A Changing Landscape Future Trends Land Use & Scenario Planning Technical Report
Genesee County “Shaping our Transportation Future Together” 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan
Prepared by the Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission
Genesee County Land Use & Scenario Planning Technical Report
Population…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1
2035 Built Environment Projection …………..……………………………………………………………………………………4
Future Trends …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
Scenario Planning ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 Status Quo Scenario...... 12 Urban Renewal Scenario...... 16 Hyper Growth Scenario...... 20 Planned Hyper Growth Scenario...... 24
Model Analysis...... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………28
Genesee County Vision...... ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………28
Future Development Recommendation.…………..…………………………………………………………………………29
APPENDIX A: A Changing Landscape
APPENDIX B: 2035 Population Projections
APPENDIX C: 2035 Employment Projections
APPENDIX D: Methodology
List of Figures
Genesee County Population ……………….……………………………………………………..…………………………………1
Genesee County Population Change ……………….…………………………………………….……………………………2
2035 Built Environment ………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………3
High Growth Areas: 2035 Projection …………………………………………………………..………………………….……4
Land Use Trends 1978-2035 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5
Land Use Comparison…………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………6
Townships: 1980-2035…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7
Cities & Villages: 1980-2035………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..7
Genesee County Growth Trends……………………………………………………………………………………………………8
Scenario Evaluation Factors...... 10 - 1 -
Status Quo Map & Statistics...... 11-14
Urban Renewal Map & Statistics...... 15-18
Hyper Growth Map & Statistics...... 19-22
Planned Hyper Growth Map & Statistics...... 23-26
2035 Growth Scenarios...... 27
- 2 -
Genesee County Land Use & Scenario Planning Technical Report
In 2006, the Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission (GCMPC) performed an analysis of the past and current land use trends in Genesee County. Since this time, staff has worked to produce county-wide population and employment projections out to the year 2035. With the completion of these projections, staff has taken the land use analysis to the next step by developing future land use trends for the County.
The 2006 analysis proved to us that urban sprawl had been occurring at a very rapid rate in Genesee County for the past thirty years. While the population from 1978 to 2006 actually decreased by about 1%, developed land in the county increased by 85%. During this same time period over 90,000 acres of farmland, forests, open range, and wetlands had been developed. Land use trends in the county relied heavy on land consumption with the majority of development occurring on agricultural lands and other open spaces. While new development during this time period was largely residential; commercial and industrial expansion was also occurring (see Appendix A: A Changing Landscape). This analysis also revealed that a disproportionate amount of this development was occurring in the rural townships while a lack of growth was occurring in the core urban districts of the county.
Population Genesee County Population By the year 2035, it is 1980-2035 projected that Genesee 480,000 County will have 468, 938 468,938 residents. Considering 470,000 the large population decreases seen in 460,000 450,440 Genesee County during 450,000 448,188 the 1980’s, this would be an increase of nearly 440,000 40,000 persons since 430,459 1990. This projection 430,000 continues the steady 420,000 climb back above peak population numbers 410,000 experienced in the late 1980 1990 2005 2035 70’s and early 80’s in Genesee County. While the county-wide is expected to increase, a general trend continues where specific areas in the county are projected to lose population. The City of Flint continues to lose significant populations—over 50,000 residents since 1980—as do the urban townships surrounding the city. The City of Flint, coupled with Flint, Mt. Morris, and Genesee Townships account for a decrease of - 1 -
almost 60,000 residents. Suburban towns and townships generally continue to gain population with the largest increases occurring in the townships. Grand Blanc, Mundy, and Fenton townships alone see an influx of nearly 40,000 residents. Overall, the county projects an increase of 18,498 residents from 1980 to 2035 (see Appendix B & C for the official Genesee County Population and Employment Projections).
Genesee County Population Change
Projected Projected Local Unit 19802005 2035 Change Change 1980-2035 1980-2035
Genesee County 450,440 448,188 468,938 18,498 4%
Argentine Township 4,180 6,943 7,897 3,717 89% Atlas Township 4,096 6,215 6,986 2,890 71% Clayton Township 7,269 7,700 8,644 1,375 19% Davison Township 13,708 19,180 22,773 9,065 66% Fenton Township 9,570 14,655 18,664 9,094 95% Flint Township 35,405 33,720 32,731 -2,674 -8% Flushing Township 9,246 10,596 11,336 2,090 23% Forest Township 3,559 3,872 4,010 451 13% Gaines Township 4,769 6,420 7,250 2,481 52% Genesee Township 25,065 23,981 22,856 -2,209 -9% Grand Blanc Township 24,413 35,075 44,399 19,986 82% Montrose Township 6,164 6,496 6,773 609 10% Mt. Morris Township 27,928 23,795 22,982 -4,946 -18% Mundy Township 10,786 14,810 18,790 8,004 74% Richfield Township 6,895 8,726 10,131 3,236 47% Thetford Township 8,499 8,385 8,433 -66 -1% Vienna Township 12,914 13,627 14,939 2,025 16%
City of Burton 29,976 31,305 33,439 3,463 12% City of Clio 2,669 2,586 2,679 10 0% City of Davison 6,087 5,529 5,306 -781 -13% City of Fenton 8,098 11,625 13,433 5,335 66% City of Flint 159,611 120,283 109,464 -50,147 -31% City of Flushing 8,624 8,464 8,464 -160 -2% City of Grand Blanc 6,848 8,078 8,367 1,519 22% City of Linden 2,174 3,603 3,734 1,560 72% City of Montrose 1,706 1,552 1,884 178 10% City of Mt. Morris 3,246 3,448 3,665 419 13% City of Swartz Creek 5,013 5,493 6,278 1,265 25%
Village of Gaines 440 450 447 7 2% Village of Goodrich 795 1,566 2,154 1,359 171% Village of Lennon 474 505 505 31 7% Village of Otisville 682 903 896 214 31% Village of Otterlake 534 428 428 -106 -20%
- 2 -
- 3 -
2035 Built Environment Projection
To expand on the analysis completed in 2006, GCMPC has projected the “Built Environment” out to the year 2035.
The built environment—made up of residential, commercial, industrial and other developments—is still expected to grow at a significant rate. It is projected that developed land in Genesee County will have increased by nearly 110% from 1978 to 2035, effectively doubling the amount of urban and built land. At the same time, the county is expected to lose roughly 40% of undeveloped land—farmland, forested lands, rangelands, and wetlands.
In the 1980’s and 1990’s, heavy land consumption was concentrated in the townships. The 2035 projection shows this trend continuing. In the townships alone, over 87,000 acres of undeveloped land will have been developed since 1980. This amount, coupled with the growth expected to occur in the cities, increases the total amount of undeveloped land consumed in the county to over 115,000 acres.
Growing Pains
Below is a survey of high growth areas in Genesee County. Notice the immense amount of development occurring in these areas, while the populations here tend to increase by much smaller amounts. In fact, almost every township in the county consumed land at a rate twice as fast as the population growth, and in some instances, up to 4 times as fast.
High Growth Areas 1980-2035 350%
300% Land Development Growth Population Growth
250%
200%
150%
Percentage Growth
100%
50%
0% Davison Fenton Grand Blanc Mundy Township Township Township Township
- 4 -
Land Use Trend: 1978-2035
Urban & Built Undeveloped
26%
1978
74%
49%
2006
51%
54%
2035 (Projected)
46%
- 5 -
Land Use Comparison
Projected Projected % Projected 2035 Local UnitAcreage Type 1978 Acreage 2006 Acreage Acreage Acreage Acreage Change Change
Genesee County Urban & Built 107,126 197,785 218,972 111,846 104% Undeveloped 302,700 209,619 189,564 -113,136 -37%
Argentine Township Urban & Built 1,556 6,140 7,231 5,675 365% Undeveloped 20,821 16,005 14,914 -5,907 -28% Atlas Township Urban & Built 2,751 9,659 10,656 7,905 287% Undeveloped 18,372 11,415 10,418 -7,954 -43% Clayton Township Urban & Built 2,309 5,737 6,477 4,168 181% Undeveloped 19,433 15,975 15,235 -4,198 -22% Davison Township Urban & Built 4,648 10,396 12,577 7,929 171% Undeveloped 16,721 10,904 8,723 -7,998 -48% Fenton Township Urban & Built 3,318 8,089 10,021 6,703 202% Undeveloped 11,944 6,979 5,047 -6,897 -58% Flint Township Urban & Built 8,361 12,248 12,777 4,416 53% Undeveloped 6,592 2,617 2,088 -4,504 -68% Flushing Township Urban & Built 3,201 6,844 7,264 4,063 127% Undeveloped 16,912 13,238 12,818 -4,094 -24% Forest Township Urban & Built 2,612 6,066 6,319 3,707 142% Undeveloped 19,383 15,960 16,213 -3,170 -16% Gaines Township Urban & Built 2,141 5,365 5,912 3,771 176% Undeveloped 20,080 16,815 16,268 -3,812 -19% Genesee Township Urban & Built 6,503 10,950 11,125 4,622 71% Undeveloped 12,130 7,666 7,491 -4,639 -38% Grand Blanc Township Urban & Built 6,592 15,315 19,514 12,922 196% Undeveloped 14,408 5,610 1,411 -12,997 -90% Montrose Township Urban & Built 2,632 7,398 7,682 5,050 192% Undeveloped 19,292 14,541 14,257 -5,035 -26% Mt. Morris Township Urban & Built 6,425 10,117 10,570 4,145 65% Undeveloped 13,736 10,051 9,598 -4,138 -30% Mundy Township Urban & Built 3,616 9,252 14,351 10,735 297% Undeveloped 19,445 13,793 8,694 -10,751 -55% Richfield Township Urban & Built 3,710 8,222 9,349 5,639 152% Undeveloped 18,835 14,189 13,062 -5,773 -31% Thetford Township Urban & Built 3,437 6,884 7,106 3,669 107% Undeveloped 18,682 15,220 14,998 -3,684 -20% Vienna Township Urban & Built 4,909 9,675 10,550 5,641 115% Undeveloped 17,494 12,695 11,820 -5,674 -32% City of Burton Urban & Built 7,583 12,093 13,619 6,036 80% Undeveloped 7,391 2,838 1,312 -6,079 -82% City of Clio Urban & Built 430 587 620 190 44% Undeveloped 280 124 91 -189 -68% City of Davison Urban & Built 828 987 1,022 194 23% Undeveloped 438 200 165 -273 -62% City of Fenton Urban & Built 2,000 3,665 4,071 2,071 104% Undeveloped 2,206 662 256 -1,950 -88% City of Flint Urban & Built 19,192 20,993 20,993 1,801 9% Undeveloped 2,236 503 503 -1,733 -78% City of Flushing Urban & Built 1,690 2,058 2,134 444 26% Undeveloped 618 251 175 -443 -72% City of Grand Blanc Urban & Built 1,414 2,138 2,295 881 62% Undeveloped 886 157 0 -886 -100% City of Linden Urban & Built 703 1,323 1,489 786 112% Undeveloped 824 166 0 -824 -100% City of Montrose Urban & Built 371 476 539 168 45% Undeveloped 254 149 86 -168 -66% City of Mt. Morris Urban & Built 489 547 601 112 23% Undeveloped 246 188 134 -112 -46% City of Swartz Creek Urban & Built 1,276 2,376 2,602 1,326 104% Undeveloped 1,327 226 0 -1,327 -100% Village of Gaines Urban & Built 151 164 164 13 9% Undeveloped 87 74 74 -13 -15% Village of Goodrich Urban & Built 408 919 1,268 860 211% Undeveloped 1,003 479 130 -873 -87% Village of Lennon Urban & Built 29 67 67 38 131% Undeveloped 122 84 84 -38 -31% Village of Otisville Urban & Built 273 475 476 203 74% Undeveloped 279 82 81 -198 -71% Village of Otterlake Urban & Built 12 68 68 56 467% Undeveloped 223 169 169 -54 -24% * Please note that acreage change -from 6 - 1980 to 2035 is projected.
Townships 1980-2035 428% Land Development Growth Population Growth 378%
328%
278%
228%
178%
128% Percentage Growth
78%
28%
-22% Flint Township Atlas Township Forest Township Gaines Township Mundy Township Mundy Vienna TownshipVienna Fenton Township Fenton Clayton Township Davison Township Richfield Township Richfield Flushing Township Genesee Township Thetford Township Thetford Montrose Township Montrose Argentine TownshipArgentine Mt. Morris Township Morris Mt. Grand Blanc Township Blanc Grand
Cities and Villages 1980-2035 470%
420% Land Development Growth Population Growth 370%
320%
270%
220%
170% Percentage Growth 120%
70%
20%
-30% City of Clio City of Flint City of Linden City of Burton of City City of Fenton of City City of Davison City of Flushing City of Montrose Village of Gaines City of Mt. Morris Mt. of City Village of Lennon of Village Village of Otisville City of Grand Blanc Grand of City Village of Goodrich of Village Village of Otterlake City of Swartz Creek
- 7 -
Future Trends
As the progression of land use trend maps show, Genesee County Growth Trends undeveloped land in our 1980-2035 90% county is becoming a 85% scarce resource and this 80% trend is projected to continue over the next 25 70% years, but not nearly at the 60% rates seen in the 1990’s. Land Development Growth The wasteful consumption 50% Population Growth of land during that time was 40% matched by an actual 30% decline in population. The Percentage Growth time period from 2006 to 20% 13% 2035 projects only a 13% 10% 5% increase in developed land -1% but at the same time 0% 1980-2006 2006-2035 population is projected to -10% increase by 5%. This trend suggests that from 2006 to 2035, land in Genesee County is projected to be used much more efficiently than in years past. This shift is already tangible in places throughout the county.
