provide minimum coverage
for all citizens.
Provide minimum coverage
for all citizens.
Provide minimum coverage
for all citizens.
(b) Ac cessibility
Provide CBD accessibility
to total population.
Provide hospital accessi¬
bility to total population,
Provide education accessi¬
bility to total population.
Provide social and cultural
service accessibility to
total population.
Non-trans fer
service to all
0-D pairs.
All zones with sub¬
stantial trip ends»
4 route miles per
square mile.
2 route miles per
arterial miles.
% 0-D pairs
serviced.
% of zones
serviced.
^ of
Standard.
^ of
Standard.
.25 route miles per ^ of
total street miles. Standard.
Trip time to
15 minutes.
CBD
Trip time to
major generators :
15 minutes.
Trip time to
major generators:
15 minutes.
Trip time to major
generators: 15
minutes.
% population
with trip time
exceeding
Standard.
$ population
with trip
time exceed¬
ing Standard.
^ population
with trip time
exceeding
Standard.
^ population
exceeding
Standard.
2.13
URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Objective
Evaluation Criteria
Standard Measure
(c) Attractiveness
Minimize walking distance.
Provide low waiting time.
Maintain minimum spacing
between transit stops.
Maximize riding comfort.
Minimize discomfort due to
fuel odors and fumes.
Provide maximum facility
for entering and exiting.
Maintain newest equipment
possible.
Maximum ride and loading
availability.
Minimize need for transfers,
GOAL: RAPID TRANSIT SERVICE
(a) C omprehensivenes s
URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Objectives
Provide service to corridors
Route spacing in
miles.
Operational head¬
ways in daylight
hours <15 minutes,
Spacing of transit
stops <f 600 feet.
No Standard
formulated.
No Standard
formulated.
No Standard
formulated.
Average age of
buses < 5 years.
Loading factors
not to exceed lOOJo
10 minutes head¬
way.
Transfers per
passenger miles.
cjo population
within walking
distance.
route miles
with operation¬
al headway ex¬
ceeding
Standards.
Spacing in dis¬
tribution feet.
buses meeting
the Standard.
fó buses exceed¬
ing Standard.
buses meeting
Standard.
C/S of buses „
older than
Standard.
$ actual load¬
ing factors ex¬
ceeding limit.
route miles
with transfers
exceeding
Standard.
Evaluation Criteria
Standard Measure
where total predicted or
actual demand exceeds 1000
passenger trips/day.
Provide local distribution
system at transit terminal.
Provide rapid public trans¬
portation on existing
corridor routes.
System coverage
for all such
corridors,
All residential
areas exceeding
density of 50
persons per acre
within one square
mile should have
feeder service.
.15 freeway lane-
miles for rapid
transit per total
lane miles of .
freeways,
$ of corridor
miles served,
of coverage
for residential
areas in
Standard,
/a of Standard.
2.14
URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Objective
Evaluation Criteria
Standard Measure
Provide CBD accessibility
to total population.
Provide major generator
accessibility to total
population.
Provide major generator
accessibility to total
population.
Provide major generator
accessibility to total
population.
Provide major generator
accessibility to total
population.
Trip time-distance
to CBD: 15 min..
Trip time-distance
to major generator:
30 minutes.
Trip time-distance
to major generator:
30 minutes.
Trip time-
generator :
minutes.
30
Trip time-distance
to generator : 30
minutes.
population
with trip time
exceeding
Standard.
£0 population
with trip timé¬
dis tance exceed¬
ing Standard to
employment
center.
$ population
with trip time-
distance exceed¬
ing Standard to
airport.
population
with, trip time-
distance exceed¬
ing Standard to
colleges (other)
*
population
with trip time-
distance exceed¬
ing Standard to
dispersed shop-
Provide service with low
waiting time.
Maximize riding comfort.
Maximize riding comfort.
Provide rapid service with¬
in the coloridor.
Provide rapid service within
the corridor.
Maintain newest equipment
possible.
Maximum operating
headways daylight
hours not to ex¬
ceed one hour.
Maximum 1oading
factors not to ex¬
ceed 1 OOÇj for
periods <10 min.
All buses air con¬
ditioned.
Distance between
stops should not
be less than one
mile.
Operative speed to
equal highway
speeds in corridor,
Average age of bus
5 years.
Number of
routes having
one headway ex¬
ceeding Stan.-. ;•••
dar d.
Existing load¬
ing factors by
routes exceeding
Standards.
5$ buses air con¬
ditioned ,
Number of stops
with spacing
the Standard.
Ratio of tran¬
sit speed to
highway speed.
