Gratiot Corridor Improvement Plan September 2009

prepared for

Southeast Council of Governments (SEMCOG)

in conjunction with

Michigan Department of Transportation Macomb County Planning & Economic Development Commission of Macomb County

prepared by

Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan

The vision for access management along the Components of the Gratiot Avenue corridor is to restore and pre- Gratiot Avenue Corridor serve road capacity, improve safety condi- Improvement Plan tions, and support the long-term vision for 1. An access management plan with expanded regional transit, non-motorized guidelines and site-specific recom- mendations. systems and community sustainability. 2. Accompanying guidelines for coor- Spanning 26 miles in Macomb congestion along several seg- dinating improved transit, non-moro- County, the Gratiot Ave corridor is ments and there are locations tized and community sustainability. flush with opportunities to im- with a relatively high number of prove safety along this key artery crashes. Some of the crashes and 3. Zoning ordinance amendments by retrofitting the existing access, congestion along Gratiot are due to for corridor communities to adopt and redesign of key intersections and conflicts created where vehicles are apply for consistent standards. improving the interaction between entering or exiting access points, motorists, non-motorized users, disruptions to the flow of 4. Consistent protocol for inter-agen- and transit users. Together, the and pedestrians traveling along the cy communication, coordination and communities, county agencies, . to seek funding. Council of Those conflicts, and thus the po- Governments (SEMCOG) and the tential for crashes and congestion, Michigan Department of Transpor- can be reduced through standards tation (MDOT) all acknowledge the on the number, placement, and What is access management? need for a coordinated approach design of access points (intersect- to promote efficient and safe travel Access management involves ing , median crossovers and and livable streets along a vibrant maximizing the existing street capacity commercial driveways). Gratiot business corridor. and reducing potential for crashes Implementation will be a coordi- through limiting the number of access Access management is a key tool to nated effort between the Michigan improve transportation conditions points, carefully placing and spacing Department of Transportation, and safety for all users. The Gratiot access points (commercial driveways the Road Commission of Macomb Ave. Corridor Improvement Plan, and median crossovers), and other County, Macomb County Planning, which focuses on access manage- enhancements. SEMCOG and the nine communities ment, includes guidelines, regula- involved in this process, as devel- tions, and site-specific recommen- opment proposals, road projects, dations to achieve this vision. Who benefits? transit enhancements and other Extensive national and state data Gratiot experiences periodic opportunities arise. demonstrates a number of benefits Photo simulation: Example Recommendation experienced along corridors with access management. A wide range of people benefit, including: • Motorists • Customers • Residents, visitors, and employees • Business owners and operators • Property owners Before: 3 full drives After: 1 channelized drive • Pedestrians and transit users Access Management Principles • Design for efficient access. • Separate the conflict areas. Suburban Fringe / Established • Remove turning Rural Compact Urban vehicles or queues Exurban Suburban Single family, Residential subs/plats, Residential plats, urban Land Use Residential subdivisions, from the through agricultural, redevelop commercial commercial, compact Character commercial strips . commercial nodes strips with infill TOD mixed-use 2 lanes, center turn 2 or 3 to 5 lanes, center 5 or 6 to 8 blvd, 6 or 8 lane blvd with on- • Limit the types of Street lane select locations turn lane some on-street pkg. street parking conflicts. 1-1/2 Mile signals, 455’ drive spacing, retro- Infill access, retro-fit and Retro-fit to reduce • Provide reasonable Access 455’ drive spacing w/ fit to eliminate some new cross-access, esp. number drives, 1-sided service drives access near signals signals & poor offsets signals access. Non- Connect gaps, esp. near Widen , add Pathways Add sidewalks Motorized transit stops pedestrian signals Benefits Frequent bus, potential Frequent bus, potential Transit Demand response Park and ride BRT or express bus, TOD BRT/LRT • Contributes to more redevelopment liveable, vibrant communities. Access Management can apply to • Reduces crash potential. communities in any stage of development. • Preserves or restores Access Management Techniques capacity. Access Placement Intersections, Crosswalks & Signals • Sustains more vibrant • Require space between driveways • Use advanced pedestrian signals business districts. & road intersections • Ensure non-motorized connectivity • Maximizes taxpayer • Ensure new driveways are directly near transit stops and crosswalks investment in road aligned with or properly offset • Design intersections with ‘bump- construction. from driveways across the street outs’ & pedestrian refuge islands • Consolidate closely spaced drives • Maintains or improves • Include pavement markings & texture traffic flow. Access Design Roadway Design • Supports community • Promote cross access between goals along corridor: • Improve design parking areas and to service drives • Provide proper median crossovers non-motorized, • Restrict turning movements (e.g. • Encourage shared cross-access to transit, low-impact right-in/right-out only, etc.) signalized drives or cross streets development & • Require proper radius & • Include service/frontage & others. ample throat depth rear access roads/alleys Project Process | Public Input and Awareness • Project Steering Committee including community, To synchronize the large number of com- munities and transportation agencies Public/Business & county, SEMCOG & state representatives. Property Owners involved, a Technical Group consisting of • 5 public workshops for public education & input the contributing agencies of MDOT, SEM- Planning Commission/ (3/30 - 3/31/09 & 7/23/09). Elected Officials COG and Macomb County was established • Project brochures to help summarize the Plan. North | South to oversee the administration of the plan. Steering Committees • Project web site to provide project information. This group acted as the technical review • Community presentations and public hearings for and coordinating group, and facilitated Technical master plan and zoning ordinance amendments. communication with the steering commit- Group tees, local communities and public. Recommendations