Scenario Planning
Scenario Planning offers a way for Genesee County to explore various development possibilities (scenarios) and how these possibilities could affect the transportation system; more specifically, the levels of congestion that different development patterns may create. It allows planners and decision makers the ability to identify policies that can adapt to changes in development, population, employment and traffic congestion. This method of planning allows Genesee County a glimpse into our potential future depending on how and to what degree development occurs. Each scenario generates different effects on the transportation system. These scenarios are coded into the Travel Demand Model and the outputs of each can be compared using their different levels of congestion and environmental factors. The elements that change from scenario to scenario are the number of households and levels of employment per traffic analysis zone (TAZ). The results from this exercise will be used to help make decisions during project development.
Scenarios
Staff developed four scenarios for the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan which includes Status Quo, Urban Renewal, Hyper-Growth and Planned Hyper-Growth. Each scenario is described in detail below:
- 8 -
Status Quo Scenario – This is the business as usual scenario. This scenario shows population shifting away from the older urbanized areas to suburban and rural undeveloped areas. It uses the current population and employment growth rates that were approved by the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance for use in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan which is a modest 10% increase in employment and 5% increase in population from 2005 to 2035.
Urban Renewal Scenario – This is the urban reinvestment scenario. It uses the same population and employment growth rates as the Status Quo scenario (10% increase in employment and 5% increase in population from 2005 to 2035), but clusters growth near urbanized areas as a result of urban reinvestment and suburban planning. Tools that include infill development, reinvestment strategies and revised zoning and master planning documents could help fuel this type of development.
Hyper-Growth Scenario – This is the economic boom scenario. It shows inflated growth in population and employment with dispersed development. A 30% increase in employment and 30% increase in population were utilized to project into the year 2035. This rate is similar to the national growth rate trends. Tools including economic development strategies and tax abatements could help fuel job creation and boost local economies.
Planned Hyper Growth Scenario – This is the urban reinvestment and economic boom scenario. This scenario combines the increased growth of the Hyper Growth scenario (30% increase in employment and 30% increase in population by the year 2035), with the development patterns of the Urban Renewal scenario which clusters development in and around urbanized areas. By coupling the tools identified in both the Urban Renewal and Hyper Growth scenarios a hybrid scenario modeling smarter growth and economic prosperity could become a reality.
Travel Demand Model Analysis
Using the Travel Demand Model we coded the four different scenarios into the Model by assigning the population and employment characteristics to Genesee County by the traffic analysis zone (TAZ). Once the four scenarios for 2035 were created we ran the - 9 -
Travel Demand Model using the existing road network to determine how these four development scenarios would change the characteristics of travel in Genesee County.
Indicators
Each scenario will be evaluated against each other based on the following indicators:
Indicators Evaluation Factors
Land Cover & Urban & Built-Up Land Area Development Lost Farmland & Open Space Increased Infrastructure Costs Increased Need For Public Services Impervious Surface Population and Jobs Population Jobs Mobility Daily Hours of Traffic Delay Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Congested Lane Miles of Roadway Lane Miles of Road LOS D or Greater % Growth of Fixed-Route Transit Ridership Environment NOx Emissions VOC Emissions
- 10 -
- 11 -
Status Quo Scenario
Land Cover
Status Quo 2035 Acreage Percentage
Urban & Built 218,972 54%
Undeveloped 189,564 46%
The Status Quo scenario projects development into the 2035 year assuming Genesee County will continue to grow at a pace similar to recent years. The urbanization of undeveloped lands like forests and farmland occurs at a medium pace. In this scenario, the amount of urbanized land increases by 10% when compared to the amount of urbanized land in 2006.
Impervious surface
Impervious surfaces, including rooftops, roads, sidewalks, driveways, and parking lots, generally are expected to increase as development increases. As an area adds population and employment, homes are built and businesses often added. This new development equals an increase in impervious surfaces. In the Status Quo scenario, urbanized land is expected to increase by 10%, adding impervious surface as well. The demolition of vacant and abandoned structures that is occurring in the City of Flint may offset some of the increases in impervious surfaces.
Development Patterns
In the scenario, growth and development follow the same patterns that have been continuing in Genesee County. Population continues to decline in the City of Flint. Population increases in the suburban areas and rural communities on the fringes of the County. Development in the southern portion of Genesee County out paces development in the northern portion of Genesee County, largely due to the proximity of the commercial and economic prosperity in Oakland County and Livingston County directly to the south. This scenario produces random, leap-frog development along roadways in the suburban areas of the county. This type of development also produces a great need for costly infrastructure expansion like sewer & water, as well as expanded public services such as police, fire, and schools.
- 12 -
Population, Households, and Jobs Status Quo 2035 Scenario
2005 2035 The population, households and jobs in Population 448,188 467,500 Genesee County are the official population projections for the 2035 Long Range Manufacturing Employment 24,433 14,763 Transportation Plan. A detailed Other Employment 12,677 13,838 methodology is included in the Population Transportation Employment 5,768 5,768 and Employment Projections Technical Finance Employment 14,400 15,319 Report. A list of the countywide totals is Retail Employment 27,984 26,185 below: Wholesale Employment 7,244 5,333 Service Employment 92,713 128,174 Government Employment 26,443 26,511
Mobility Total Employment 211,662 235,891
The Status Quo scenario has 9.62% of all the lane miles of roadway included in the Genesee County model as congested. The chart below lists the statistics for the Status Quo scenario with no adjustments made. The levels of congestion are into five categories, urban area interstate/ freeway, urban area major and minor arterial and collectors, rural area interstate/ freeway, and rural area major and minor arterials and collectors. The National Functional Classification System (NFC) categories were aggregated to these four groups. For the total Genesee County Model network categories, the expressway interchange ramps were also added, they are not accounted for in the other categories.
Urban Area Suburban Total Urban Area Major & Area Suburban Rural Area Urban Local Genesee Status Quo 2035 Scenario Interstate/ Minor Interstate/ Area Roads Roads Roads County Freeway Arterial & Freeway Model Collector Daily Vehicle Miles 2,644,519 3,764,406 2,519,883 3,024,909 1,411,743 18,119 13,383,579 Daily Vehicle Hours 42,450 59,905 77,018 75,574 32,624 669 288,240 Average Speed 62.3 62.8 32.7 40.0 43.3 27.1 44.7
Lane Miles Peak Hour Level of Service D 63.10 49.55 35.74 54.28 7.16 0.26 210.09 Lane Miles Peak Hour Level of Service E 45.96 57.26 9.76 8.07 4.04 0.00 125.09 Lane Miles Peak Hour Level of Service F 37.05 62.68 1.73 3.44 18.36 0.00 123.26
Total Congested Lane Miles (LOS E and F) 83.01 119.94 11.49 11.51 22.40 0.00 248.35 Total Lane Miles in Model Network 187.20 265.63 821.31 805.38 490.25 11.01 2,580.78 Daily Hours of Traffic 5,472 7,838 1,809 2,018 1,100 9 18,246
- 13 -
Transit (Fixed-Route)
The travel demand model predicts a -1.8% decrease in transit ridership from the 2005 base year to 2035 in the Status Quo Scenario. This is largely due to the decrease in population in the urban area which the fixed route transit system serves.
Environment
Transportation Planning must take into account the effects that automobiles have on air quality, automobiles account for the majority of ozone producing carbon emissions in metropolitan areas. Ozone (Oӡ) is a colorless and odorless gas composed of three oxygen atoms, that. It is not emitted directly into the air, but at ground level is created by a chemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. This ground level ozone is harmful to people and the environment. In order to measure the effects of air quality, we use Mobil 6.2 air quality modeling program. Mobil 6.2 produces a total VOC and NOx emissions for Genesee County for each scenario. The air quality results are based on the vehicle miles traveled, vehicle hours traveled and the average speeds for the different functional classifications of roadways in Genesee County. For more information on this calculation and the overall air quality monitoring process in Genesee County, please see the Air Quality Technical Report.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Kg/day Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Emissions 5,296 Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions 5,858 TOTAL 11,154
In terms of air quality, it is predicted that on an average day in July, that 11,154 kilograms will be emitted into the air in the Status Quo scenario.
- 14 -
- 15 -
Urban Renewal Scenario
Land Cover
Urban Renewal 2035 Acreage Percentage Urban & Built 200,281 49%
Undeveloped 208,222 51%
The Urban Renewal scenario uses the same increases in population and employment as the Status Quo scenario, but directs those increases and the development that results into already established urban areas. The urbanization of undeveloped lands like forests and farmland occurs at a much slower pace than the Status Quo scenario, and, in fact, this scenario could preserve nearly 19,000 acres of undeveloped lands in the County. In this scenario, the amount of urbanized land increases by only 1% when compared to the same statistic in 2006.
Impervious surface
The general trend of added population and jobs increasing the impervious surface does not apply in this scenario. The Urban Renewal scenario directs those increases towards already urbanized areas with existing infrastructure, keeping new developments to a minimum while rejuvenating older areas. With minimal increases in development, impervious surface is expected to remain constant.
Development Patterns
Growth is clustered in the urban areas in this scenario. The urban renewal growth rate is similar to the status quo scenario for the county, but only areas identified as urban and the central business district area types in the travel demand model see growth. The Urban Renewal 2035 Scenario reuse of urban areas through brownfield redevelopment and the renovation of older 2005 2035 urban buildings maximize the use and benefit Population 448,188 471,104 of existing infrastructure and minimize the need for costly new road, water, and sewer Manufacturing Employment 24,433 14,662 connections while preserving open space in Other Employment 12,677 13,800 the suburban and rural communities. Transportation Employment 5,768 5,768 Finance Employment 14,400 15,214 Population, Households, and Jobs Retail Employment 27,984 26,004 Wholesale Employment 7,244 5,181 In the scenario, growth and development is Service Employment 92,713 128,778 shifted to the urban areas. The area types, Government Employment 26,443 26,484 central business district and urban areas identified in the model were used to Total Employment 211,662 235,891 determine the location of population and - 16 -
employment growth. 5% growth in population was distributed evenly among the urban and central business district (CBD) areas proportionately to their 2005 population distribution. Areas in the suburban, fringe and rural sections of Genesee County received no growth from the base year to the future year.
Employment distribution was calculated for each of the eight categories. Some categories, such as manufacturing showed a decline from 2005-2035; the decline was distributed evenly among traffic analysis zones based on their 2005 manufacturing employment distribution. In the categories where there was growth, like the service sector, it was only distributed in the CBD and urban traffic analysis zones (TAZ’s). The chart below shows the overall county totals population and employment.
Mobility
The Urban Renewal Scenario projects that about 9.58% of all Genesee County lane miles will be congested by 2035. This is the same level of area wide congestion as the status quo scenario, but the congestion is shifted from the suburban areas and concentrated in the urban areas of higher population, while traffic delay on the county system as a whole has also decreased. This is due to lessening the demand for travel on the suburban roadway network. Location of employment in the urban areas and increased population there has increased the demand on urban interstates to bring commerce to these areas. While overall congestion is not greatly decreased by this development scenario, the concentration of congestion to the urban areas can be seen as a positive indicator. This shift may symbolize a viral central business district. The concentrated development could increase tax base and reduce infrastructure costs. The increased traffic in these areas relaxes the need to build new roads and promotes the less costly preservation option as opposed to roadway expansion.
Suburban Urban Area Total Genesee Urban Area Area Major & Suburban Rural Area Urban Local Urban Renewal 2035 Scenario County Interstate/ Freeway Interstate/ Minor Arterial Area Roads Roads Roads Model Freeway & Collector
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,552,242 3,752,269 2,536,209 2,855,765 1,361,505 20,669 13,078,659 Daily Vehicle Hours Traveled 40,927 59,688 77,771 71,164 31,426 758 281,734 Average Speed 62.4 62.9 32.6 40.1 43.3 27.3 44.8
Lane Miles Peak Hour Level of Service D 62.04 60.32 36.18 45.77 2.23 0.26 206.80 Lane Miles Peak Hour Level of Service E 47.03 53.67 9.54 5.75 4.04 0.00 120.03 Lane Miles Peak Hour Level of Service F 40.53 61.80 3.16 3.44 18.36 0.00 127.29
Total Congested Lane Miles (LOS E and F) 87.56 115.47 12.70 9.19 22.40 0.00 247.32 Total Lane Miles in Model Network 187.20 265.63 821.31 805.38 490.25 11.01 2,580.78 Daily Hours of Traffic Delay 5,608 7,394 2,020 1,696 985 13 17,715
- 17 -
Transit (Fixed-Route)
The travel demand model predicts a 20.0% increase in transit ridership from the 2005 base year to 2035 future year using the Urban Renewal Scenario. This is due to the increase in population in the urban area which the fixed route transit system serves. For a better description of how the Mass Transportation Authority plans to deal with increased demand, please see their 5 year plan in the Transit Technical Report.
Environment
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Kg/day Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Emissions 5,772 Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions 5,214 TOTAL 10,986
In terms of air quality, it is predicted that on an average day in July, that 10,986 kilograms will be emitted into the air in the Urban Renewal scenario.