¡P buses older
than Standard,
2.15
URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Objective
GOAL:, CONGESTION RELIEF
Compliment the highway
system in corridors where
there is limited capacity.
Evaluation Criteria
Standard Measure
Compliment the highway
system in corridors where
there is limited capacity.
Increase the efficiency of
street utilisation through
reserved lane for transit
and/or multi-passenger
automobiles.
GOAL: URBAN DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
Increase mobility within
the CBD.
Increase mobility of dis¬
advantaged socio-economic
neighborhoods.
Encourage growth in under¬
developed areas.
Reduce "urban sprawl".
Concentrate development.
Promote expanded choices
of housing for those de¬
pendent on transit service,
Offer increased potential
for re-development of core
areas.
Transit service in
all corridors
where a link in
the highway net¬
work operate's at
deficient Level-
at-Service for at
least one hour/
day.
Operating charac¬
teristics (head¬
ways, running time,
etc,) sufficient to
attract passenger
trips.
Street capacity
in passenger per
hour.
A complete distri¬
bution system
within the CBD»
Direct access to
all major genera¬
tors in the city.
Minute service to
areas with low
land utilisation.
General Land Use
Plan.
General Land Use
Plan.
/ of corridors
served.
Z of trips on
transit in
these corridors
Ratio of the
increase in
utilization of
the street
system express¬
ed in passen¬
gers/hour .
Z of the CBD
street mileage
included in
system.
of the areas
served by this
type service.
Z of identified
areas serviced
by transit.
Historic
Growth Analysis
Plan
Attainment,
General Residential No measure
Land Use Plan, formulated,
Community Renewal
Plans.
No measure
formulated.
2.16
URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Objective
Evaluation
Standard
Criteria
Measure
PAL:... SYSTEM ECONOMICS
Maintain a low Tare struc¬
ture for those required to
use public transportation.
Reduce direct city sub¬
sidisation of public transit,
Reduce city cost of provid¬
ing- additional parking
facilities in the CBD,
Increase the economic
viability of the CBD and
similar functions.
Reduce maintenance cost
of transit fleet.
Maintain existing State-
Federal funding levels and
restrictions,
Maintain existing State-
Federal funding restric¬
tions with double the
funding,
Provide restructuring of
program to double funding
with eased restrictions.
Preserve public investment
in existing system.
GOAL; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
Reduce air pollution
effects,
Reduce noise pollution.
GOAL: SOCIOLOGICAL VALUES
Enhance access opportunities
of elderly and socio-economic
disadvantaged dependent upon
transit service.
Enhance access opportunity
of school age dependent
upon transit service.
Uniform fare 15$
or zone fare 150
No subsidy re¬
quired.
To provide service
necessary to at¬
tract increased
CBD destined trips
to transit.
An increase de¬
stined trips and
employment.
Maintain average
age of fleet at
5 years.
Transportation
Plan.
Transportation
Plan.
Transportation
Plan.
System capability.
State Air
Pollution Control.
Ratio of exist'
ing fare to
standard.
Required sub¬
sidy per year
per 1000 pop¬
ulation.
/o of projected
trips diverted
to public
transit,
Ratio of pro¬
jected increase
to Standard.
$ of buses ex¬
ceeding
Standard,
Needs
ment.
fulfill-
Needs fulfill¬
ment .
Needs fulfill¬
ment ,
Capacity
Protection.
$5 exceeding
Standard.
No residential area Acres of resi-
to be exposed to a dential pro-
unacceptable D.B. perty exceeding
level. Standard.
Distribution of
demographic Char¬
acteristics .
School age group
distribution.
Service pop¬
ulations
covered,
$ Service pop¬
ulation
covered.
2.17
URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Objective
GOAL: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Maximize metro-regional
management system capabil¬
ities .
Achieve short-range and
long-range coordinated
system planning.
Achieve flexible funded
rapid transit aid programs
reflective of management
and facility needs.
Evaluation Criteria
Standard Measure
No Standard
formulated.
No Standard
formulated.
Priorities.
No measure
formulated.
No Measure
formulated.
Fulfillment
of Needs.
2,18
PART III
GETTING THE MOST PROM
HIGHWAYS, ROADS AND STREETS
PART III
GETTING THE MOST FROM HIGHWAYS, ROADS AND STREETS
Traffic delays, congestion and accidents are the price for in¬
efficient highways, roads and streets. The need today is for a planned
program, related to the county-metropolitan system, for both system
improvement and extension.