Access management can be accomplished through a variety MDOT’s Access of techniques, both physical Management Guidebook and regulatory. To account serves as the basis for for the physical conditions in the structure and recom- place and provide a guide for mendations in this plan. decisions in the future that may not have been contemplated, Decades of research and the plan includes a wide range comprehensive standards represent best practices from of recommendations, from access management across guidelines for driveway spacing the country. This program and design to site-specific provides flexible, balanced recommendations for future solutions where textbook access or retro-fit closures. Example standards from the plan and conflicts with reality. ordinance amendments. Extensive field work, expert As new development and before deciding what, if any, access management staff, an redevelopment occurs, the site revisions to the number, spacing, involved technical and steering plan review process and MDOT/ or location of driveways or the committees, community County access permit process design of the parking or site outreach and public workshops have common footing with circulation should be changed to all played a role in creation of this plan as they re-review the meet the intent of the plan and the guidelines and site-specific conditions on a particular site ordinance. recommendations in the plan. How Quickly Will Site-Specific Recommendations: Changes Occur? Retrofit vs. New Development ite plan review through “Retro-fit” recommendations refer to devel- Large vacant or redevelopment parcels pro- Seach community will pro- oped sites, where spacing standards of 300+ vide opportunity to plan for properly spaced vide the most opportunity for feet are infeasible (usually due to narrow lot and design access when new development implementation; the amount width). When reviewing the access configura- occurs. Although the plan provides guidelines and speed of private invest- tion for retro-fit, several factors come into play for spacing, the project team examined condi- ment requiring site plans often that form a hierarchy of conditions and oppor- tions on and adjacent to these site to develop dictates if and when changes tunities to look for when considering changes: specific locations for future access points and occur. Other corridors with • Driveways close to signalized intersections. conceptual alternatives for service drives and similar projects in place have connections. Considerations for site-specific seen a steady pace, generally • Sites with more than one driveway. recommendations for new development 20-30% implemented within include: • Corner sites that could access an adjacent 10 years. More on implemen- • Location of driveways on the opposite side side street or service drive. tation on page 4. of the street (to line up future driveways). • Adjacent parking areas that could be • Design of median crossovers, where ap- connected to eliminate excess drives and/ plicable. or provide options for customers to cross between sites. • Site topography and natural features for access and service drive location. • Area layout that could provide room for front or rear service drives to provide access • Location and design of current or planned to multiple businesses via one drive. signalized intersection(s).

• Zoning/planned use of sites.

Retro-fit recommendations for fast food uses. Recommendations for new development site. Implementation

Implementation Opportunities Over time, opportunities for implementation by the local community, MDOT and the MCRC include: • New development site. • A change in use or expansion on an existing site. • Any project that requires a Getting Started: Set Up CAMP! site plan review. No matter the level of development, Access Management can improve future safety and travel operations on Gratiot Avenue. Doing so is as simple as setting • Road reconstruction or up a CAMP to implement plan recommendations and techniques: resurfacing. • Streetscape enhancement ommunity: Recommendations tailored to the character and conditions projects. C in your community. ccess: Access points and driveways can contribute to congestion • Pilot or demonstration and decline in safety; safe access supports vibrant business. projects using special A Managing the number, placement and design of access funding. anagement: points results in a safer road, better traffic flow and an im- • Use of a local funding M proved business environment. source, like a DDA, to rogram: Planning for development/redevelopment positions com- cover some or all of the P munities to implement access management strategies as expense associated with opportunities arise - pilot projects get the ball rolling more closing or consolidating quickly! driveways.

Community and Agency Role Improving access is accomplished through dedication to access management and gradual but persistent implementation of the plan’s recommendations. Responsibility to ensure proper access design falls on the shoulders of both the regulating road agency (MDOT and RCMC) and each community. The following actions support continued vigilance in implementing this plan: • Community - apply to Site Plan Review • Road agency (MDOT or RCMC) - apply to an Access Permit • Together - coordinated pursuit of funding opportunities for implementation • Other agencies (SMART, SEMCOG, RTCC) - apply during planning, design, and policy decisions along the corridor

Want More Information? Visit the project web site: www.accessgratiot.info, contact your community, or contact: SEMCOG: Jennifer Evans MDOT: Macomb TSC RCMC: Plan Review Engineer www.semcog.org www.michigan.gov/mdot www.rcmcweb.org 313.961.4266 313.961.4266 586.463.8671

[Glossary]

Definition of Terms Access Point: Commercial driveways (e.g. retail, office, industrial, etc.) and platted roadways or private roads, and generally not including driveways for individual single family homes.