- 18 -
- 19 -
Hyper Growth Scenario
Land Cover
Hyper Growth 2035 Acreage Percentage
Urban & Built 234,231 58% Undeveloped 174,391 42%
The Hyper Growth scenario projects development in the same areas as does the Status Quo scenario, but does so at an accelerated rate. The accelerated urbanization of undeveloped lands like forests and farmland that this scenario represents could lead to a 16% increase in Urban & Built areas around the county. This scenario may lead to the haphazard consumption of over 35,000 acres of presently undeveloped land and results in 60% of the county’s land area being urbanized.
Impervious surface
As seen in the Status Quo scenario, impervious surface will increase significantly due to the increase in development. In the Hyper Growth scenario, this trend is only intensified, increasing urbanized land by 16%, and adding even more impervious surface.
Development Patterns
In this scenario, growth and development follow the same patterns that have been continuing in Genesee County but growth occurs at an accelerated rate (30% from 2005- 2035). Population continues to decline in the City of Flint. Population increases in the suburban areas and rural communities on the fringes of the County. This type of growth will require increased spending on transportation infrastructure in the form of new roads, capacity expansions, and the Hyper Growth 2035 Scenario significant expansion of existing roadways. 2005 2035 The need for more sewer and water lines to Population 448,188 583,272 newly developing areas, and the rapid consumption of open space and prime Manufacturing Employment 24,433 17,225 agricultural land are also direct effects of this Other Employment 12,677 16,152 type of development. Transportation Employment 5,768 6,769 Finance Employment 14,400 17,747 Population, Households, and Jobs Retail Employment 27,984 30,488 Wholesale Employment 7,244 7,154 Hyper Growth scenario population and Service Employment 92,713 149,577 employment is projected to increased from Government Employment 26,443 30,956 the base year by 30% overall. This hyper growth is distributed based on the location of Total Employment 211,662 276,068 existing population and employment in the - 20 -
2035 Status Quo scenario. The percentage of each TAZ’s growth from the countywide total creates a distribution percentage for that TAZ, when the control total for population and each category of employment is multiplied by the distribution percentage, new population and employment estimates can be derived. Rounding errors due to the need to keep the population and employment in whole numbers of people were accounted for by adding one person to the most populated highest employment for each category in a TAZ, until the desired control total was reached.
Mobility
In the Hyper Growth Scenario, the amount of congested roadway in Genesee County will have increased to 12.18% by 2035. This is an increase of area wide congestion from the previous two scenarios. Growth in the suburban and rural areas created more congested lane miles in the major and minor arterials and collectors in Genesee County. Congestion on the suburban area roads as well as the urban major and minor arterials and collectors has increased heavily. In fact, the amount of congested lane miles on suburban area roads nearly quadruples. This scenario creates more dispersed, widespread congestion throughout the county, existing on all types of roadways in all areas.
Urban Area Suburban Total Urban Area Major & Area Suburban Rural Area Urban Local Genesee Hyper Growth 2035 Scenario Interstate/ Minor Interstate/ Area Roads Roads Roads County Freeway Arterial & Freeway Model Collector Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,845,849 3,879,356 3,001,107 3,561,884 1,540,762 22,104 14,851,063 Daily Vehicle Hours Traveled 45,598 61,708 91,636 89,007 35,741 814 324,503 Average Speed 62.4 32.8 62.9 40.0 43.1 27.2 44.7
Lane Miles Peak Hour Level of Service D 45.91 70.18 39.59 85.42 8.10 0.12 249.32 Lane Miles Peak Hour Level of Service E 61.39 47.68 21.35 28.61 0.00 0.00 159.03 Lane Miles Peak Hour Level of Service F 46.92 73.24 5.44 7.30 22.40 0.00 155.30
Total Congested Lane Miles (LOS E and F) 108.31 120.92 26.79 35.91 22.40 0.00 314.33 Total Lane Miles in Model Network 187.20 265.63 821.31 805.38 490.25 11.01 2,580.78 Daily Hours of Traffic Delay 7,491 9,245 2,927 3,236 1,363 16 24,278
Transit (Fixed Route)
The travel demand model predicts a 23.6% increase in transit ridership from the 2005 base year to 2035 in the Hyper Growth Scenario. The increase is mainly attributed, and directly proportionate to the overall increase in population.
- 21 -
Environment
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Kg/day Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Emissions 5,927 Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions 6,605 TOTAL 12,532
In terms of air quality, it is predicted that on an average day in July, that 12,532 kilograms will be emitted into the air in the Hyper Growth scenario.
- 22 -
- 23 -
Planned Hyper Growth Scenario
Land Cover
Planned Hyper Growth 2035 Acreage Percentage
Urban & Built 209,067 51% Undeveloped 199,460 49%
The Planned Hyper Growth scenario uses the same inflated increases in population and employment as the Hyper Growth scenario, but directs the increases and the development that results into already established urban areas. The urbanization of undeveloped lands like forests and farmland occurs at a much slower pace than the Hyper Growth Scenario as already urbanized areas are redeveloped and rejuvenated. In fact, this scenario could preserve over 20,000 acres of undeveloped lands in the County if sudden increases in population and employment were to occur. In this scenario, the amount of urbanized land increases by only 5%, instead of the wasteful 16% of the Hyper Growth scenario.
Impervious surface
Similar to the Urban Renewal scenario which directs population and employment increases towards already urbanized areas with existing infrastructure, the Planned Growth scenario only shows minimal increases in development. With minimal increases in development, impervious surface is expected to only increase slightly.
Development Patterns
In the Planned Hyper Growth Scenario, growth and development follow the same patterns as the Urban Renewal Scenario but at an accelerated rate, (30% increase from 2005-2035). Population growth occurs in the model area types of urban areas and the central business district. Population outside of this area is maintained at the same levels as 2005. The growth in these areas reuses existing urban land by increased brownfield redevelopment, in-fill housing and re-use of existing structures and land. This saves open space in the suburban and rural areas of Genesee County. Although population increases, the demand on infrastructure such as adding travel lanes in rural areas, and new water and sewer lines is minimized, while the reuse of existing infrastructure is capitalized. The need for consuming additional open space in rural areas is greatly diminished.
- 24 -
Population, Households, and Jobs Planned Hyper Growth 2035 Scenario 2005 2035 The Planned Hyper Growth Scenario uses Population 448,188 583,272 the same development patterns as the urban renewal scenario and growth is increased Manufacturing Employment 24,433 17,225 from 5% from 2005-2035 to 30% over the Other Employment 12,677 16,152 same period. The population and Transportation Employment 5,768 6,769 employment is distributed in the same way Finance Employment 14,400 17,747 as the urban renewal scenario, only growing Retail Employment 27,984 30,488 in the areas in and around already Wholesale Employment 7,244 7,154 established urban centers. The population Service Employment 92,713 149,577 outside of this area is consistent with the Government Employment 26,443 30,956 population levels from 2005. Total Employment 211,662 276,068
Mobility
The Planned Hyper Growth Scenario has 12.59% of all the lane miles of roadway included in the Genesee County model as congested. There is an increase in congestion from the Hyper Growth Scenario on the urban area interstate and freeways, but less congestion then the Hyper Growth Scenario on the suburban area roadways, effectively concentrating congestion in the urban area. In this scenario, congestion is much more concentrated in the dense urban areas, as opposed to the dispersed nature of congestion in the Hyper Growth scenario.
Suburban Urban Area Total Genesee Planned Hyper Growth 2035 Urban Area Area Major & Suburban Rural Area Urban Local County Scenario Interstate/ Freeway Interstate/ Minor Arterial Area Roads Roads Roads Model Freeway & Collector
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,732,023 3,813,289 3,145,550 3,106,216 1,387,700 27,661 14,212,439 Daily Vehicle Hours Traveled 43,732 60,655 96,684 77,281 32,059 1,005 311,416 Average Speed 62.5 62.9 32.5 40.2 43.3 27.5 44.8
Lane Miles Peak Hour Level of Service D 33.35 59.89 57.55 63.01 5.22 0.28 219.30 Lane Miles Peak Hour Level of Service E 68.16 55.70 24.90 18.67 4.04 0.12 171.59 Lane Miles Peak Hour Level of Service F 53.36 66.98 9.76 4.95 18.36 0.00 153.41
Total Congested Lane Miles (LOS E and F) 121.52 122.68 34.66 23.62 22.40 0.12 325.00 Total Lane Miles in Model Network 187.20 265.63 821.31 805.38 490.25 11.01 2,580.78 Daily Hours of Traffic Delay 7,452 8,298 2,786 2,277 1,042 29 21,884
- 25 -
Transit (Fixed-Route)
The travel demand model predicts a 77.2% increase in transit ridership from the 2005 base year to 2035 in the Planned Hyper Growth Scenario. This is due to the overall increase in population centered in the urban area which is serviced by the fixed route transit system.
Environment
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Kg/day Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Emissions 6,383 Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions 5,718 TOTAL 12,101
In terms of air quality, it is predicted that on an average day in July, that 12,101 kilograms will be emitted into the air in the Planned Hyper Growth scenario
2035 Scenario Comparison Chart
2035 Scenarios At A Glance
Planned Hyper Evaluation Factors Status Quo Urban Renewal Hyper Growth Growth
Urban & Built Up Land Area (acres) 218,973 200,281 235,316 209,067 Lost Farmland & Open Space (acres) 20,055 1,397 36,314 10,159 Increased Infrastructure Costs $$$ $ $$$$ $$ Increased Need for Public Services High Low Very High Medium Impervious Surface Extensive Increase Slight Increase Extensive Increase Average Increase Population 467,500 471,104 583,272 583,272 Jobs 235,891 235,891 276,068 276,068 Daily Hours of Traffic Delay 18,246 17,715 24,278 21,884 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled 13,383,579 13,078,659 14,851,063 14,212,439 Congested Lane Miles of Roadway 248 247 314 325 Lane Miles of Road LOS D or Greater 458 453 563 544 % Growth of Fixed Route Transit Ridership -2% 20% 24% 77% NOx Emissions 5296 5214 5927 5718 VOC Emissions 5858 5772 6605 6383
- 26 - 2035 Growth Scenarios Urban & Built Undeveloped
Status Quo Scenario Urban Renewal Scenario
54% 49%
46% 51% Hyper Growth Scenario Planned Hyper Growth Scenario
58% 51%
- 27 - 42% 49%
Model Analysis
In December 2007, the official population and employment projections (appendices B and C respectively) were approved for use in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. These projections were the basis for the Status Quo scenario. These population and employment projections were developed using current U.S. Census data, local building permit information, and the latest forecasting measures. The Status Quo scenario best represents the current policies and regulations in our local units, as well as the changes that will emerge on our roadways if growth and development continue to occur based upon existing trends. Official projections based upon sound methodology and approved processes must be in place to defend against any legal challenges that may occur in relation to this Long Range Plan. These projections, and the Status Quo scenario that they produce, are the official, approved forecast for Genesee County and have been utilized to project deficiencies on the county transportation system using the Travel Demand Model. While the projections used for the remaining scenarios may not be as concrete as those used for the Status Quo scenario, sound methodology was used develop these valuable planning tools. These “what if” scenarios can be used to peer into the future and help direct decisions about how we want that future to look and feel. +
The Genesee County Vision
The scenario planning exercise has given us basic data that enables staff, other local planning officials, and transportation agencies to begin a dialogue on the ways that transportation and land use are linked and how to manage both effectively and cooperatively. There are a number of indicators used to describe these four scenarios. Based on the findings, each scenario predicts a different development path and raises different quality of life issues for Genesee County residents.
If the “Status Quo” land consumption is allowed to continue, more and more agricultural resources and other valuable lands—estimated at over 20,000 acres— will make way for residential homes and strip commercial developments by the year 2035. As this pattern continues, negative impacts like an increase in infrastructure costs, increased public service needs, reductions in air quality, and more time spent in the car are much more likely. The Hyper Growth scenario is used to illustrate more intense negative impacts that stem from sprawl development. A lack of responsible growth standards and development guidelines only fuel this consumption pattern. It is certain that there are more efficient ways to utilize land in our county, and with more efficient land use, can come a higher quality of life for area residents.
The Urban Renewal scenario offers a much more efficient way to handle growth in Genesee County. Not only does this scenario preserve over 18,000 acres of undeveloped land and maximize the use of infrastructure we already have in place, but a number of other positive outcomes are possible as well. The redevelopment of our
- 28 -
urbanized areas in place of sprawling subdivisions and strip malls will keep infrastructure costs down, keep the need for costly new schools and public services to an absolute minimum, decrease the amount of vehicle miles we travel on a daily basis, improve air quality, and increase our public transit ridership by 20%. These are all positive outcomes of an improved development strategy. With more efficient development standards and zoning practices in place, the effects of a Hyper Growth scenario would be much more positive as illustrated in the Planned Hyper Growth scenario.
The Here and Now
Communities around the county are taking notice of the inefficient use of land and the negative impacts that follow. The City of Flint is investing in the redevelopment of their downtown area, focusing heavily on improvements that connect and enhance their valuable sources of higher education. Three college campuses— University of Michigan-Flint, Kettering University, and Mott Community College—all exist within 1 mile of downtown Flint. Also area businesses are beginning to relocate downtown and city departments are improving downtown infrastructure to promote more activity in this area. After years of decline and disinvestment, the downtown Flint area is once again showing promise. Downtown development is not only occurring in Flint, but also in smaller cities and towns throughout the county.