Satisfactory program development can take place within a broadened
context of traffic engineering. Traffic engineering, within a community
planning context provides the technical and professional function by
which we can move people and goods. Our goal being to serve movement
of people and goods with efficiency and purpose.
"The basic criterion is that both major construction and spot im¬
provements be selected to produce maximum return in improved traffic
flow and accident reduction: the best use of the taxpayers money,"#
Highways, Roads and Streets system development, to be consistent
with goals and objectives, must be related to the following:
(1) Land use arrangements
(2) Travel desire
(3) Levels of service for urban and rural systems
(U) Des ign criteria
Each of the above listed elements are further defined within the
remainder of Part III.
»Getting the Most from City Streets. Highway Research Board, National
Research Council. Washington, D, C., p. 2,
3.1
1 ' LAND DEVELOPMENT ARRANGEMENTS
The report "Initial Land Use Plan Alternatives" prepared by the
SCMPC presented five alternative land use plans for evaluation. These
alternate proposals included the following:
--Existing Plan Composite, being a compilation of individual
community plans and identification where there are no plans,
--Uncontrolled Trend Plan, being an extrapolation of current
trends in a very uncontrolled manner,
--Controlled Trend Plan, being a plan of moderation of urban
sprawl to attain higher quality urban and rural environments.
--Centralization Plan, being a plan calling for primary con¬
centration of urbanization within the metropolitan area.
--Satellite Plan, being a plan reflecting a decentralization
policy favoring the outlying villages and cities.
Based upon an analysis of these alternatives, two plan refinements
were made. These refinements are the "Urban Conglomerate Plan" and the
"Urban Centric Plan,"
The 'Urban Conglomerate?' Plan represents an integration and refine¬
ment of the "Controlled Trend" and "Satellite" Plans. Conglomerate,
by definition, means to collect or form into a mass or meaningful
whole which typifies the plan character.
The "Urban Centric Plan" represents an integration and refinement
of the "Controlled Trend" and "Centralization" Plans. Centric, by de¬
finition, means to locate in or near a center, concentrated about or
directed to a center; and/or relating to a nerve center. This definition
typifies the plan character.
The effectuation of either plan alternate, or a further refinement,
is most dependent upon the transportation system. The coordinated de¬
termination of goals, objectives and evaluation criteria are essential
ingredients to the community development processes and the ultimate
outcome of the county development pattern.
3.2
HI INTENSIVE USE AREAS
□ DESIGNATED URBANIZING AREAS
MAJOR ROADS
COUNTY BOUNDRY
URBAN CENTRIC PLAN
3.3
2. Travel Desire by 1990
The "1990 Trip Desire" and "1990 Trip Generation" maps on the
following two pages portray the land use impact of the "Controlled
Trend Plan" upon the 1975 committed highway, road and street network
within the urbanizing area.
Based upon the airport plan s-tudies conducted in 19^9» 1990 aviation
forecasts were prepared to include the following :
Tri-City Airport - 1990 passenger forecast of 500,OOOÍ departing
passengers yearly compared to estimated 150,000 for 1970, Total
199O yearly aircraft operations of 200,000^ compared to approxi¬
mately 110,000 estimated for 1970.
Saginaw Municipal .Airport - Yearly aircraft operations are estimated
at 85,000"by 1990.
Chesaning Airport - Yearly aircraft operations are estimated at
30,000 by 1990."
Frankenmuth Airport - Yearly aircraft operations are estimated at
20,000 by 1990.
The travel desire indicated for highways, roads and streets, as
well as aviation transportation, together with anticipated requirements
for urban public transportation will place a heavy demand upon resources,
and their improvement will determine the ease of movement of people,
goods and services.
Our particular attention herein is with highwaysroads, and
streets, and the network as defined and developed to meet travel desire.
An examination of the trip generation and desire maps portrays the ex¬
panding use of our highway, road and streets. Travel demand upon many
of our major corridors present crisis situations; and, it will be
essential for priority evaluation based upon accepted goals and ob¬
jectives .
3.4
1990 TRIP DESIRE ASSIGNMENT ON THE COMMITTED NETWORK
3.5
Vehicles Per day
SAGINAW METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Traffic Volumes Exceed Road Capacity
Traffic Volumes Within 85% of Road Capacity
1965 Vehicle Trips Generated by Selected Locations
1990 Vehicle Trips Generated by Selected Locations
Vehicle Trips per Day (Scale in Thousands)
3. Levels of Service
A) Functional Classification System, Functional highways, roads and
street classification is the process by which networks are grouped
according to their predominant function and service characteristics.