Access Management: A series of techniques and standards to maximize the existing street capacity, reduce potential for crashes and improve overall corridor conditions by reducing or limiting the number of access points, carefully placing and spacing access points and ensuring good access design.

Capacity: The volume of vehicles the road was designed to carry in a unit of time, such as a “peak” hour.

Computer Traffic Modeling (Also called Microsimulation): A traffic model is a computerized tool that represents and analyzes the primary methods and ways of travel. Usually this tool is a software package which incorporates the roadway system (i.e. laneage), intersection vehicular volumes, and signal timings to determine the amount of congestion along the corridor or intersections. The model is calibrated to existing traffic counts and future traffic volumes can be inputted to test the effect of changes in the road network. This project used the Synchro/SimTraffic modeling program. Screen image from 23 Mile Rd. traffic simulation

Page G.1 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Conflict point: The location where traffic streams, moving in different directions, interfere with each other, i.e., merging, diverging and crossing, and create the potential for a crash.

Crash (reported): A vehicular accident that is reported and recorded by local or state police. • Link Crash: Any crash not within 150 feet of a signalized intersection. • Sideswipe Same: a collision involving vehicles traveling in the same direction, where the crash impacts the side of one or both vehicles. • Rear-end: a collision involving two (or more) vehicles traveling the same direction where one vehicle crashes into the rear end of the other. • Single MV: A crash involving only one vehicle. Each new driveway adds to the number • Head-On: A collision involving two vehicles traveling in opposite of conflict points along a street at directions where the crash impacts the front of one or both vehicles. which a traffic crash could occur. • Sideswipe Opposite: A collision involving vehicles traveling in the Source: MDOT “Improving Driveways opposite direction, where the crash impacts the side of one or both and Access Management in Michigan,” vehicles. 1996. • Angle: A collision involving two vehicles where one vehicle crashes into the side of the other. • Head-on Left: A collision involving two vehicles traveling opposite directions where one vehicle is making a left-turn maneuver and the crash impacts the front of one or both vehicles. • Intersection Crash: Any crash within 150 feet of a signalized intersection.

Cross-access: The means by which adjacent sites can traverse the parking and maneuvering areas of each other’s site, thereby eliminating the need to re-enter the public road to access a neighboring site. Cross-access is usually conveyed through mutual easements or use agreements.

Driveway offsets: The distance between the centerlines of driveways or streets across the street from one another.

Geometric Driveway Design: The various elements of driveways including driveway width, throat depth, turning radii, slope and construction methods.

Indirect Left (also called a Michigan Left): A type of turn that requires Driveway offsets. drivers to drive through an intersection (or turn right in some cases), and turn around in a median crossover then turn right onto the destination roadway (or if the movement begins with a right turn, to continue straight to the destination roadway).

Level of Service (LOS): A rating of A through F that summarizes transportation operating conditions or the amount of delay that is experienced by drivers. It is usually used to describe a section of road or an intersection as experienced by drivers, but can also be applied for users of

Page G.2 [G l o s s a r y ] other modes of transportation.

Low Impact Design (LID): LID is an ecologically friendly approach to site development and storm water management that aims to mitigate development impacts to land, water, and air. The approach emphasizes the integration of site design and planning techniques that conserve natural systems and hydrologic functions on a site. The practice has been successfully integrated into many municipal development codes and storm water management ordinances throughout the United States.

Median: A raised island within the road right-of-way that divides the travel lanes along corridors, reduces crashes and improves turning by directing all traffic in one direction.

Median Crossover (direct): A break in the median island that allows for vehicles traveling in one direction to cross the median and turn to travel the opposite direction. Direct crossovers allow vehicles to turn directly into a driveway or intersecting road.

Median Crossover (indirect): A break in the median island that allows for vehicles traveling in one direction to cross the median and turn to travel the opposite direction.

Mid-block crossings: A pedestrian road crossing that is not located at a signalized intersection. Mid-block crossings may be signed or signaled, but only for sake of allowing pedestrians to cross the travel portion of the road.

Mode of Transportation: A type of travel, whether on foot (pedestrian), on a bicycle, in an automobile, bus, transit or other means of transportation.

Non-motorized: A transportation mode not using motorized vehicles, e.g., walking, bicycling, and roller-blading.

Park and Ride Lots: Parking lots located at the outskirts of urbanized or congested areas that offer convenient parking facilities and regular transit service between the lot and riders’ destinations.

Right-of-Way (ROW): Easements, land and/or property acquired for or devoted to transportation purposes.

Roundabout: An intersection design alternative to traffic signals or stop signs. Rather, a circular traffic pattern is established that directs entering vehicles in a counter-clockwise direction and allows them to merge with other vehicles in the and then turn intersecting streets or complete a through movement. Roundabout.

Shared Driveway: Use of a single driveway to access multiple development sites.

Page G.3 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Streetscape: The design of roads and equipment, such as lights, landscaping, and benches located within the right-of-way usually intended to improve or enhance the road appearance and usability.