More efficient growth standards and development guidelines are also being looked at by townships in Genesee County. Areas seeing large amounts of growth are looking at their master plans and zoning ordinances and re-evaluating what types of places they are making. These are all positive steps toward a positive future that should be encouraged and supported.
Unfortunately, while the projections show growth continuing in the county, it is important to realize that harsh economic times are currently at hand. Housing markets, consumer spending, retail sales, and building permits are threatening all time lows. It should be understood that these are merely projections, and the current economic trends may have an extensive effect on development and population trends over the next 25 years.
The bright side is that this type of economic downturn is not a new concept here, and Genesee County has a history of rebounding. The 1980’s posted major declines in population and employment, mainly due to a decrease in the presence of General Motors during that time. However, since 1990 Genesee County’s population has shown a steady increase.
Future Development Recommendation: Urban Renewal Scenario
The four growth scenarios presented in this report have helped shed light on the potential positive and negative impacts on our land, air, roadways, and even our pocketbooks. While capacity deficiencies are based on the Status Quo scenario, the - 29 -
motivation for creating the scenarios was to help formulate a vision of how and where future development should occur in Genesee County. Of the four scenarios evaluated the Urban Renewal development scenario was deemed the best as it could potentially preserve over 18,000 acres of farmland and open space, keep costs for new infrastructure and public services down, decrease the vehicle miles traveled by local residents, the length of time residents are stuck in traffic, and increase transit ridership by 20%. This particular scenario weighs heavily on the positives in a majority of the evaluation categories. In an effort to move toward the Urban Renewal scenario in the future, the following recommendations have been provided. A number of these recommendations were provided by Governor’s Land Use Leadership Council in 2003.
• Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities.
• Encourage cities, villages, and townships to work together and adopt common goals for future development.
• Encourage local units to update zoning ordinances and master planning documents and seek commonality with other local units of government to promote smarter growth standards and development guidelines.
• Encourage transportation system maintenance and improvements on the existing infrastructure, while minimizing costly expansion of the system.
• Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.
• Provide a variety of transportation choices.
• Take advantage of compact development design.
• Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place
• Create walkable neighborhoods
- 30 -
APPENDIX A A Changing Landscape: Land Use Analysis & Trends October 2006
2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
GENESEE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Miles Gadola Woodrow Stanley Fred Shaltz Archie Bailey Ted Hammon John Northrup Raynetta Speed Richard Hammel (Chairperson) Rose Bogardus
GENESEE COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
1101 Beach Street, Room 223 Flint, Michigan 48502 Telephone: (810) 257-3010 Fax: (810) 257-3185
Alan Himelhoch, Chairperson Alexander H. Isaac, Vice-Chairperson Gloria J. Nealy, Secretary
Miles Gadola Woodrow Stanley Robert W. Ranger, Jr. Charles Banks, Jr. Gayle I. Reed Ron Winters Shirley Brockhahn Archie H. Bailey
GENESEE COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
Julie Hinterman, Director-Coordinator
Derek Bradshaw, Principal Planner Chris Kiesling, Principal Planner Shelia Auten, Senior Planner Jason Nordberg, Senior Planner Sheila Taylor, Senior Planner Stanley Brantley, Associate Planner Brandon Dunn, Associate Planner Sharon Gregory, Associate Planner Heidi Peterson, Associate Planner Nate Scramlin, Associate Planner Terry Thomas, Associate Planner Carl Thompson, Associate Planner
Christine Pobocik, GIS Specialist
George MacEachern, Rehabilitation Inspector Kim Stowell, Rehabilitation Intake Coordinator
Julie Chapman, Accountant Susan Schantz, Accountant Alberta Gunsell, Secretary Deanna Warner, Secretary Sylvia Willis, Secretary
- 1 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
A CHANGING LANDSCAPE ...... - 3 -
2006 EXISTING LAND USE ...... - 4 - Land Use Categories...... - 4 -
GENESEE COUNTY: NOW & THEN...... - 7 -
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ...... - 8 - Townships ...... - 12 - Cities and Villages...... - 13 - City of Flint...... - 13 -
FUTURE PLANNING ...... - 14 -
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY LAND USE PROFILES
APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Land Use Categories...... 4
Figure 2: Genesee County: By the Numbers...... 5
Figure 3: 2006 Land Use Map…...... 6
Figure 4: Genesee County Population Change...... 7
Figure 5: A Diminishing Resource...... 8
Figure 6: 1978 Built Environment...... 9
Figure 7: 2006 Built Environment...... 10
Figure 8: Land Use Comparison...... 11
Figure 9: Growing Pains...... 12
Figure 10: Cities & Villages...... 13
- 2 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
A CHANGING LANDSCAPE
The Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission developed this land use analysis with two objectives in mind: to update our “existing” land use inventory on a countywide basis—which had not been done since 1978—and to compare that inventory with the 1978 land use/land cover data. This data will be used to examine the County’s growth patterns in the past 25 years. The ability for planning entities to view what is happening on the ground at any specific geographic location throughout the County is an exceptional resource. We have provided this information along with an analysis of different trends and patterns appearing in Genesee County.
Within the past five years, the Michigan Planning Enabling Act has been revised to include language that requires planning agencies to coordinate between jurisdictions when performing land use planning activities. The renewal of our land use data, on a county-wide basis, will play a major role in this coordination. This update will better serve not only our planning efforts, but the efforts of every local unit of government within Genesee County.
Since 1978, many changes have occurred within the county and its individual local units. Not only have these changes occurred in relation to land use, but also in population. Between 1980 and 1990, Genesee County lost 20,000 people primarily associated with a decline in local employment opportunities within the automobile industry. However, since 1990, the population has been back on the rise. The latest U.S. Census report estimates the 2005 population to be nearly 14,000 persons more than in 1990, with populations settling primarily in the southern portion of the county. With the population growing once again, now is the time to focus on land use, because with rapid growth, haphazard planning can often follow. By developing this countywide land use map and producing a summary of our findings, GCMPC would like to assist the local units of government with tools to plan in an orderly fashion.
- 3 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
2006 Existing Land Use
In order to produce the 2006 Existing Land Use inventory, GCMPC staff used a variety of sources and techniques. Local existing land use maps, current parcel and ownership data, and aerial photography were coupled with remote sensing techniques to generate our data. These methods have provided us with an updated inventory of existing land uses in Genesee County (for a complete description of study methodology, see Appendix B). The following is a list of land use categories developed for the 2006 Genesee County Land Use map.
Figure 1
Land Use Categories
This set of land use categories has been developed for the production of the Genesee County Land Use map. All land in Genesee County has been categorized by these classifications.
Single Family Residential – This land use category includes land occupied by single-family dwelling units, seasonal dwellings, manufactured homes outside of designated mobile home parks and their related accessory buildings such as garages.
Multi-Family Residential – This land use category includes land occupied by multiple-family dwelling units such as condominiums, townhouses, duplexes, and apartments along with their related accessory uses such as garages, parking lots, apartment offices, pools, and playgrounds.
Mobile Home Park – Land occupied by mobile dwelling units sited in a planned community, as well as, their related accessory structures and recreational spaces are included in this category.
Commercial – This category includes land mainly occupied for the retail sale and/or service of products. Neighborhood convenience stores, retail outlets, office spaces, financial institutions, repair facilities, gas stations, car dealerships, and shopping malls are among the included uses.
Industrial – This category includes land mainly occupied for product development and manufacturing, with some exceptions. Light manufacturing, as well as, heavy manufacturing are included in this classification. This category applies to land occupied by warehouses, processing facilities, product assembly operations, automotive manufacturing, mining, and non-manufacturing uses which are primarily industrial in nature, such as salvage yards and landfills.
Public & Semi Public – Public uses are land and facilities that are publicly operated and available. These uses include government buildings, schools, community centers, hospitals, and correctional facilities. Semi-public uses are land and facilities which may be privately owned, but are used by the public or a portion of the public. These uses include churches, private clubs, cemeteries, and nursing homes.
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities – This land use category encompasses all road, rail, water, and air transportation facilities; all communication facilities including telephone television, and radio; and all utilities including the production, storage, treatment and transmission of electricity, natural gas, petroleum, solid waste, sewage, and water.
Parks & Recreation – This land use category includes public, semi-public, and private recreational facilities. City parks, and sporting facilities, as well as, campgrounds and golf courses all fit within this category.
Vacant – Vacant lands include vacant city parcels, and small vacant rural parcels.
Agriculture & Open Space – This includes agricultural tracts, undeveloped forest land, non-forested vegetation, and wetlands.
Water – Major bodies of water such as Kearsley Reservoir, and the Flint River are included in this category.
Of the nearly 410,000 acres that make up Genesee County, 209,981 of those acres are agricultural and other undeveloped land. But, mainly due to residential development in our rural townships, this number is depleting. Of the remaining land uses, the single family residential (SFR) use dominates the landscape. Clusters of SFR developments are noticeable in and around urban centers throughout the County, but are also developing along nearly all major roadways. A total of 57% of the “built” environment in Genesee County is comprised of SFR development.
- 4 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
Although commercial properties occupy only 2% of land countywide, the commercial development patterns in Genesee County are cause for concern. Commercial strip development, most evident in Figure 1.4 along M-15, M-54, Miller Road and Pierson Road, is a fixture in many communities. This type of development consumes agricultural and open lands while depleting natural resources, impedes pedestrian and non-motorized traffic while producing more conflict points between drivers, fuels further urban sprawl, and often diminishes the sense of place a community possesses. Instead of continuing to build strip commercial corridors, more dense commercial centers present a viable opportunity, often including some residential options to provide a better mix of uses. Providing residential options in and around commercial centers improves the economic viability, while fostering a sense of community.
Figure 2
Genesee County: By the Numbers
Industrial, 1% Multi-Family Residential, 1% Public, 2% Mobile Home Park, Commercial, 2% 1% Parks & Recreation, 2%
Vacant, 3%
Transportation, Communication, Utilities, 9%
Agriculture & Open Space, 52%
Single Family Residential, 27%
2006 Existing Land Use Classification Acreage % of County Agriculture & Open Space 210,062 52% Single Family Residential 109,760 27% Transportation, Communication, Utilities 34,750 9% Vacant 13,645 3% Parks & Recreation 9,124 2% Commercial 8,813 2% Public 8,327 2% Industrial 5,863 1% Multi-Family Residential 3,802 1% Mobile Home Park 3,253 1%
- 5 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
Figure 3
- 6 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
Genesee County: Now & Then
In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, at the time when the last land use inventory was completed, Genesee County’s population was at its peak. The top employer in the area at this time, General Motors Corporation, maintained a very large employee base. Largely due to their major hiring trends in the 60’s and 70’s, Genesee County’s population was booming. Homes, as well as, other land uses like schools, churches, restaurants, and retail outlets were being built at an unseen rate. Genesee County was prospering. Figure 4 However, during the 1980’s, Genesee County Population Change
General Motors suffered some # Change % Change Local Unit 1980 1990 2005 of their leanest times. The 1980-2005 1980-2005 1980’s claimed the first decline Genesee County 450,440 430,459 443,883 -6,557 -1% in Genesee County history, losing 4.5% of the population: a Argentine Township 4,180 4,651 7,181 3,001 72% loss totaling roughly 20,000 Atlas Township 4,096 5,551 7,770 3,674 90% people. Clayton Township 7,269 7,368 7,873 604 8% Davison Township 13,708 14,671 18,650 4,942 36% Fenton Township 9,570 10,055 14,655 5,085 53% Since the population decline of Flint Township 35,405 34,081 33,023 -2,382 -7% the 1980’s, Genesee County Flushing Township 9,246 9,223 10,501 1,255 14% numbers have been back on Forest Township 3,559 4,409 4,806 1,247 35% the rise, but not nearly at the Gaines Township 4,769 5,391 6,746 1,977 41% Genesee Township 25,065 24,093 24,245 -820 -3% rates seen in the 60’s and 70’s. Grand Blanc Township 24,413 25,392 35,125 10,712 44% In 1999, General Motors Montrose Township 6,164 6,236 6,417 253 4% closed the Buick City plant in Mt. Morris Township 27,928 25,198 23,302 -4,626 -17% Flint, Michigan, ending the Mundy Township 10,786 11,511 14,042 3,256 30% production of Buick Richfield Township 6,895 7,217 8,762 1,867 27% Thetford Township 8,499 8,333 8,160 -339 -4% automobiles in the city. At the Vienna Township 12,914 13,210 13,596 682 5% height of production, this plant employed 28,000 workers, yet City of Burton 29,976 29,976 30,916 940 3% City of Clio 2,669 2,629 2,619 -50 -2% at closure only employed City of Davison 6,087 5,693 5,372 -715 -12% 1200. This decline in City of Fenton 8,098 8,444 11,901 3,803 47% employment opportunity City of Flint 159,611 140,761 118,551 -41,060 -26% caused similar declines in City of Flushing 8,624 8,542 8,110 -514 -6% other sectors, fueling the City of Grand Blanc 6,848 7,760 7,898 1,050 15% City of Linden 2,174 2,415 3,452 1,278 59% population decrease seen in City of Montrose 1,706 1,811 1,552 -154 -9% the 80’s that Genesee County City of Mt. Morris 3,246 3,292 3,321 75 2% is only now beginning to City of Swartz Creek 5,013 4,851 5,341 328 7% recover from. Although we Village of Gaines 440 427 363 -77 -18% have only marginally increased Village of Goodrich 795 916 1,567 772 97% our population since the 80’s, Village of Lennon 474 474 505 31 7% the urbanization of the County Village of Otisville 682 724 845 163 24% has continued into the present Village of Otterlake 534 534 428 -106 -20% time at a comparable rate to the building boom seen in the 60’s and 70’s. Recently, there has been another shift in employment in Genesee County. Buyouts and layoffs by the Delphi Corporation and General Motors have further decreased the manufacturing employment opportunities in the County. With Delphi possibly closing its doors here, the future of manufacturing jobs in Genesee County is uncertain; and it will take time to realize the effects on our social, economic, and physical landscapes
- 7 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
The Built Environment
Since 1978, Genesee County has developed at a rapid rate. Countywide, developed land has increased by 85%, while the county lost 31% of its undeveloped land. This undeveloped land, consisting mainly of farmland, forested lands, rangelands, and wetlands, is being consumed by development. Notice the vast increase in the built environment from 1978 to 2006 in Figures 6 and 7.