The primary functional categories recommended for each of two
types of area is presented in the following table:
TABLE 1
Hierarchy of Functional Systems
Rural Area Urbanized Area
Principal Arterial Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial Minor Arterial
Collector Roads Collector Streets
Local Streets Local Streets
b) Functional System for Rural Areas.* Rural system is comprised of
those facilities that are outside of the 1990 transportation study
cordon area.
0) Rural Principal Artertals. System consists of a connected
rural network of continuous routes housing such character¬
istics as the following:
---trip length and travel density indicative of substantial
statewide or interstate travel
---serve virtually all urban areas of 50,000 and over pop¬
ulation and'a,majority of those with a population of
25,000 and over
provide an integrated network without stub connection.
The principal arterial system should be stratified into two
categories including:
Interstate System
Other principal arterials
(2) Rural Minor Arterial.. System, in conjunction with the principal
arterial system, forms a rural network having its following
characteristics :
—-Link cities, towns and major generators to form an inte¬
grated network providing interstate and intercounty service.
Be spaced at such intervals in order that developed areas
are within reasonable distance of an arterial.
---Route whose design should be expected to provide for re¬
latively high overall travel speeds, with minimum inter- . • .
ference to through movement.
■^National Highway Functional Classification Study Manual. U. S. Depart¬
ment of Transportation, April 1969, pp. II-9 thru 11-12,
3.7
C-3) Rural Collectors. System serves travel of primarily intra-
county character and constitutes those routes on which pre¬
dominant travel distances are shorter than on arterial routes.
More moderate travel speeds are typical.
The rural collector system should be subclassified as follows:
---Major collectors which provide service to urban centers
not serviced by higher systems and to other generators
of equivalent intra-county importance, or generally serve
more important intra-county travel corridors.
Minor collectors which provide service to lesser important
generators and connect higher classification centers or
link locally important generators with their rural hinter¬
land .
00 Local Roads. System of all other roads not otherwise classi¬
fied whose primary function is to provide access to adjacent
p. ^perty.
C) Functional System for Urbanized Areas.* Urban system is comprised
of those facilities that are within the 1990 transportation study
cordon area,
0) Urban Principal Arterial. System serves the major centers of
activity of the metropolitan area, the highest traffic volume
corridors, the longest trip desires," and should carry a high
proportion of the total urban area travel on a minimum of
mileage. The system is integrated with rural connections.
The principal arterial system should carry the major portion
of trips entering and leaving the metropolitan area as well as
the majority of through movements deserving to by-pass the
central city. In addition, significant intra-metropolitan
area travel desire should be served. Finally, this system
should provide continuity for all rural arterials which
intercept the cordon boundary.
The principal arterial system should be stratified as follow
—-Interstate
— -Other Freeways
■---Other Principal Arterials
(2) Urban Minor Arterial. System should interconnect with and
augment the urban principal arterial system. Service is pro¬
vided to trips of moderate length and somewhat lower level of
travel mobility than principal arterials. The system should
include urban connections to rural collector roads where such
connections have not been made with principal arterials.
The minor arterials include all arterials not classified as
principal and contain facilities that place more emphasis on
land access than the higher system, and offers a lower level
of traffic mobility. Ideally, minor arterials should not
penetrate identifiable neighborhoods.
*2BID, pp. II-I3 thru II-15.
kochvllle tw p
.zIlwaukei
jone sfield twp
richland twp
ZILWAUKl
thomas twp
saginaw twp
buena vista twi
blumfieldXtwp
carrollton
¡I Twp y
MERRILL
fremont twp
i lakefield twp
imes twp
bridgeport twp
frankenmuth
spaulding twp
FRANKENMUTH
st charles.t\
taymouth twp
ST. CHARLES
chesaning twp
8rady twp
iapin twp
CHESANING
OAKLEY
SAGINAW COUNTY
SAGINAW METROPOLITAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
EXTERNAL CORDON FOR
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
PLANNING COMMISSION
3.10
(3) Urban Collector Streets. System provides both land access and
traffic movement within residential neighborhoods, commercial
areas and industrial areas. Collectors distribute trips from
arterials to ultimate destinations.
(4) Local Streets. System of all other streets not otherwise
classified whose primary function is to provide access to
adjacent property.
D) Generalized Functional Classification Criteria. Table 2 and 3»
following pages, summarises the general criteria to be used as
guidelines in classifying highways, roads and streets,
E) Selection of a Network.# "...At both strata; of government, state
and local, there are levels of responsibility that must be met.
The state's responsibility is to accommodate vehicular traffic
moving from one part of the State to another and traffic moving
from Michigan to other states, while the local governments must
satisfy local traffic needs."