Traffic Count: A record of the number of vehicles, people aboard vehicles, or both, that pass a given checkpoint during a given time period. The count can be based on physical observations, in-street counters or by Streetscape elements can include camera. decorative streetlights, pavers, and other ornamentation. Travel Lane: Portion of the road between the center line and where vehicles or bicycles are permitted to operate, but where parking is prohibited.

Traffic Volume: The number of vehicles that actually pass through a given point along a street or through an intersection. May be counted for a full day or “peak” hours.

Page G.4 Acknowledgments

Project Sponsors Steering Committee Members Clinton Township: • Carlo Santia, Director of Planning and Community Development • Joseph Silbernagel, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development

Chesterfield Township: • Lt. Dave Marker • Janice Giese, Planning and Zoning Administrator • Cheryl Printz, Planning Commissioner

City of Eastpointe: • Steve Horstman, Economic Development Director • Darwin Parks, City Manager

City of Mt. Clemens: Technical Group Members • Gerald Cottrell, City Commissioner • MDOT • Jeff Wood, Public Services Director • Bonnie McInerney, Community Development • SEMCOG Director • Macomb County Department of Planning and Economic Development City of Richmond: • Road Commission of Macomb County • Troy Jeschke, Planning and Economic Development • SMART Director • RTCC (Regional Transit Coordination Council) • Jon Moore, City Manager

City of Roseville: • Stephen A. Truman, City Manager • John Surhigh, Planning Commissioner • Glenn Sexton, Building Director & Zoning Administrator

Lenox Township: • Chuck Stremersch, Planning Commission Consultant Team Chairperson • Lou Ianitelli, Planning Commissioner

Macomb Township: • Michael D. Koehs, CMC, Township Clerk • Jerry Schmeiser, Township Planner • Roger Krzeminski, Township Trustee

Village of New Haven: • Kenneth Roberts, Village Trustee • Robert Panelle, Village Trustee

Page i

Table of [Contents]

1 Introduction 5-13 Community-Specific Recommendations Purpose and Primary Goal 1.1 City of Eastpointe 5.1 Study Area 1.2 City of Roseville 6.1 Corridor Conditions 1.3 Clinton Township 7.1 Preparation of this Plan 1.4 City of Mt. Clemens 8.1 Methodologies 1.5 Macomb Township 9.1 Plan Implementation 1.7 Chesterfield Township 10.1 2 Access Management Guidelines Village of New Haven 11.1 What is Access Management? 2.1 Lenox Township 12.1 Benefits of Access Management 2.2 City of Richmond 13.1 Benefits of this Planning Effort 2.2 Access Management Principles 2.3 Tools and Techniques 2.4 Local Support and Planning Considerations 2.7 3 Non-Motorized and Transit Guidelines Non-Motorized Access Guidelines 3.2 Transit Access Guidelines 3.4 Green Infrastructure Guidelines 3.6 Local Support and Considerations 3.7 4 Implementation How to Use the Corridor Improvement Plan Chapters 4.1 Implementation of the Plan Standards and Recommendations 4.1 Community and Agency Role in the Plan 4.4 Site Plan Access Review and Approval Procedure 4.5 Other Implementation Opportunities 4.6

Page iii

Chapter 1: [Introduction]

Purpose and Primary Goal This corridor improvement plan and associated zoning ordinance provisions are intended to improve safety and traffic operations along the Gratiot Avenue corridor in Macomb County. Gratiot experiences This corridor improvement plan will periodic congestion along several segments and there are locations with help address questions like: a relatively high number of crashes. Some of the crashes and congestion • How can access be designed to along Gratiot are due to conflicts created where vehicles are entering or improve safety and traffic flow exiting access points, disruptions to the flow of traffic and pedestrians while still providing reasonable traveling along the street. Those conflicts, and thus the potential for access to adjacent land uses? crashes and congestion, can be reduced through standards on the • What are the benefits of access number, placement, and design of access points (intersecting streets, management? median crossovers and commercial driveways). • What access-related Along developed segments, access management will be implemented improvements should be made? over time as opportunities arise or redevelopment occurs; along • When and how are access less developed segments modern spacing standards will be applied as improvements made? And by new development is proposed. Implementation will be a coordinated whom? effort between the Michigan Department of Transportation, the Road • How can we reduce the impact of Commission of Macomb County, and the nine communities involved in redevelopment? this process. • How can access management While access management benefits are most obvious to motorists, there make the corridor more are many beneficiaries. Several communities along the corridor have convenient for those walking, biking and riding transit? policies to make walking and biking more convenient. Multiple regional

Page 1.1 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

transit agencies envision improved transit opportunities along the corridor For the purposes of this plan, a crash is an accident in the future. Access management supports those endeavors since fewer reported and recorded by conflicts will improve the environment for all modes of transportation. local or state police. Businesses, especially those along congested segments, can also benefit since access to their location can be safer and more convenient for customers. In addition, in some locations, recommendations may allow “extra” driveways to be replaced with parking. Finally, businesses, motorists and the general public can benefit from long-term payback of “greening” the corridor by using “low impact design,” both as part of improvements within the right-of-way and within redevelopment of properties along Gratiot Ave.