Since 1978, roughly 90,000 acres of land in the county has been developed, yet the County’s population decreased by 1%. While some local units are experiencing significant land development growth and significant population growth, the majority of locales are seeing rapid land consumption accompanied by little or no population growth.
Figure 5
A Diminishing Resource
Since 1978, undeveloped land in Genesee County has been under attack. Roughly 93,000 acres of Genesee County farmland, forests, open range, and wetlands have been developed in the past 25 years. These types of land cover, existing mostly in rural areas, have given way to subdivisions and large lot residences. Often times, the extension of costly infrastructure, like roadways and municipal sewer and water, can encourage this process.
1978 Acreage 2006 Acreage
49% 26%
74% 51% Urban & Built Undeveloped Urban & Built Undeveloped
- 8 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
Figure 6
- 9 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
Figure 7
- 10 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
Figure 8
Land Use Comparison Acreage % Acreage Local Unit Acreage Type 1978 Acreage 2006 Acreage Change Change
Genesee County Urban & Built 107,126 197,785 90,659 85% Undeveloped 302,700 209,619 -93,081 -31%
Argentine Township Urban & Built 1,556 6,140 4,584 295% Undeveloped 20,821 16,005 -4,816 -23% Atlas Township Urban & Built 2,751 9,659 6,908 251% Undeveloped 18,372 11,415 -6,957 -38% Clayton Township Urban & Built 2,309 5,737 3,428 148% Undeveloped 19,433 15,975 -3,458 -18% Davison Township Urban & Built 4,648 10,396 5,748 124% Undeveloped 16,721 10,904 -5,817 -35% Fenton Township Urban & Built 3,318 8,089 4,771 144% Undeveloped 11,944 6,979 -4,965 -42% Flint Township Urban & Built 8,361 12,248 3,887 46% Undeveloped 6,592 2,617 -3,975 -60% Flushing Township Urban & Built 3,201 6,844 3,643 114% Undeveloped 16,912 13,238 -3,674 -22% Forest Township Urban & Built 2,612 6,066 3,454 132% Undeveloped 19,383 15,960 -3,423 -18% Gaines Township Urban & Built 2,141 5,365 3,224 151% Undeveloped 20,080 16,815 -3,265 -16% Genesee Township Urban & Built 6,503 10,950 4,447 68% Undeveloped 12,130 7,666 -4,464 -37% Grand Blanc Township Urban & Built 6,592 15,315 8,723 132% Undeveloped 14,408 5,610 -8,798 -61% Montrose Township Urban & Built 2,632 7,398 4,766 181% Undeveloped 19,292 14,541 -4,751 -25% Mt. Morris Township Urban & Built 6,425 10,117 3,692 57% Undeveloped 13,736 10,051 -3,685 -27% Mundy Township Urban & Built 3,616 9,252 5,636 156% Undeveloped 19,445 13,793 -5,652 -29% Richfield Township Urban & Built 3,710 8,222 4,512 122% Undeveloped 18,835 14,189 -4,646 -25% Thetford Township Urban & Built 3,437 6,884 3,447 100% Undeveloped 18,682 15,220 -3,462 -19% Vienna Township Urban & Built 4,909 9,675 4,766 97% Undeveloped 17,494 12,695 -4,799 -27% City of Burton Urban & Built 7,583 12,093 4,510 59% Undeveloped 7,391 2,838 -4,553 -62% City of Clio Urban & Built 430 587 157 36% Undeveloped 280 124 -156 -56% City of Davison Urban & Built 828 987 159 19% Undeveloped 438 200 -238 -54% City of Fenton Urban & Built 2,000 3,665 1,665 83% Undeveloped 2,206 662 -1,544 -70% City of Flint Urban & Built 19,192 20,993 1,801 9% Undeveloped 2,236 503 -1,733 -78% City of Flushing Urban & Built 1,690 2,058 368 22% Undeveloped 618 251 -367 -59% City of Grand Blanc Urban & Built 1,414 2,138 724 51% Undeveloped 886 157 -729 -82% City of Linden Urban & Built 703 1,323 620 88% Undeveloped 824 166 -658 -80% City of Montrose Urban & Built 371 476 105 28% Undeveloped 254 149 -105 -41% City of Mt. Morris Urban & Built 489 547 58 12% Undeveloped 246 188 -58 -24% City of Swartz Creek Urban & Built 1,276 2,376 1,100 86% Undeveloped 1,327 226 -1,101 -83% Village of Gaines Urban & Built 151 164 13 8% Undeveloped 87 74 -13 -15% Village of Goodrich Urban & Built 408 919 511 125% Undeveloped 1,003 479 -524 -52% Village of Lennon Urban & Built 29 67 38 132% Undeveloped 122 84 -38 -31% Village of Otisville Urban & Built 273 475 202 74% Undeveloped 279 82 -197 -71% Village of Otterlake Urban & Built 12 68 56 467% Undeveloped 223 169 -54 -24% - 11 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
Land use trends in Genesee County have relied on heavy land consumption with increased development being aimed at agricultural lands and open space. A survey of our townships, cities, and villages reveals that growth in Genesee County is occurring mainly in areas outside of our core urban districts while concentrating in the more rural areas.
Townships In the general sense, townships in Genesee County are urbanizing rapidly yet adding population only at a medium pace. The southern townships; Atlas, Argentine, Grand Blanc, Mundy, Davison, Gaines and Fenton are urbanizing quickly but are also adding substantial populations. Significant land consumption has occurred in the northern townships as well, but these areas show very low increases or even a decline in population. Montrose, Vienna, Thetford, Forest, and Clayton townships are consuming land at a rate nearly 10 times faster than they are adding population. The more urban townships like Genesee, Mt. Morris, and Flint are urbanizing much slower and experiencing much slower population growth. Both Flushing and Richfield Township have experienced similar conditions with extensive land consumption and moderate increases in population occurring here.
Figure 9
Growing Pains
Virtually every Township in Genesee County has increased their built land area twice as fast as their population since the year 1980. A number of townships even show a decrease in population while the built environment continues to grow.
Townships 1980-2006 328%
278% Land Development Growth Population Growth 228% h
178%
128% Percentage Growt 78%
28%
-22% Flint Township Atlas Township Forest Township Gaines Township Gaines Mundy TownshipMundy Vienna Township Fenton Township Fenton Clayton Township Davison Township Richfield Township Flushing Township Genesee Township Genesee Thetford Township Montrose Township Montrose Argentine Township Mt. Morris Township Mt. Morris Grand Blanc Township Blanc Grand
- 12 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
Cities and Villages Population trends within Genesee County cities and villages are comparable to those of their respective townships. Cities like Linden, Fenton, and Grand Blanc are booming while Flint, Davison, Montrose, and Flushing are in fact losing population. In terms of land use and land consumption, most cities are still urbanizing and consuming undeveloped land, but not nearly at the rate of the townships. This trend is based mainly on the fact that the amount of undeveloped land in cities and villages is much less prevalent than in most townships. Even though the data demonstrates that many of the cities and villages are “built out,” they should still be targeted for growth. The redevelopment of brownfields and abandoned properties is an excellent use of available land. Figure 10
Cities and Villages 1980-2006 470% 420% Land Development Growth Population Growth 370% 320%
270%
220%
170% Percentage Growth 120%
70%
20% -30%
City ofClio City of Flint City ofLinden City of Burton Fenton of City City ofDavison City ofFlushing City of Montrose Village ofGaines City of Mt.City Morris Village of Lennon of Village Village of Otisville Village of Otterlake Village of Goodrich of Village City of Grand Blanc Grand of City City of Swartz Creek Swartz of City
City of Flint The trends and patterns experienced within the City of Flint are unique within themselves. This core urban area has seen large population decline and a minimum of new development. There is an abundance of available land, serviced by a multitude of roadways, as well as sewer, water, and electricity, yet we choose to build primarily in the out-county region. While these large swaths of urban land sit vacant, or occupied by vacant structures, there are millions of dollars in subsidies available through the Michigan Brownfield Grant and Loan Fund, Brownfield Assessment Grants, and the Brownfield Tax
- 13 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
Increment Financing program to help aid in their redevelopment. The redirection of development into these areas, where the infrastructure already exists, may prove more economical, and at the same time preserve valuable land and resources.
Future Planning
Through the development of this study, the Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission hopes to encourage more collaboration across jurisdictional lines when planning new development in our communities. The concept of planning on a more regional scale just seems to make more sense.
The fault, however, of the intense land consumption in Genesee County, can not be exclusively bestowed upon the shoulders of local government. The local units around the county must perform a “balancing act.” Local leaders often find it difficult to turn down development that will increase their tax base; while at the same time, they realize that the preservation of our open spaces is important. Many times, especially with the present economic conditions in Genesee County, more development followed by more tax revenue severely outweighs the need to preserve land. This challenge that our communities face is just one more adversity in the fight against sprawl in Genesee County.
Unfortunately, the numbers reveal that we are not using our land efficiently. Subdivisions and strip malls continue to pop up at the expense of farm fields and forests. Special attention should be given to local farmland and other open spaces. If we continue to consume land at the rate we have in the past 25 years, our agricultural resources and wild lands will be greatly depleted. Higher densities, urban redevelopment, growth standards, and development guidelines are viable options to combat urban sprawl and land consumption. With the use of more efficient land use planning techniques, and a better knowledge of our current land use patterns, local officials can make more informed decisions about future development.
- 14 - 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
Methodology
The Genesee County land use map has been completed with the use of current parcel data, aerial photography, ownership data, existing land use maps, and remote-sensing techniques. Although the newest data set is labeled as “2006” the data used was a hybrid between 2005 parcel data and 2002 aerial photography.
Due to the strip development patterns employed throughout our communities in the past 25 years, simply using parcel data to complete this study would not achieve the desired result. Throughout the life of the project, these development patterns often required GCMPC staff to split parcels and assign two different land uses. Where a “built” land use occurs on a small portion of the parcel, and another “undeveloped” use occurs on the remaining majority of the parcel, this parcel was split to accurately reflect the conditions at ground level. The use of this methodology was needed to make an accurate comparison to the 1978 MIRIS data.
MIRIS Layer In order to demonstrate how and where our county has been growing, GCMPC has performed an analysis of our current land use patterns in relationship to the MIRIS Land Use/Land Cover data. For study purposes, we have used two main classifications, “Urban & Built Up” and “Undeveloped,” to analyze Genesee County land use patterns from 1978 to the present.
All land uses in Genesee County are categorized into: Urban & Built Up Undeveloped Water
These classifications were developed to provide an accurate analysis of development patterns experienced in Genesee County since 1978. This classification system was modeled around the Michigan Land Resource Project, prepared by Public Sector Consultants in 2001. The table below illustrates how the original land use classifications fit into the broader categories.
Genesee County Land Use Analysis
MIRIS Land Use/Land Cover Countywide Land Use
Residential; Commercial, Services, Single Family Residential; Multi- Insitutional; Industrial; Family Residential; Mobile Home Urban & Built-Up Transportation, Communication, Park; Commercial; Industrial; Utilities; Mixed; Extractive; Open & Public & Semi-Public; Parks & Other Recreation; Vacant
Agriculture, Rangeland, Forestland, Undeveloped Agriculture & Open Space Wetland
Water Water Water 2006 Land Use Analysis Genesee County, Michigan
Other Issues
Residential Properties The use of the current parcel layer allows us to code parcels that are classified as residential. However, many of the developed parcels are only partially inhabited by structures while the remainder of the parcel is inhabited by agricultural land, forested lands, non-forested open lands, and/or wetlands. After coding these parcels as residential or commercial, all parcels 5 acres or larger in size were checked and split if it was necessary to accommodate another use. In the case where a number of adjacent parcels smaller than 5 acres combined to form a larger land area, these parcels were also split to retain accuracy against the MIRIS data.
Developed Non-Residential Properties All properties classified as “201” in the parcel layer were checked to determine their use due to other property types such as public uses, industrial uses, and recreational uses being coded under this classification. Local existing land use maps, aerial photography, and ownership data was used to determine which use type actually existed on each parcel.
Vacant Parcels Similar to the coding of the residential properties, the parcel layer was used to code vacant parcels as well. Parcels less than 5 acres in size that were classified as “vacant” were left with this classification. Those parcels 5 acres or larger in size were checked and split, or changed, if it was necessary to accommodate another use.