"There are, of course, overlapping responsibilities and each
level of service is dependent upon the other for efficient handling
of total traffic movement,"
"A sound network of trafficway must be developed that will
adequately serve a variety of land uses generating differing
amounts and types of traffic. To facilitate coordinated community
growth, the network must be subdivided into two systems, functional
and administrative."
"Functional classification refers to the actual or intended
operational purpose of a traffic facility. Administrative classi¬
fication places the responsibility for construction and maintenance
upon a particular level of government, federal, state, county and
municipal, or a combination of these,"
The adequate selection of a network requires properly integrated
land use plans with transportation facilities, available and planned.
-^Guidelines for Right"of-Way Widths. Michigan Department of State
Highways, 1969, p. 5.
3,11
TABLE 2 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF HIGHWAYS, ROADS AND STREETS
FOR METROPOLITAN AREAS
C LAS SIFICATION
PRIMARY SERVICE FUNCTION
DESIRABLE
SPACING
(miles)
ACCESS
CONTROL
DESIRABLE
OPERATING
SPEEDS
(mph)
TRIP
LENGTH
(miles)
Urban Principal
Arterial
Interstate
Other Freeways
Other
Urban Minor Arterial
Urban Collector
Local Streets
Residential
Industrial-
Commercial
Local Access
through traffic
through traffic
through traffic, some land
service
Lessor arterial service at
local level, more
emphasis upon land access
Connect local systems to
arterials and inter¬
connects collector systems
Access to residence
Variable
Variable
CBD 1/8-1/2
Urban 1/2-1
Suburban 1-2
Other 2-3
CBD 1/8-1/2
Urban 1/2-1
Suburban 1-2
Other 2-3
1 or less
Variable
Complete
Complete
N one
Service to firms Variable
Land service, local access Variable
None
N one
None
None
None
45-7 0
4 5-70
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
25
30
35
35
25-30
20-25
20-25
20-25
Variable
Variable
15 or less
10 or less
2 or less
1/2 or less
1/2 or less
1 or less
3.12
TABLE 3 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF HIGHWAYS, ROADS AND STREETS
FOR RURAL AREAS
CLASSIFICATION
Rural Principal
Arterial
Interstate
Other
Rural Minor
Arterial
Rural Collectors
Major Collectors
Minor Collectors
Local Roads
Residential
Total Access
DESIRABLE
SPACING
PRIMARY SERVICE FUNCTION (miles)
Through Traffic Variable
Through traffic, some land
Service 10-40
Lesser arterial service,
more emphasis upon land 5-10
access
Connect local system with
arterials 3-5
Connect local system with
arterials and other Variable
collectors
Residential land access Variable
Land access, local dis¬
tribution Variable
ACCESS
CONTROL
Complete
Usually
None
None
None
None
None
None
DESIRABLE
OPERATING
SPEEDS
(mph)
45-70
55-65
45-60
40-50
35-40
20-25
20-30
TRIP
LENGTH
(miles)
Variable
10-20
5-10
1-10
Variable
1 er less
5 or less
3.13
Design guidelines for highways, roads and streets are required as
the basis of an appraisal and development process. These guidelines
provide a basis for:
- Determination of the character and degree of deficiencies, and,
- Determination of the character of improvements required to
correct deficiencies.
The three categories including right-of-way determination, capacity
planning, and capacity protection are defined, following, for use as
general planning guidelines :
A) Cross Sectional Characteristics.* "Once a functional traffic-
ways plan has been determined, decisions are necessary as to
which cross-sectional design items should be specified regard¬
ing various rights-of-way. These design factors will, of
course, vary with the road function.. Por instance, parking may
be allowed on a local street, but not on a major arterial,
This type of general policy decision should be made and en¬
forced by the proper agency,"
"To achieve optimum traffic capacity on a prescribed traffic
facility, there are several design features that must remain
relatively constant in terms of standards. These include the
width of the paved portion of the trafficway, or at least
that part of the roadway that was meant to accommodate vehicle
movement, safety features including adequate space for turning
movements, clear sight distances, provision for parking if
allowed, merge lanes and many other features that may dictate
specific widths,"
"Items consuming right-of-way widths that are more flexible in
design standards, include sidewalks, curb and gutter or ditches
and provision for snow storage, maximum space requirements and
all may not apply to any single street. Therefore, the agency
responsible for their application will need to determine space
to be allocated for these types of right-of-way uses. The
following paragraphs describe only general conditions,"
"Sidewalks, if incorporated into the street design, are generallj?
five feet wide. In commercial areas, however, much wider walk¬
ways may be desirable. In some instances, especially in large
commercial areas, up to twenty feet may be necessary to ad¬
equately provide for the expected pedestrian traffic. The
final design width would be contingent upon the maximum ex¬
pected pedestrian usage."