Study Area Gratiot Ave. is one of six major avenues (along with Fort, Michigan, Grand River, Woodward and Jefferson) planned by Judge Augustus Woodward Main St. (M-19) in 1805 that Hallextend Rd. outward in a “spoke” pattern from downtown . 31 Mile Richmond Gratiot Ave. was(M-59) establishedClinton in Twp 1835 as the prime route leading to Fort 30 Mile N River Rd. Gratiot nearCass PortAve. Huron. GratiotMt. Ave. was originally designated as M-19, 29 Mile Lenox Clemens 28 Mile Township until 1926, when implementation of the U.S. system converted 16 Mile 27 Mile most of the study area to HighwayClinton M-3. While designations of the corridor 15 Mile Township 26 Mile New have changed over time, Gratiot Ave. remains a major link between Haven 14 Mile 25 Mile Macomb13 Mile County and the cities of Detroit and Port Huron. 24 Mile 12 Mile Roseville 23 Mile RCMC Jurisdiction Chester eld Township The11 Mile study area for this project includes frontage properties along Gratiot 22 Mile 10Ave. Mile between 8 Mile and County Line Rd., M-3 (23 Mile Rd.) as it turns 21 Mile 9 Mile Eastpointe 8east Mile from Gratiot Ave. along 23 Mile Rd. to I-94, and M-19 (New Haven Hall Rd. Macomb Township (M-59) (M-102)Rd.) from Gratiot Ave. east to I-94. Portions of Gratiot Ave are signed M-3 North Plan Segment - MDOT/RCMC Jur. and M-19, which is all under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Transportation. Between 23 Mile Rd. and New Haven Rd. (in between Main St. (M-19) Hall Rd. where M-3 and M-19 enter/exit the corridor), the Road Commission of 31 Mile Richmond (M-59) Clinton Twp Macomb County has jurisdiction. For the intent of this project, those 30 Mile N River Rd. Cass Ave. Mt. collective road segments are defined as the “Gratiot Corridor.” 29 Mile Lenox Clemens 28 Mile Township 16 Mile 27 Mile Clinton Today, large numbers of residents, students, employees, and business 15 Mile Township 26 Mile New Haven 14 Mile owners live, work, shop, attend class, and visit key destinations along the 25 Mile 13 Mile corridor. Among the key destinations are the Macomb Mall, downtown 24 Mile 12 Mile Roseville Mount Clemens (the county seat), and the Selfridge Air National Guard Chester eld 23 Mile 11 Mile Township Base. The Gratiot corridor serves as the key transportation corridor for 22 Mile 10 Mile moving significant automobile traffic, commercial goods, and many 21 Mile 9 Mile Eastpointe 8 Mile Hall Rd. Macomb Township pedestrians and bicyclists, and transit users. (M-59) (M-102) South Plan Segment - MDOT Jurisdiction Led by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), and Macomb County, The most important aspect of this process the project steering committee identified opportunities to improve safety is the recognition that effective and timely communication between the cities, along this corridor. This includes retrofitting the existing access systems in townships, county agencies, and MDOT, developed areas and planning and management of access in undeveloped both now and into the future, is the key to or growing areas in advance of development. Results will also improve the successful implementation. interaction between motorists, non-motorized and transit users, and will

Page 1.2 [Introduction] complement efforts to incorporate “green infrastructure” throughout the plan area.

The cities of Eastpointe, Roseville, Mount Clemens, Richmond; the townships of Clinton, Macomb, Chesterfield, Lenox; the village of New Haven; the Road Commission of Macomb County (RCMC); and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), all have jurisdiction over or along the corridor either in the right-of-way or outside the right-of-way. All recognize the need for a coordinated approach for efficient and safe travel for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. In addition, the corridor needs to serve as a catalyst for redevelopment consistent with the intended character. To that end, access management is recognized as a key tool to improve transportation conditions and safety for all users.

Corridor Conditions Gratiot Ave. is characterized by a mix of urban, suburban and rural environments that are representative of the land use trends existent when each community was developed. The range of urban, suburban and rural development found along the corridor provides the framework upon which the recommendations of this plan were prepared. In recognition of these distinctions, the study area was split into two segments, each with its own separate plan based on the same principles of access management and similar guidelines. The divergent nature of development in these two segments demands different planning and regulatory approaches.

Suburban Fringe / Established Rural Compact Urban Exurban Suburban

Single family, Residential subs/plats, Residential plats, urban Land Use Residential subdivisions, agricultural, redevelop commercial commercial, compact commercial strips Character commercial nodes strips with infill TOD mixed-use 2 lanes, center turn 2 or 3 to 5 lanes, center 5 or 6 to 8 lane blvd, 6 or 8 lane blvd with on- Street lane select locations turn lane some on-street pkg. street parking 1-1/2 Mile signals, 455’ drive spacing, retro- Infill access, retro-fit and Retro-fit to reduce Access 455’ drive spacing w/ fit to eliminate some new cross-access, esp. number drives, 1-sided service drives access near signals signals & poor offsets signals Non- Connect gaps, esp. near Widen sidewalks, add Pathways Add sidewalks Motorized transit stops pedestrian signals Frequent bus, potential Frequent bus, potential Transit Demand response Park and ride BRT or express bus, TOD BRT/LRT redevelopment Page 1.3 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

South Gratiot Corridor Improvement Plan Segment The southern segment of the corridor, including those portions of Gratiot Ave. south of M-59, represents the more developed portion of the corridor. It includes the cities of Eastpointe, Roseville and Mount Clemens, in addition to the highly developed portions of Clinton Township.