APPENDIX B 2035 Population Projections
2005 - 2035 Genesee County Population Estimates - Final Draft
Genesee County Population by Municipality 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Argentine Township 6,943 7,094 7,256 7,394 7,563 7,732 7,897 Atlas Township 6,215 6,335 6,465 6,577 6,716 6,854 6,986 City of Burton 31,305 31,583 31,945 32,200 32,611 33,033 33,439 Clayton Township 7,700 7,846 8,003 8,134 8,304 8,476 8,644 City of Clio 2,586 2,595 2,611 2,618 2,637 2,660 2,679 City of Davison 5,529 5,470 5,430 5,372 5,348 5,327 5,306 Davison Township 19,180 19,753 20,367 20,900 21,531 22,161 22,773 City of Fenton 11,625 12,073 12,484 12,788 13,022 13,255 13,433 Fenton Township 14,665 15,342 16,028 16,646 17,327 18,005 18,664 City of Flint 120,283 118,100 116,140 113,902 112,383 110,852 109,494 Flint Township 33,720 33,430 33,253 32,972 32,874 32,802 32,731 City of Flushing 8,464 8,436 8,435 8,405 8,424 8,445 8,464 Flushing Township 10,596 10,695 10,822 10,912 11,054 11,195 11,336 Forest Township 3,872 3,885 3,909 3,918 3,948 3,981 4,010 Gaines Township 6,420 6,530 6,673 6,793 6,943 7,102 7,250 Genesee Township 23,981 23,707 23,508 23,247 23,106 22,982 22,856 City of Grand Blanc 8,078 8,082 8,091 8,101 8,234 8,271 8,367 Grand Blanc Township 35,075 36,788 38,556 40,069 41,590 43,022 44,399 City of Linden 3,603 3,638 3,682 3,708 3,715 3,725 3,734 City of Montrose 1,552 1,605 1,663 1,712 1,771 1,828 1,884 Montrose Township 6,496 6,528 6,574 6,601 6,658 6,716 6,773 City of Mt Morris 3,448 3,475 3,512 3,537 3,581 3,623 3,665 Mt Morris Township 23,795 23,580 23,438 23,231 23,140 23,065 22,982 Mundy Township 14,810 15,503 16,189 16,800 17,471 18,143 18,790 Richfield Township 8,726 8,950 9,192 9,398 9,646 9,892 10,131 City of Swartz Creek 5,493 5,651 5,790 5,891 6,022 6,154 6,278 Thetford Township 8,385 8,370 8,375 8,359 8,381 8,408 8,433 Vienna Township 13,627 13,819 14,043 14,218 14,461 14,705 14,939 Village of Gaines 450 467 465 463 460 451 447 Village of Goodrich 1,566 1,666 1,767 1,860 1,959 2,058 2,154 Village of Otisville 903 899 898 894 894 895 896 Village of Otter Lake (part) 59 59 60 60 61 61 61 Genesee County 448,188 450,996 454,666 456,726 460,880 464,923 468,938
K:\trans\Population Projections\2035 Population by municipality - revised Dec 07 12/11/2007
APPENDIX C 2035 Employment Projections
2005 Base Year Employment Data
2035 Employment Projections
Methodology Report
Final Report
December 2007
Prepared by the Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission Staff
1 Base Year Employment Data Methodology
The Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission utilized the Claritas Business- Facts® dataset as a base for our employment projections in Genesee County. This dataset was provided by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and provides geographically located employers in Genesee County, their number of employees, and industry codes. Claritas employment data was already updated to the year 2005 matching the base year of the model. (See appendix _ for Claritas Business- Facts® Methodology Report)
This dataset had a higher level of accuracy in reporting employment than the previous dataset used in the 2030 model (2002 base year). The previous model had 150,073 employees geographically located and categorized by industry type. The Claritas dataset has 184,345 employees. 1,234 employees could not be geocoded (located to a place in Genesee County) due to incomplete addresses and other factors. This represented only 0.6% of the total dataset and the majorities of the employees not geocoded were businesses with only one employee and were deemed to not greatly affect the quality of the data. Employees that could not be geographically located were removed from the Genesee County total employment figures to bring the new total employees in Genesee County to 183,111.
To determine the accuracy of the new dataset and as a validation measure, Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission (GCMPC) staff attempted to contact all employers with over 100 employees to determine if the number of employees represented in the dataset were accurate, and if the employees were located in the correct location. Not all employers could be reached or were willing to provide the information. Out of the 209 employers contacted, any reported differences to their employee numbers or to their locations was corrected in the employment database.
GCMPC staff made a special attempt to contact the top 10 employers in Genesee County to get accurate estimates of their employment. These were also adjusted to the dataset.
Overall, the Claritas data was deemed to be fairly reliable. Most employers contacted have employment represented fairly accurately and within about 10 employees of the numbers provided in the Claritas dataset.
Some duplicate entries were removed from the dataset and some employers were no longer operating businesses in Genesee County. After contacting employers a net loss of 3,050 employees were adjusted in the dataset.
Claritas employment before contacting employers: 183,111 employees Employment in Genesee County after contacting employers: 180,061 employees
GCMPC staff coded the employees based on the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes into eight categories using the same categories
2 and definitions as the previous employment estimates from the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. This way the data would be easily comparable between plans and the methodology for determining the categories was determined to be sound and reliable in the previous plan. See the chart on page __ for a description of the NAICS codes and the GCMPC categories. Previous to the NAICS system, employment data was categorized by the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. Some employment forecasts still use the SIC coding system. In order to compare SIC to NAICS datasets the corresponding SIC categories are also included in the table.
GCMPC Model Genesee County Employment Categories Employment Code 1 Manufacturing 2 Other 3 Transportation, Warehousing, and Public Utilities 4 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 5 Retail Trade 6 Wholesale Trade 7 Service 8 Government
3
Genesee County Employment Categories & Corresponding SIC and NAICS Codes
NAICS GCMPC Categories SIC Categories NAICS Titles Codes
Durables 33 Manufacturing Manufacturing Non-Durables 31-32Manufacturing Mining 21 Mining Construction 23 Construction
Agri&For&Fish Other Serv 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Farm 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
Transportation, Trans.&Public Util. 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing Warehousing & Public Utilities 22 Utilities 52 Finance and Insurance Finance, Insurance Fin&Ins&Real Est & Real Estate 53 Real Estate, Rental and Leasing Retail Trade Retail Trade 44-45 Retail Trade Wholesale Trade Wholesale Trade 42 Wholesale Trade 51 Information Professional, Scientific and Technical 54 Services
55 Management of Companies and Enterprises
Administrative, Support, Waste 56 Management and Remediation Services Service Service 61 Educational Services 62 Health Care and Social Assistance
71 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 72 Accommodation and Food Services Other Services (except Public 81 Administration) State and Local 92 Public Administration
Federal Civilian 92 Public Administration Government Federal Military 92 Public Administration
To determine the accuracy of Genesee County’s 2005 Employment Estimates the GCMPC data was compared to other available data sources categorized by industry.
4 Comparisons of Genesee County Employment Data to Other Data Sources by Industry
Claritas Employment GCMPC 2005 CENSUS Woods & Category 2002 (adjusted) 2000 REMI 2005 Poole 2005 BEA 2004
type of code NAICS NAICS NAICS SIC SIC NAICS Manufacturing 25,046 26,617 46,441 28,445 24,463 24,181 Other 7,411 10,697 10,340 15,114 15,069 12,571 Transportation and Public Utilities 3,682 5,308 6,727 7,371 6,568 5,717 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 4,824 12,261 9,122 13,615 14,030 14,242 Retail Trade 20,780 25,701 24,762 43,656 40,940 27,714 Wholesale Trade 5,648 6,635 5,578 8,744 8,110 7,186 Services 73,591 85,494 87,823 78,724 75,901 91,800 Government 5,162 7,348 5,176 27,107 27,137 26,174 Total Workers by Year 146,144 180,061 192,969 222,776 212,218 209,585
Definitions of Data Sources:
GCMPC 2002 - The Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission 2002 base year employment data from the 2020 long-range plan
Claritas 2005 (adjusted) - Claritas Business-Facts® dataset with the changes noted thus far in this report
Census 2000 - Data from the U.S. Census website for the year 2000 www.census.gov This data was determined to be too old to use for our comparisons to 2005 data
REMI 2005 – Regional Economic Models, Incorporated (REMI®) is a private company that provides economic projections, models, and employment data forecasting. This dataset is for 2005. This dataset is based on the SIC code system. The historical data year for this dataset is 2001.
Woods & Poole 2005 - Woods & Poole Economics, Incorporated is an independent firm that specializes in long term county economic and demographic projections. This dataset is for 2005. This dataset is based on the SIC code system. The historical data year for this dataset is 2003.
BEA 2004 – Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce and provides regional economic information by industry. This dataset is based on the NAICS code system. The historical data year for this dataset is 2004.
The employees were geographically located to the corresponding traffic analysis zones (TAZs) based on their industry category.
5 The Model Development Committee (MDC) and staff determined that the Genesee County employment data was too low overall, although employment locations were accurate; it needed to be factored to make up for the gap in total employment. GCMPC staff recommended to the MDC that the best data source for factoring to was BEA. BEA was had the most recent historical data (2004) and the REMI and Woods & Poole data both rely heavily on BEA for their estimates. BEA should be used as a goal for our employment estimate. Since the BEA data was for the year 2004, staff determined that the increase in employment between 2004 and 2005 was 1% and increased the BEA data by 1% in all categories to be comparable with the 2005 Claritas/GCMPC dataset.
Then the percentage change was calculated between the adjusted Claritas 2005 data to the BEA 2005 data. The resulting factor was applied to each of the 467 TAZ in the model for each of the eight employment categories and total employment. The new employment estimates for each category are now within a few employees of the BEA 2005 totals. Factors were applied based on their individual TAZs share of the total employment for each category (see the chart below).
% New Difference Claritas Difference Difference Employment new data Employment 2005 BEA BEA 2005 Claritas to Claritas to Data for to BEA Category (adjusted) 2004 (1% increase) BEA 2005 BEA 2005 GCMPC 2005 Manufacturing 26,617 24,181 24,423 2,194 0.0824 24,433 10 Other 10,697 12,571 12,697 -2,000 -0.1869 12,677 -20 Transportation and Public Utilities 5,308 5,717 5,774 -466 -0.0878 5,768 -6 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 12,261 14,242 14,384 -2,123 -0.1732 14,400 16 Retail Trade 25,701 27,714 27,991 -2,290 -0.0891 27,984 -7 Wholesale Trade 6,635 7,186 7,258 -623 -0.0939 7,244 -14 Services 85,494 91,800 92,718 -7,224 -0.0845 92,713 -5 Government 7,348 26,174 26,436 -19,088 -2.5977 26,443 7 Total Workers by Year 180,061 209,585 211,681 -31,620 211,662 -19
All of the categories seemed within a reasonable range to factor the employment up to BEA per industry per TAZ. The governmental category was alarmingly lower in the Claritas dataset than the BEA data.
Why the government category is so low? Claritas uses each department within a governmental unit as its own geographically located employer. This is useful when not all government employees work out of the same building. The drawback is when this method leaves out a department or under-represents employment overall for a category. We have also found that Claritas left out some of the state and federal governmental employees. Based on these findings we felt it was still reasonable to factor the government employees once it was determined those local units of government and the county, state, and federal agencies were correctly located yet underrepresented.
6
Final 2005 Genesee County Base Year Employment Data
After all adjustments were made, here are the final results for employment in Genesee County mapped by industry. These will be used to create future employment estimates for the 2035 Flint-Genesee County Long Range Transportation Plan and the 2035 Urban Travel Demand Model.
2005 Genesee County Employment by Industry 2005 Genesee County Industry Employment Manufacturing 24,433 Other 12,677 Transportation and Public Utilities 5,768 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 14,400 Retail Trade 27,984 Wholesale Trade 7,244 Services 92,713 Government 26,443 Total Genesee County Employment 211,662
7
Genesee County 2035 Employment Projections Methodology
2005 Genesee County base year employment data was used as a starting point for the 2035 employment projections.
Staff reviewed all available employment projection data sources. Based on consultation with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Genesee County Model Development Committee the 2030 Regional Economic Models Incorporated (REMI) data was used to determine growth rates for each industry which were applied to each TAZ.
REMI data includes a countywide total for employment and by employment sector available in 5-year increments out the year 2030.
Since the out year of the model is 2035 and the REMI data only goes to the year 2030, the growth rate from years 2025 to 2030 was also applied to the years 2031 to 2035.
For use in our employment projections we calculated growth rates for each 5-year period and interpolated the yearly growth rate per industry for each year form 2006- 2035.
The yearly growth factor (a different factor for every 5-year period) was applied to the base year employment data by TAZ by category.
The end result is every TAZ has employment by category by year for every year from 2005-2035.
That is 467 TAZ * 8 employment categories * 31 years = 115,816 records!
The data analysis was done in Excel with a separate spreadsheet for each employment category. The spreadsheet values were copied over into one main spreadsheet that was saved as a DBF4 and can be joined with any TAZ layer by TAZ ID to populate the TAZ database with records for whichever year and type of employment needed.
The following charts and graphs illustrate the changes in employment in Genesee County expected in the next 30 years.