"Space allocated for surface drainage will be dependent upon
the type of drainage facilities contemplated, and the nature
of the area to be served. Curbs of various design are de¬
sirable on all urban street types for traffic safety purposes,
to facilitate surface drainage, and to control curb side
appearance. Cost considerations, however, may preclude curb
treatment for some low density subdivisions. In this case,
the needed right-of-way may have to be increased to provide
*113 ID, pp. 9-10
3.14
for alternative treatment of surface water run-off. In rural
areas, and in some low density residential subdivisions it
may be advantageous to use relatively flat side slopes and
wide shallow drainage ditches."
"Planting strips between the side walk and the curb line
have a multiplicity of uses such as snow storage, above and
below ground utility placement, and to provide clear vision
areas, To support shade trees, the planting strip should
be a minimum of seven feet wide. If the strip is^'to harbor
utilities, it may be necessary to provide additional width."
"Medians are often used in street design to separate opposing
streams of traffic flow. There are a variety of widths neces¬
sary to perform this function and these depend upon the type
of facility, vehiclar volume and other traffic characteristics.
If left turn storage is to be provided parallel to the facility,
a 16-foot median is adequate. If the storage is to be perpen¬
dicular, then a minimum 70-foot median is necessary."
"Once goals and standards in terms of design criteria are
established these policy statements must be applied to the
existing network and future traffic volumes should be deter¬
mined. After these types of inventories and analyses are
completed, the governmental unit should be able to assess its
trafficways system to determine areas of incompatibility with
objectives. The ultimate outgrowth of this, after other
community goals have been entered into the process, is an
effective street and highway plan for the area."
Tables U and. 5* following, summarize recommended guidelines
for cross sectional characteristics by street classification
and function.
B) Planning for Capacity. The practical carrying capacity of
highways, roads and streets is the basis for planning to
accommodate the movement of people and goods. It is also
fundamental for implementation of means to get the best
service from facilities, and in determining the nature and
priorities of future improvements.
The first step, for generalised planning purposes, is to
establish twenty-four hour capacities in order to identify
problem travel corridors for more detailed'study, Table.6,
Pag@3.19, lists twenty-four hour capacities by street width.
The capacities were determined based upon design hour capacity
tables supplied by the Geometries Section of the Department
of State Highways.* Twenty-four hour capacities were deter¬
mined by applying a factor of ten to the design hour capacities t.
Providing comparison between practical capacity and present
as well as future volume is essential in planning an improved
system.
6) Capacity Protection. A trafficways system represents a most
important and substantial investment to the community. The
integrity of the existing and planned extensions must be
maintained.
*Saginaw 1965 Network Capacity Data. Michigan Department of State
Highways., p. 1.
3.15
Type
PRINCIPAL
ARTERIAL
Freeway
Row
Width.
350'
Other-J-
Two-way 120'
One-way
86'
COLLECTOR
LOCAL
High Inten¬
sity Use
Low-Moderate
Intensity
TABLE 4
CROSS SECTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS : URBAN SYSTEM
No. and Width Parking Shoulder
Pavement Width Of Travel Lanes Lane Width Width
24' to 48'per
direction
48' to 84'
24' to 36'
MINOR ARTERIAL 96' 24' to 60>
86' 24' to 48'
66' 36'
60' 24' to 36'
2-4 @ 12' per.
direction, paved
4-7 © 12', paved
2-3 @ 12', paved
2-5 @ 12', paved
2-4 # 12', paved
2 @ 10', paved
2 0 10', paved
None
None
None
12'
Parallel
10'
Parallel
10'
Parallel
7'
Parallel
12' or
none
Curb oc
Gutter
Mountable
or none
Barrier
If pro¬
vided 10'
to 12'
If pro- Barrier
vided 10'
to 12'
If pro- Barrier
vided 1 O'
to 12'
None Barrier
Sidewalk
None
If pro¬
vided 5'
If pro¬
vided 5 '
If pro¬
vided 5 1
If pro¬
vided 5 '
None
None
Mountable If pro-
or Barrier vided 5'
Mountable If pro-
or Barrier vided 5'
TABLE 4A MINIMUM FOR PAVEMENT WITH CURB AND GUTTER
Type Pavement: curb back to curb back
LOCAL 27'
COLLECTOR 34'
ARTERIAL
Minor
Principal
36'
36'-60'
3.16
TABLE 5
CROSS SECTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Row No. and Width
Type Width Pavement Width Of Travel Lanes
PRINCIPAL
ARTERIAL
Preeway 35®' 24' to 36' 2-3 @ 12' pen
direction
Other 96' 24' 2 @ 12', paved
MINOR
ARTERIAL 36' 24' 2 @ 12', paved
COLLECTOR 36' 24' 2 @ 12', paved
2 @ 13'> gravel
LOCAL 66' 24' 2 @ 10', paved
2 @ 11', gravel
3.17
RURAL SYSTEM
Parking Shoulder Curb &
Lane Width Width Gutter Sidewalk
None 12' None None
None 10 ' None None
None 3' None None
None 8' None None
None If pro* None None
vided 6 '
Traffic operations, management and planning techniques can be
employed to accomplish an efficient system wisely utilized for
its design purposes. Measures such as effective land use
control, integrated traffic control systems and so forth re¬
quire attention.