North Gratiot Corridor Improvement Plan Segment Communities north of M-59 are generally not as urban as those located to the south. The townships of Chesterfield, Lenox and Macomb, the village of New Haven and the city of Richmond are included in this portion of the corridor.

Preparation of this Plan To synchronize the large number of communities and transportation agencies involved, a Technical Group consisting of the contributing agencies of MDOT, SEMCOG and Macomb County was established to Public/Business & oversee the administration of the plan. This group acted as the technical Property Owners review and coordinating group, and facilitated communication with the Planning Commission/ local communities and the public. Elected Officials In addition to the Technical Group, two separate Steering Committees North | South Steering Committees were formed consisting of representatives from each of the nine communities along the corridor. Both Steering Committees met to review the issues, provide suggestions on draft recommendations, and assist in Technical distribution of information to the public, organizations and local officials. Group This plan considered future land use plans and other initiatives planned within the local communities and between various committees and PlanTechnical Organizational Group: Chart agencies along the corridor. Where appropriate, meetings with local • Michigan Department of Transportation communities, planning commissions, and other groups were convened to (MDOT) • Macomb County Planning and Economic discuss plan recommendations and draft zoning ordinance amendments. Development Department • Southeast Michigan Council of This plan was developed over 14 months and included a series of meetings Governments (SEMCOG) • Road Commission of Macomb County with the public and individual local communities and agencies. The public (RCMC) involvement process included two public workshops held at the Lenox • Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) Township Hall on March 30, 2009, and the Eastpointe City Hall on March • Regional Transit Coordinating Council 31, 2009. Those open houses began with presentations on the benefits of improved access management. Drafts of the plan recommendations and Steering Committee Members: North Segment Communities: concepts for select intersections were displayed in an “open house” setting • Macomb Township with Technical Group members available to answer questions. Comments • Chesterfield Township by the public, local officials, and the MDOT staff were considered and many • Village of New Haven • Lenox Township were incorporated into the final recommendations. • City of Richmond South Segment Communities: • City of Eastpointe • City of Roseville • Clinton Township • City of Mount Clemens

Page 1.4 [Introduction]

Methodologies Access Management This plan was developed after carrying out a site-by-site review of the corridor that considered access, natural features, site design, land use, planned land use, zoning, and crash data. The MDOT Access Management Guidebook, which includes decades of research and statistics supporting access management from around the country, forms a solid base for formulating draft recommendations for reducing the number of drives and promoting the benefits of access management. The experience of the consultant team coupled with input from the public, Technical Group, Steering Committees, and local boards and commissions was instrumental in creating a corridor improvement plan that serves the needs of the nine local communities.

Crash Analysis and Concepts Crashes along the corridor were divided into intersection crashes and link crashes. Any crashes within 150 feet of a signalized intersection were considered to be intersection crashes and crash rates at these locations were compared to SEMCOG’s critical intersection crash rates for the southeast Michigan region. This plan is based on the research and Intersection crash rates were also calculated and compared to the SEMCOG standards in the MDOT Access Management critical crash rates for intersections in the Detroit metropolitan area. Only Guidebook. This project builds on one intersection, Gratiot Ave. at 11 Mile Rd. exceeded the critical crash rate. Guidebook standards and provides Crash types at this intersection are discussed in the Roseville section of the balanced solutions where textbook conflicts with reality. report.

To evaluate the link crashes, Gratiot Ave. was divided into unsignalized segments of no more than ¼ mile in length. Since SEMCOG has not Critical Crash Rate is a threshold calculated critical crash rates for links, critical crash rates specific to Gratiot established by SEMCOG based on crash Ave. were calculated based on all the crash data for the roadway. Figure rates (number of crashes compared 1.1 presents the critical link crash rates, by link Average Daily Traffic (ADT), to amount of traffic) at intersections relative to the rest of the links on Gratiot. It was found that the critical across the region. Along the Gratiot Ave. crash rate differed significantly by the amount of vehicles on the roadway, Corridor, only the intersection of I-696/11 Mile Rd. and Gratiot had a critical crash therefore, the critical crash rate is categorized by average daily traffic. rate.

Figure 1.1: Critical Crash Rates for Gratiot Ave. Links Average Daily Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is the number Traffic 1 - 20,000 20,001 – 30,000 30,001+ of vehicles that traverse a segment of Number of Links 88 94 58 roadway over a typical 24-hour period. Number of Crashes 499 876 559 Average Crash Frequency 5.67 9.13 9.64 Critical Crash Frequency 8.00 11.69 11.78 Critical Crash Rate 3.19 3.45 2.42

The crash rate and frequency calculated for each link was then compared to the critical crash rate and frequency calculated for the corridor. Critical

Page 1.5 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

links were thus identified and crash types along these links were evaluated to see if there were any access management related patterns to the crashes. Again, SEMCOG does not calculate critical crash type percentages for links as they do for intersections. Therefore, critical crash type percentages were calculated for and two-way links by average daily traffic. Figure 1.2 presents these critical percentages.