8
2035 Genesee County Employment Projection Assumptions
• Claritas Business Facts dataset supplied by the Michigan Department of Transportation accurately represents the locations, employees and types of current employment in Genesee County for the year 2005. • Staff adjustments to the Claritas Business Facts dataset have increased the accuracy of the dataset. • The employment within the eight categories used by Genesee County reacts in a similar way to fluctuations in the economy per category when compared to the overall county employment. • Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) employment data for 2004 grew by 1% between 2004 and 2005. BEA data by category for Genesee County is accurate for use to adjust employment from the Claritas-based dataset. • 2030 Regional Economic Models Inc (REMI) data for future employment by category in Genesee County is the most accurate data currently available and growth rates per GCMPC category can be derived from this data and applied to Claritas Business Facts based local employment. • Interpolation of the five-year increments of employment data in 2030 REMI can be analyzed to show employment for any given year out to 2035. • Local planning knowledge of future development in Genesee County is a factor that is considered when applying statewide and national data to the local area and adjustments are made where known development is occurring that is not represented in the statewide and national datasets.
9 Genesee County Employment by Industry 2005 - 2035
Employment Category 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Manufacturing 24,433 22,970 20,432 18,962 17,516 16,077 14,763 Other 12,677 13,102 13,693 13,876 13,778 13,804 13,846 Transportation and Public Utilities 5,768 6,075 6,187 6,189 6,053 5,932 5,798 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 14,400 15,117 15,489 15,654 15,453 15,337 15,205 Retail Trade 27,984 28,023 27,966 27,707 27,009 26,553 26,126 Wholesale Trade 7,244 7,164 6,792 6,479 6,090 5,708 5,328 Services 92,713 105,186 112,086 117,666 120,728 124,384 128,129 Government 26,443 26,486 26,461 26,411 26,366 26,427 26,511 Total 211,662 224,123 229,106 232,944 232,993 234,222 235,706 2005 - 2035 Genesee County Employment by Industry
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000 Employees
40,000
20,000
0 Manufacturing Other Transportation Finance, Retail Trade Wholesale Services Government and Public Insurance and Trade Utilities Real Estate 2005 2035 Industry 2005 Genesee County Employment by Industry
Government Manufacturing 12% 12%
Other 6%
Transportation and Public Utilities 3%
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 7%
Retail Trade Services 13% 44%
Wholesale Trade 3% 2035 Genesee County Employment by Industry
Manufacturing Government 6% 11% Other 6% Transportation and Public Utilities 2%
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 6%
Retail Trade 12%
Wholesale Trade 2%
Services 55% Total Employment
240,000 235,706 234,222 235,000 232,944 232,993
229,106 230,000
224,123 225,000
220,000
215,000 Employees 211,662
210,000
205,000
200,000
195,000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Manufacturing
30,000
24,433 25,000 22,970
20,432 20,000 18,962 17,516 16,077 14,763 15,000 Employees
10,000
5,000
0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Other
14,000 13,876 13,846 13,778 13,804 13,800 13,693
13,600
13,400
13,200 13,102
13,000 Employees 12,800 12,677
12,600
12,400
12,200
12,000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Transportation and Public Utilities
6,300
6,187 6,189 6,200
6,075 6,100 6,053
6,000 5,932
5,900
Employees 5,798 5,800 5,768
5,700
5,600
5,500 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
15,800 15,654
15,600 15,489 15,453
15,400 15,337 15,205 15,200 15,117
15,000
14,800
14,600 Employees 14,400 14,400
14,200
14,000
13,800
13,600 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Retail Trade
28,500
27,984 28,023 27,966 28,000 27,707
27,500
27,009 27,000
26,553
Employees 26,500 26,126
26,000
25,500
25,000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Wholesale Trade
8,000 7,244 7,164
7,000 6,792 6,479 6,090 6,000 5,708 5,328
5,000
4,000 Employees
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Services
140,000 128,129 124,384 120,728 117,666 120,000 112,086 105,186
100,000 92,713
80,000
Employees 60,000
40,000
20,000
0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Government
26,550
26,511
26,500 26,486
26,461
26,450 26,443 26,427 26,411
26,400
Employees 26,366
26,350
26,300
26,250 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 29
569 92 155 278 932 132 111 110 19 109 179 30
218 144 368 228 815 141 290 694 122 169 14 2 34 147 302 94 364 117 33 153 471 220 300 148 119
137 3 34 25 4 33 42 29 23 117 89
29 28 59 70 38 70 73 315 495 225 66 30 38 92 312
327 349 33 30 561 146 21 284 187 125 40 39 1140 53 345 344 501 4 177 612 255 108 90 269 176 14 1316 827 29 363 584 582 394 251 124 407 129 161 1240 893 415 933 843 147 288 450 754 18 175 479 401 39 920 295 495 365 169 283 77 126 189 178 45 170 19 1462 1020 1043 336 4 322 86 79 269 251 100 177 281 218 501 174302 138 346 106 120 299 266 448 508 253 57 306 677 182 435 47 216 25 280 40 37 492 40 260 406 966 264 477 118 352 700 79 284 1718 47 77 263 557 139 352 315 79 227 99 99 14 283 375 83 6026 176 833 352 1655 1083 208 163 54 133 1097 1676 1488 216 833 1188 1005 892 210 1261 313 96 950 228 141 111 1863194 242 213 2302 102 1444 120 953 214 1446 130 117 169 320 5161235 315 2951 171 41 1554 529 31 117 766 632 250 188 295 94 976 157 178 488 357 97 279 363 758 170274 136 214 141 504 1069790 499 1432 3094 716 281 1159 30 2654 122 100 326 913 136 38 72 488 290 479 232 199 396 175 148 429 2889 143 93 1731 2662 6204 876 225 89 91 763 646 559 1329 182 396 13 508 10 20 383 1022 34 1021 640 305 789 1049 995 64 45 37 1254 14 336 108 21 153 127 709 56 156 804 467 219 1775 1098 462 87 157 118 62 56 72 1064 192 190 1133 28 311 504 195 93 20 17 1395 944 81 118 184 379 112 170 5 1516 279 141 348 85 1344 642 7
331 34 301 2597 882 118 173 1665 10 514 212 165 202 29 230 283 161 743 260 107 32 292 179 278 166 91 19 63 13 31 38 4473 155
180 13 19 9 32 35 942 764 154
100 120 174
31 Genesee County, Michigan 31 369
405 4 835 2005 Total Employment
263 109 35 2 - 200 1001 - 2000 345 182 377 295 218 201 - 500 2001 - 3000
129 220 949 1041 217 501 - 1000 3001 - 6204 355 511 72 790 84 62 1316 2482 359 µ 673 867 123 = Number of employees 149 238 563 6 Miles 024681 37
335 660 159 119 23 119 110 160 1094 121 32 183 287 155 475 300 870 156 357 745 141
185 160 38 179 444 151 19 2 329 352 494 39 252 196 335 131
34 26 132 4 27 35 170 41 4 52 85
34 48 532 74 44 85 252 39 34 69 58 85 362 92 366
436 34 35 356 121 25 277 606 215 154 46 46 1349 410 634 5 60 190 461 673 300 115 107 1325 961 358 232 19 36 396 574 528 331 166 536 154 208 726 485 1423 1121 165 920 1125 544 803 21 219 567 518 255 1045 47 270 544 393 181 304 97 160 198 35 158 431 2 185 19 1620 1113 1232 400 108 107 359 134 223 255 282 286 225299 174 418 591 132 140 340 439 345 471 402 833 522 59 44 49 786 217 297 271 362 75 31 365 50 514 534 142 306 467 324 879 86 342 1048 48 81 330 620 181 418 353 91 294 118 119 18 342 427 68 3545 218 842 462 1751 249 224 71 111 1412 1963 248 905 1391 1048 924 286 1411 1215 110 1888 1162 269 163 126 2552260 258 359 127 1592 144 1081 243 2928 1921 154 147 200 410 24 685 7091248 3333022 226 282 1835 37 135 117 234 346 99 995 722 181 202 512 304 398 682 469 354 797 263 3138 319 186 1154 854 169 1244 612 1636 218 828 3525 163 116 371 1095 346 1177 33 145 579 340 48 76 3038 578 293 230 437 213 190 182 375 1900 3001 98 118 3756 704 907 300 101 351 803 1746 229 455
14 25 18 447 1109 534 1082 774 881 1120 1066 73 48 348 51 41 19 383 114 21 167 140 846 1383 70 173 917 257 1998 1357 516 104 177 79 551 84 225 134 75 1466 1275 172 298 34 139 484 1073 233 114 22 19 121 330 419 96 221 176 6 1266 766 7 55 211 434 1697 930 410 38 296 3005 1181 128 212 2075 11 199 249 639 217 37 230 310 181 969 241 110 37 366 198 308 192 97 20 72 11 38 44 6242 197
237 13 24 12 31 48 963 922 207
98 105 201 35 Genesee County, Michigan 29 427
375 3 921 2035 Total Employment
287 135 31
400 2 - 200 1001 - 2000 199 490 345 250 201 - 500 2001 - 3000 233 151 1097 290 1224 501 - 1000 3001 - 6242 458619 85 778 80 75 1237 2357 437 882 973 123 = Number of employees µ 192 247 699 7 Miles 024681 Village of Otter Lake
City of Montrose Montrose Township Vienna Township City of Clio Thetford Township Forest Township
Village of Otisville
City of Mt Morris
Genesee Township Flushing Township Mt Morris Township Richfield Township
City of Flushing
City of Davison
City of Flint
Flint Township Davison Township Clayton Township City of Burton
Village of Lennon
Flint Township City of Swartz Creek
Grand Blanc Township
City of Grand Blanc
Gaines Township Mundy Township Village of Goodrich
Atlas Township
Village of Gaines
Genesee County, Michigan
Fenton Township Percent Change in Employment Argentine Township 2005 - 2035 City of Linden -50% - -25% 0.01% - 10% City of Fenton -24.99% - -10% 10.01% - 25% µ -9.99% - 0% 25.01% - 275%
Miles 024681 1
21 11 1 5 6 1 4
4 1 30 14 6
3 2 29 51
4 11
33 29 1 41 1
32 8 5 14 5 2 1 15 8 1 3 1 45 1 5 36 21 8 4 1 25 2 5 52 57 19 31 3 2 1 1 89 1 4 128 5 250 1 2 2 2 3 1 12 2 4 18 2 977 2 109 5 16 3530 11 38 25 11 4 6 49 6 2 55 167 1 2 1 1 5 28 8 4 6 4 10 35 4 24 12 4 2 3 2 166 45 8 22 4 9 5 4 1 21 18 1 1 1 9 4 2 1 7 32 17 1 1 1 6 1 13 22 1 1 3 93 11 10 5 30 3511 36 95 1 4 308 16 4
3 92 26 9 14 1 19 114 2 2 5 2 38 5 16 4 25 2 7 35 11 28 43 68
23 1 4 1 2 588 35 46 5 27 655
49 2 55 2 21
10 10 42 9 1 4 24 2
1 1 1
1 400 406
8 27 Genesee County, Michigan 5 15
92 59 2035 Manufacturing Employment 4
1 1 - 25 201 - 500 1 7 26 - 100 501 - 1000 2 4 10 4 101 - 200 1001 - 3530 2 10 532 5 123 = Number of employees µ 4 1 Miles 024681 44 47 35 20 12 37 54 102 40 47 12 26 14 5 14 7 53 25 1 12
9 8 22 8 10 19 20 2 9 48 5 15 20 42 36
2 7 14 25 1 53 16 13 7
9 16 13 7 13 48 5 16 9 29 15 5
23 16 29 10 4 12 9 21 8 33 10 1 42
58 5 50 15 1 7 132 69 53 75 14 8 96 208 25 12 1 8 58 50 75 477 139 48 51 1 10 41 51 13 13 69 1 10 88 28 54 8 181 33 2 2 30 12 2 9 28 15 1 21 1 9 14 10 9 12 7 15 8 12 19 216 33 101 27 5 7 48 9 4 12 10 126 21 27 4 49 15 4 57 130 5 1 103 10 60 5 10 8 7 10 10 25 29 13 13 16 22 37 57 394 2 101 1 58 42 122 23 20 27 19 34 15 88 27 2 28 61 55 14 9 39 16 10 30 19 26 2 29 20 1 16 20 23 44 14 8 33 10 34 7 19 13 14 125 1 125 42 35 70 75 98 42 141 19 1 64 28 53 25 4 5 51 14 5 2 27 12 61 36 9 2 63 113 40 40 42 242 7 34 1 25 268 9 1 10 10 122
10 33 83 88 78 68 49 181 16 4 30 234 7 1 2 16 26 2 23 22 23 2 10 19 81 23 10 49 12 58 33 26 10 44 111 41 54 15 2 19 35 28 21 16 48 37 53 26 15 1 2 7 2 9 2 2 56 39 84 15 34 4 110 1 5 56 163
20 22 30 20 70 27 109 51 13 60 15 41 12 28 42 13 37 2 15 16 20 46
4 10 15 22 138
26 1 4 27 Genesee County, Michigan 16 119
88 2 87 2035 Other Employment
34 15
7 155 1 - 25 101 - 200 40 60 53 25 26 - 50 201 - 300 51 12 40 51 - 100 301 - 477 15 27 10 14 143 13 58 103 123 = Number of employees µ 23 44 2 Miles 024681 2 86 2 1
1 3 11
14 42
2 3
21
1 1 24 3 2
11 3 2 5 20 11 20 1 1
44 7 2 8 7
3 42
77 29 35 38
25 29 1 41 9 40 3 46 9 37 59 2 27 45 3 20 1 184 1 13 54 20 1 75 67 46 90 8 5 28 4 12 8 2 1 1 41 877 26 110 26 35 2 4 21 25 16 467 2 11 1 2 66 10 21 13 30 28 3 4 24 3 45 16 22 1 20 35 1 2 2 25 1 52 1 5 8 9 53 87 2