Through a modern approach to traffic planning and engineering,
systèm capacity can be protected and increased. Outlined
following are elements for application of techniques for
traffic improvement in keeping with goals and objectives;
Traffic system element
1. Intersections
2. Turning movements
3. Pedestrian
4. Through movements
5.
6.
7.
Parking
Peak hour capacity
One way streets
8, Medians
9. Driveway control
10. Business District
Operations
11. Street Lighting
12. Transit
13. Neighborhood operation
14. Traffic engineering
Factors
Dimensions and geometric design
No turns, no left turn bays or
lanes, turning signal phase, lane
control
Crosswalks, signals, schools
crossing, overpasses and under¬
passes, sidewalks
Right-of-ways, lanes, signali¬
sation, parking, adjacent land
use, turning, intersection
frequency
Off street, on street
Oneway streets, reversible lanes
Safety, efficiency, residential
areas, business areas
Left turn bays, midblock cross¬
over
Fx^equency of driveways
Signal timing, turning, parking
Accident reduction
System efficiency, bus stops,
exclusive bus lanes, recessed
bus bays
Local and collector streets, dis¬
couragement of through traffic,
T-type intersections
Organised unit, plans, priorities,
funds, public acceptance
3.18
TABLE 6 CAPACITY CHART
WITHIN
CBD
OUTSIDE
CBD
2 - WAY
1 - WAY
2 -
WAY
1 - WAY
NO
PARK
PARK
NO
NO
PARK
PARK
NO
WIDTH
PARKING
PARKING
1 SIDE
2 SIDES
PARKING
PARKING
PARKING
1 SIDE
2 SIDES
PARKING
20
—
5810
bibo
7810
_
726O
499O
-
8580
22
—
6390
49IO
-
856O
-
7990
5910
-
9410
24
-
697O
566O
—
9350
-
87IO
6820
-
IO27O
26
-
7420
6420
47IO
101b 0
-
927O
7740
5410
11140
28
-
813O
7180
5440
10920
-
IOI6O
8650
6250
12000
30
_
87IO
79bO
6180
11710
_
IO89O
9570
7100
I287O
32
-
93OO
8660
69IO
12470
-
II62O
10430
79bo
I37OO
3b
-
987O
9370
7640
13250
-
1234o
112 90
8780
1 456O
36
7860
10460
10080
8390
ibob 0
9820
I307O
12140
9640
15430
38
8290
IIO3O
10790
9100
14790
IO36O
I379O
I3OOO
10460
16250
bo
8710
11620
11500
9830
15620
IO89O
14520
13860
11300
I716O
b 2
918O
12200
12220
10580
16370
11470
I525O
ib720
1216o
I799O
bb
9610
12780
I293O
11330
17120
12010
I597O
15580
13020
18810
b6
10030
13360
1364o
12080
17950
12540
I67OO
I6b30
13880
19720
b8
10480
13970
14350
12820
18690
I3IOO
1746o
17290
14730
20540
50
10960
1452O
15060
13560
I9b50
I37OO
18150
18150
15590
21370
52
11350
15110
15760
14220
20270
I419O
18890
18990
16340
22280
5b
11780
157IO
16460
14860
21020
14730
19640
19830
17080
23IOO
56
12240
I626O
17160
I55OO
21810
I528O
20330
20670
17820
2397O
58
12670
16870
1786o
I615O
22600
15840
21090
21520
18560
24830
60
I307O
17420
18560
16800
23350
16340
2178O
22360
1931O
2566O
62
13530
18020
19260
I737O
24180
16910
22520
23200
19970
26570
6b
13990
18620
19950
17950
24920
17b 90
23270
24o4o
20630
2739O
66
1442O
19170
-
~
-
18020
23960
-
—
0.