The crash rate, number of crashes, and crash type percentages are presented for each community in separate chapters. Where applicable, discussion of possible causes for these crash patterns and mitigation suggestions are provided.

Figure 1.2: Critical Crash Percentages for Gratiot Avenue Links Crash Type Head-On+ Angle + Number of Single Sideswipe Head-on Sideswipe Uncoded + ADT Range Links Vehicle Opposite Left Rear-end Same Other Total Two-Way 1-20,000 46 45 / 26% 7 / 4% 34 / 20% 61 / 36% 9 / 5% 15 / 9% 171 20,001+ 35 38 / 8% 18 / 4% 231 / 47% 145 / 29% 50 / 10% 9 / 2% 491 Boulevard 1-20,000 42 34 / 10% 0 / 0% 108 / 33% 84 / 26% 85 / 26% 18 / 5% 329 20,001-30,000 75 65 / 11% 2 / 0.3% 117 / 20% 252 / 43% 134 / 22.7% 17 / 3% 587 30,001+ 42 34 / 10% 2 / 1% 78 / 23% 148 / 44% 67 / 20% 7 / 2% 336

# / #% = Number of Crashes / Percentages of Crashes

Intersection Evaluation In discussion with local municipalities, a number of intersections along the corridor were suggested for further study. At these locations, field visits were performed, and existing conditions were modeled in Synchro/ SimTraffic, a microsimulation software package. Depending on the issues raised, signal timings and geometric conditions were modified to improve operations, safety, or both under existing traffic conditions. Future traffic volumes were obtained from the SEMCOG model for the year 2030. The proposed alternatives were then evaluated under these future traffic volumes.

Non-motorized and Transit To allow a comprehensive evaluation of transportation, existing transit and continuity and major gaps in non-motorized facilities were identified along the corridor.

Most of the Gratiot corridor is served by public transportation, including SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) that offers bus routes throughout Macomb County.

In addition to existing bus transit, the Regional Transit Coordinating Council (RTCC) has designated the corridor for arterial rapid transit with

Page 1.6 [Introduction]

plans to introduce bus rapid transit and more intense transit (based on ridership) in the future. This plan considered several aspects of access and transit facilities in the recommendations including:

• Promote dense land use and design. • Reduce/eliminate conflict points around stations. • Fully connect sidewalks and paths within 1/4 mile of stations. • Provide safe crossings to and from stations.

Green Infrastructure Stormwater management has historically been addressed from an engineering standpoint, to manage the quantity of runoff and prevent What is Green Infrastructure? flooding, but the quality of stormwater runoff can also be managed From a stormwater management by applying green infrastructure techniques. From a stormwater perspective, green infrastructure is an management perspective, green infrastructure, also referred to as low alternative stormwater system that incorporates low impact development impact development (LID), is the application of techniques that emulates (LID) applications intended to emulate the the natural water cycle. LID uses a basic principle modeled after nature: natural water cycle and manage rainfall manage rainfall by using design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, by using design techniques that infiltrate, evaporate, and detain runoff close to its source. Instead of conveying and filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff close to its source. managing/treating stormwater in large, costly, end-of-pipe facilities often located in drainage areas, LID addresses stormwater through smaller, more cost-effective landscape features.

This plan provides a policy framework rather than site-specific recommendations for both LID planning and engineering techniques. These techniques should be considered as part of the menu of other potential improvements when there is a change to a site plan or a proposed new development to determine if there are ways to better address stormwater runoff.

Plan Implementation Successful implementation of the plan’s recommendations will require continued coordination between the local communities, county transit agencies, MDOT, and local quasi-public organizations like the various Implementation Opportunities downtown development authorities (DDAs). Therefore this access • Any project that requires a site plan management program fosters a collaborative approach so all the various review. groups are working together to achieve the same plan. • Road reconstruction (including resurfacing in some cases). • Road expansion or reconfiguration. This access management program includes not only amending community • New development or redevelopment master plans to include this plan but also adoption of zoning ordinance of a site. amendments by each community to provide consistent regulations. • Streetscape enhancement projects. Custom-tailoring of specific details, such as triggers for implementation • Provision of new or expanded transit for a change in use, expansion or redevelopment, were based on input service. • Establishment of a local or county and discussion with officials from each community and MDOT staff. Both funding source to cover some or all of the plan and ordinances provide some flexibility to respond to new the expense associated with closing information and conditions in the future. or consolidating driveways.

A model flow chart illustrating coordination and the review process between each local community and agencies for project applications is

Page 1.7 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

included at the end of Chapter 4: Implementation. The plan and standards in the ordinances will be endorsed and used by MDOT, SEMCOG and RCMC, to guide development and road improvements along the corridor.