42 12 24 546 77 20 1 60 8 2 40 519 11 37 1 13 97 20 3 1 22 2 2 29
16 1 1 4 2 1 20 32
10 5 2
12
5 1 4
37 Genesee County, Michigan 5
10 9 2035 Transportation and Public Utilities Employment 1 - 25 76 - 100
22 26 - 50 101 - 250 21 53 20 16 51 - 75 251 - 877
4 30 µ 8 123 = Number of employees
1 Miles 024681 14 8 4 6 30 69 2 23 5
55 5 9 16 1 9 86 6
5 2 16 5 7 6 34 62 12
12 2 4 24
2 6 15 6 8 13 5 8 14
21 5 9 28 5 14 2 6 42
17 16 42 6 26 28 2 5 4 33 6 6 6 20 7 15 8 7 19 20 9 19 2 106 26 5 51 76 16 4 4 23 4 92 12 4 24 55 16 13 1 36 17 5 221 38 26 1 5 34 86 5 15 45 4 14 102 37 1 8 77 17 36 9 5 56 27 27 6 30 22 1 12 64 122 5 8 33 7 36 27 17 7 1 20 49 27 15 5 12 15 104 158 157 6 13 59 15 26 57 98 5 88 104 21 34 97 16 5 1 43 21 133 57 26 34 1 70 206 28 4 21 15 1 21 2 3644 16 9 77 8 16 7 8 42 36 6 4 5 30 1 1 36 12 30 1 156 101 13 6 65 71 671 7 17 357 5 1 55 23 47 37 12 60 30 17 43 5 58 124 124 8 136 199 66 34 5 1 16 2 135 49 28
37 66 13 26 22 43 30 13 66 30 4 2 2 13 44 172 5 5 30 23 7 34 21 24 4 4 4 99 171 234 8 5 186 36 1 4 34 41 13 6 22 81 74 5 38 12 2 19 98 233 7 34 16 261 5 5 140 31 2 85 17 6 2 77 4 4 1 9 29
4 28 41 15
4 Genesee County, Michigan 5 14 2035 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 128 6 Employment
9 1 - 25 101 - 500 12 8 12 6 26 - 50 501 - 1000 4 2 249 6 91 51 - 100 1001 - 2655 4 162 14 124 7 71 116 60 14 24 123 = Number of employees µ 34 108 1 Miles 024681 3
3 30 8 20 9 10 222 15 104 8 12 31 15 159 4 15 198 27
27 2 73 12 27 18 210 118
22 1 14
10 9 8 3 7 3 25
1 119 22 15 22 2 5 10 7 22 42 56
24 13 5 6 18 5 71 281 31 13 9 137 4 7 19 30 3 147 6 1 5 199 17 6 1 30 31 8 15 4 26 35 10 56 81 43 23 125 3 73 88 5 7 43 14 32 11 113 53 168 163 30 7 8 14 29 20 1 23 2 241 510 111 64 18 1 5 1 20 26 65 10 25 8 17 54 119 23 47 56 15 10 3 102 7 71 67 9 47 25 159 4 12 3 4 58 15 30 93 15 30 27 11 48 29 13 1 27 9 9 21 120 11 15 110 29 5 17 38 4 15 18 316 37 79 1 21 143 88 600 469 242 24 63 148 24 27 42 10 8 60 23 423 7 5 259 52 32 30 34 30 12 4 17 3 15 2 276 12 30 4 4 32 46 129 17 44 24 75 318 58 1221 15 35 71 732 81 15 24 515 15 201 264 863 42 179 32 761 12 36 48 22 1682 79 2 30 6 145 20 10 9 1028 514 103 10 9 44 1 2 5 5 56 4 59 27
18 53 97 98 79 80 10 3 21 113 40 9 136 4 11 54 31 32 3 9 8 1 689 161 48 53 20 30 63 3 127 38 7 394 203 27 6 3 22 30 4 29 13 1 81 31 15 122 8 30 1 17 303 2 44 131 2 5 64 1 45 21 15 8 7 44 22 4 8 30 133 8 2 2 7 22
2 6 13 83 2
6 6 1 Genesee County, Michigan 4 44
24 11 2035 Retail Trade Employment 11 2
32 1 - 50 201 - 500 10 15 80 17 51 - 100 501 - 1000 19 33 132 46 266 101 - 200 1001 - 1682 35 56 3 237 32 12 761 494 34 14 55 123 = Number of employees µ 7 52 55 Miles 024681 1 55 6 27 18 9 2
3 1 1 31 13 10 2 12
16 2 7 10 1 1 21 2
1 1 7
8 6
1 35 1 28 2 2
24 80 1 2 7 1 1 36 3 24 9 12 7 1 1 3 94 3 1 7 18 94 42 28 15 13 1 1 80 16 2 38 16 1 2 12 3 1 7 35 7 8 52147 7 5 1 9 119 21 21 3 1 1 7 1 39 26 2 2 2 6 5 1 39 37 1 4 41 2 28 43 1 24 7 4 1 68 43 6 13 21 4 34 8 6 1 13 15 11 6 11 4 7 11 3 60 3 122 7 1 84 208 24 20 2 1 5 15 32 18 9 4 9 28 51 17 7 4 1 26 24 1 1 6 15 2 1 39 21 8 10 39 57 52 27 1 4 139 3 67 112 20 50 35 26 1 115 50 24 31 1 10 34 6 10 36 55 5 2 23 4 8 1 18 4 21 25 1 1 1 4 20 103 13
49 57 3
2 19 7 3 8 6 7 3 26 6 6 4 2 11 6 1 2 2 3
9 2 5 421 96
2 65 Genesee County, Michigan 5
18 1 42 2035 Wholesale Trade Employment 7 13 1 - 25 101 - 200 16 5 3 1 26 - 50 201 - 300 5 32 8 25 51 - 100 301 - 421 1 6 3 2 13 µ 123 = Number of employees 13 4 10 3 18 1 Miles 024681 33
250 423 103 45 11 58 38 677 34 36 10 48 257 56 393 262 360 99 268 261 96
96 23 19 133 323 126 19 93 102 246 16 184 174 121 41
22 11 67 4 1 18 110 23 33 16
14 34 294 34 23 56 179 34 18 38 45 284 10 217
320 5 19 133 19 11 100 277 140 104 21 38 815 218 479 4 21 103 430 264 199 60 49 25 551 334 206 19 21 107 147 488 298 154 492 110 170 543 313 673 849 337 99 856 356 172 14 176 323 442 37 499 27 102 242 154 59 76 73 122 59 87 15 357 43 3 853 525 782 310 88 103 324 121 181 100 242 151 18752 131 295 349 104 92 166 93 288 77 375 610 378 45 22 32 122 124 174 209 88 63 18 321 37 122 187 87 147 293 209 695 45 221 59 33 310 253 337 154 284 174 43 232 76 73 14 240 201 12 4 158 408 188 223 60 36 172 14 533 1197 11 1732 124 511 724 383 254 280 750 849 66 772 849 161 85 74 239 82 159 2061 84 558 91 624 96 2381 1845 91 122 110 341 709 348 135 210 209 242 1304 566 30 81 254 235 176 213 34 622 305 135 152 95 188 87 321 412 179 183 2048 228 184 324 490 104 589 413 736 177 304 1904 143 196 768 235 341 16 74 78 446 190 34 16 1181 383 250 124 199 165 183 109 54 1706 37 87 920 30 357 353 277 52 27 286 1529 163 242 691 14 15 18 258 236 290 565 545 199 33 22 192 556 51 25 18 217 56 11 103 71 518 565 51 103 411 128 1065 243 69 66 60 372 48 1210 135 82 65 1166 832 48 124 19 82 84 592 141 1 3 41 5 199 295 184 140 4 95 593 563 7 85 228 1339 188 282 3 177 1747 1150 45 128 1466 4 158 453 151 93 34 95 136 56 819 38 14 25 262 69 161 110 18 3 27 22 19 6171 144
223 5 14 12 5 48 79 158 190
15 33 170 7 Genesee County, Michigan 4 234
129 477 2035 Service Employment 91 92 1
187 1 - 100 501 - 1000 60 404 198 137 101 - 200 1001 - 2000 100 65 603 218 782 201 - 500 2001 - 6171 398389 40 403 21 54 401 1055 295 779 382 123 = Number of employees µ 159 143 490 3 Miles 024681 29 29
61 217
40 138
29 123 163
149
61
4 184
300 112
1253 61
134
307 549 213 40 11 224 108 90 220 79 18 29 47 54 29 29 394 43 36 358 18 7 108 380 40 4 1189 29 679 86 195 36 188 29 875 65 380156 108 459 40 300 14 54 2764 14 29 4516 32 18 282 123 545 607 36 94 11 242 22 47
40 36 206 25 112 29
36 29 567 206 398
36 11
72 115
495 47
115
79 58 25 29
Genesee County, Michigan
108 2035 Government Employment
134 36 4 - 25 101 - 500 72 36 26 - 50 501 - 1000 76 51 - 100 1001 - 4516 14 µ 391 123 = Number of employees
Miles 024681
APPENDIX D Methodology
Land Use Methodology
To expand on the analysis completed in 2006, GCMPC has projected the “Built Environment” out the year 2035.
The increased development was calculated using a formula called “per capita land consumption”. Per capita land consumption is calculated by dividing the total area of urbanized land in a given area by the population of that same given area. This calculation was performed for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) in the 2005 base year using the 2006 land use data. This assigned a value (in acres of land consumption) to every added person in the TAZ. Once the per capita land consumption was calculated for each TAZ, this factor was then multiplied by the population added to each TAZ as a result of the 2035 population projection.
Once the total acreage of increased urbanization had been calculated for all TAZ’s, staff then manually added the newly urbanized area, on an acre by acre basis, to each TAZ. The spatial relationship of the new swaths of urbanized land will follow current development patterns, stretching along existing roadways as possible, and eventually filling in behind existing lots in the form of subdivisions. The location of the new urbanized land was drawn from future growth maps provided by each local unit of government.
Scenario Planning Methodology
Each of the 4 scenarios were developed from the 2035 Population and Employment Projections for Genesee County. See appendices B and C respectively of the Land Use Technical Report for a full description of these projections’ methodologies. The Status Quo Scenario is the approved population and employment projections for Genesee County and no other adjustments were made for this scenario.
For each of the other three scenarios, the population and employment estimates began with the approved 2035 population and employment forecasts and were adjusted based on the desired growth patterns the scenario was attempting to replicate. All adjustments were made based on the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) used in the travel demand model. Each of the new scenarios was ran through the travel demand model with the existing road network to see how the different population and employment scenarios would effect congestion and air quality in Genesee County.
Here is a description of the methodology used to develop the scenarios:
Urban Renewal
For the Urban Renewal Scenario, a 5% increase in population and a 10% increase in employment from 2005-2035 was used. Starting with the 2005 population data, a selection set of the urban and central business district (CBD) areas was created from the travel demand model. Population was added to the TAZs in the urban and CBD areas only and increased to 5% growth from 2005. Population increases were distributed based on the 2005 population distribution, largely populated areas received more population and the lesser populated areas received less population. Then in the CBD, additional population was added to account for the new loft apartments, student housing and revitalization of the urban center. All other areas of Genesee County were left with the same 2005 population numbers. For the employment, each of the eight employment categories was treated separately with the overall result of a 10% increase in employment from 2005-2035. Each employment category is growing or declining at a different rate in the 2035 Employment Projections. In the Urban Renewal Scenario the employment categories with growth, the growth was distributed only in the urban and CBD areas weighted based upon the 2005 employment distribution in for each TAZ. For the employment categories with a decline, the decline was taken from all areas of Genesee County weighted based upon their employment distribution for each individual category in 2005.
Hyper Growth
For the Hyper Growth Scenario, a 30 %increase in population and a 30% increase in employment from 2005-2035 was used. Starting with the 2005 population data population was increased in each TAZ based upon the 2005 population distribution county-wide. All zones were treated equally, no additional population was added disproportionate to the 2005 population estimates. For the employment projections, each employment category is growing or declining at a different rate in the 2035 Employment Projections. In the Hyper Growth Scenario the employment categories with growth, the growth was distributed to all areas equally weighted based upon the 2005 employment distribution in for each TAZ. For the employment categories with a decline, the decline was taken from all areas of Genesee County weighted based upon their employment distribution for each individual category in 2005.
Planned Hyper Growth
For Planned Hyper Growth, a 30 %increase in population and a 30% increase in employment from 2005-2035 was used and allocated to the urban and CBD areas of Genesee County. The same methodology was used as the Urban Renewal Scenario, but the growth rates were set at 30%.
Model Analysis
After each set of population and employment data was developed it was input into the TAZ data files for the travel demand model. The model was ran using the 2005 road network for each scenario as a control and the new TAZ data. Outputs of the model were analyzed for congestion, and air quality benefit. The Model Calibration Technical Report describes the process for the model development and the assumptions of the model. The Air Quality Technical Report describes the air quality analyses that were performed. Mobil 6.2 Air Quality Model was used to develop the average daily emissions from each scenario.