68
ib850
19780
-
-
18560
24720
-
-
-
70
15310
20330
—
—
-
19140
25410
_
72
i57bo
20920
-
-
-
19670
26150
-
_
—
7b
16170
21520
-
-
-
20210
26900
—
_
76
16560
22050
-
-
-
2O7OO
27560
-
_
78
17030
22650
-
-
-
2129O
28310
-
-
-
80
1744o
23230
-
—
—
21800
29040
_
_
82
17890
23820
-
-
2236O
29780
—
o*
8b
i83bo
2b390
-
-
-
2293O
30490
—
»
«
3.19
PART XV
DEVELOPMENT OP CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
PART IV
DEVELOPMENT OR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
The cost of the trafficways system and the potential financial
resources available are critical factors to the evaluation of the
system, and its goals and objectives. The development of a capital
improvement program represents a key part of the process of plan¬
ning and implementing transportation system improvements.
The development of capital improvement programs represents an
evaluation of program priorities given constrained local, state
and federal budgets for all modes of transportation.
"It is important to recognize the distinction between needs
estimates and capital improvement programs. The former are de¬
veloped by defining levels of service on the transport mode,
forecasting usage of these modes under such levels of service,
determining what facilities and equipment would have to be built or
purchased to accommodate the traffic at that level of service, and
making the estimates of the cost of providing such facilities and
equipment. The latter (the capital improvement programs) are pre¬
pared by composing capital budgets which would result in a set of
facilities and equipment which would maximize discounted benefits
minus costs under certain realistic budget constraints."*
The amount of state and local expenditure and their allocation
among major types of projections will depend upon the amount of
federal assistance and the restrictions tied to such aid. It is
required that transportation assistance programs be funded with
restrictions which will allow local and state response to diverse
priorities. This is essential if we are to meet current and pro¬
jected service requirements.
The development of an adequate local intermodel system, to a
great extent, is dependent upon: Comprehensive and continuing plan¬
ning by the state and the county; development of programs for ex¬
penditures through 1990; and, provision of a priority evaluation
system for the allocation of resources among systems and projects.
*National Transportation Planning Manual (1970-1990). U. S. Depart¬
ment of Transportation. July 1970. BOB No. OOU S7OOZ8.
b.1
SAG INAU METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY COMMITTEES
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Martin R. Cramton, Or» - Chairman
Robert S. Boatman
Keith Bushneil
Charles C. Carroll, Or.
Harold Cooper
Steven Jones
Jere E, Meredith
Jamas Ruhl
Howard G. Sheltraw
R. A. Trebilcock
Everet Young
POLICY COMMITTEE
Valerian Nowaczyk - Acting Chairman
Alfred Arnold
Norman Bell
Samuel F. Cryderman
James Ederer
Elmer Frahm
John Illikman
Gerald Kabobel
Wilbert R. Keinath
Harry Krashen
Warren C. Light
Bruce McDonough
George L. Olson
Michael J. Plesko
Thomas Schwannecke
James D. Summerfield
Fred VanHaaren
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Donald J. Albosta
0. L. Barr
Harry U. Browne
Alphonse J, Bunchek
Marie Davis
William D. Ferguson
Elmer F. Frahm
Audra E. Francis
R, Lee Gilbert
Paul L. Gustafson
Ralph K. Iwen
Benjamin J, Marxer
Ernest R. Miller
Frank J. Paskiewicz
Robert Pressprich
Wilford H. Root
John M. Ryan
Louis Co Schwinger
Martin Wardin
Hubert Wendling
James P. Wilson
SAGINAU COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Charles H. Stevens9 Chairman
Grant Van Buskirk, Vice Chairman
Barnes Collison
Robert Denison
Elmer Frahm
Ronald Heinlein
H. C » Huggins (Rev.)
Robert Loomis
Chris Peterson
Oulius Sutto
Daniel Toshach
STAFF
Martin R. Cramton, Jr.,
PCPS Reg. No. 148
Richard Nellett
Director
Senior Planner
Houard Kundinger
Gary Caíame
Armand Armstrong
Mike Mikalajski
Vito DeFrancesco*
Marceline Ferris
Vicki Korbein
John Ruthig*
Sally Schnell*
Sohn Kiley*
(Vacant)*
Associate Planner
Research Planner
Planning Technician
Draftsman
Draftsman
Principal Clerk
Senior Clerk
Student Helper
Student Helper
Student Helper
Student Helper
*Part-time