Page 1.8 Chapter 2: [Access Management] Guidelines

Numerous studies in Michigan and nationwide have shown that a proliferation of driveways or an uncontrolled driveway environment can increase the number and severity of crashes, reduce capacity of the street, and create a need for more costly improvements in the future. Areas where access management plans have been adopted and implemented by the communities and road agencies have resulted in 25-50 percent reductions in access-related crashes (Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board).

Access management techniques are used to improve transportation What is Access operations and increase safety along road corridors for all types of Management? transportation while maintaining reasonable access to properties. It involves maximizing the existing street capacity and improving the corridor for transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians by reducing and Access management involves limiting the number of access points, careful placing and spacing of access maximizing the existing street capacity points (commercial driveways), and provision of non-motorized facilities and improving the corridor for transit, where missing. bicyclists, and pedestrians by reducing or limiting the number of access points, carefully placing and spacing access In the State of Michigan, access management has been in practice for points (commercial driveways), and over two decades. In 1999, MDOT commissioned a task force to research, other enhancements. discuss, and organize best practices on access management, and officially adopted a statewide guide, known as The Access Management Guidebook, in 2001. That document and its foundation in significant

Page 2.1 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

national research and statistics form the basis for this plan’s standards and recommendations.

Access management is not new in Macomb County either. The RCMC has been successfully applying access management to both residential and commercial development throughout the county for several years, and many of the local communities along Gratiot have adopted access management standards for all or portions of their community.

Benefits of Access By considering the relationship between access points along a roadway, Management motorists, non-motorized users, transit riders, communities, residents and businesses along the corridor all stand to benefit. National experience and case studies of other corridors have shown that access management can:

The terms “access” and “access • Reduce crash potential by regulating the placement, spacing, and point” are used frequently throughout this document; these terms refer to design of future access points and by redesigning existing ones as commercial driveways (e.g. retail, office, opportunities arise. industrial, etc.) and platted roadways or private roads but generally do not refer • Maintain or increase travel efficiency by reducing or eliminating to driveways for individual single family access points that unnecessarily slow traffic and create additional homes. emmissions.

• Provide landowners with reasonable access to their property, though in some cases the number of access points may be fewer or more Access management is achieved by: indirect than those that currently exist.

• Reducing the overall number of • Boost local property values and increase the vitality of adjacent access points businesses by reducing congestion and improving business visibility. • Optimizing the location of bus stops • Improve air quality by reducing the need to brake and accelerate, • Connecting key gaps in non- eliminating unnecessary vehicle idling, and promoting alternative motorized facilities travel options. • Properly spacing access points • Appling geometric design • Increasing shared access • Enhance access to and from businesses, both in terms of safety and systems convenience. • Lessen the need for costly road widening or other major improvements by maximizing the efficiency and volume of traffic.

Benefits of this Planning While application of access management can provide the above Effort benefits, merits of the planning process are often overlooked. Bringing communities together into a joint planning effort increases opportunities for information sharing and cross-education. It is also helpful in educating the public, especially those directly impacted by the plan’s recommendations. This planning effort can help to:

• Provide information on the benefits of access management and the

Page 2.2 [Access Management Guidelines]

various implementation techniques to assist local and county officials in their planning efforts.

• Promote continued coordination and communication between the MDOT, RCMC, local governments, the public, and transit providers during the development review process.

• Inform property owners, business operators, potential developers, and the general public about access management, its benefits, the rationale for recommendations, and how it is applied over time.

• Increase the timeliness of development reviews through advance planning, clear and consistent protocol and early coordination with local communities and business owners.

• Educate communities and property owners about green infrastructure techniques, benefits and implementation, which if applied will support other corridor goals to improve safety, aesthetics, and enhance pedestrian, non-motorized and transit environments.

To achieve prescribed benefits, access guidelines must recognize the Access Management following principles: Principles

• Design for efficient access. Identify driveway design criteria that promote safe and efficient ingress and egress at driveways, while considering the interaction with pedestrians and bicyclists.

• Separate the conflict areas. Reduce the number of driveways, increase the spacing between driveways and between driveways and intersections, and reduce the number of poorly aligned driveways.

• Remove turning vehicles or queues from the through lanes. Reduce both the frequency and severity of conflicts by providing separate paths and storage areas for turning vehicles and queues.

• Limit the types of conflicts. Reduce the frequency of conflicts or reduce the area of conflict at some or all driveways by limiting or preventing certain kinds of maneuvers.

• Provide reasonable access. Recognize that property owners have an inherent right to access public roadways, although reasonable access may be indirect in some instances.

Optimum driveway spacing simplifies driving by reducing the amount of information to which a driver must react. Adequate spacing between Each new driveway adds to the number driveways and unsignalized roadways (or other driveways) can reduce of conflict points along a street at confusion that otherwise requires drivers to watch for ingress and egress which a traffic crash could occur. Source: MDOT “Improving Driveways traffic at several points simultaneously while controlling their vehicle and and Access Management in Michigan,” monitoring other traffic ahead and behind them. Reducing the amount of 1996. information related to selecting an access point and avoiding conflicting turns and traffic provides greater opportunity to see and safely react to Page 2.3 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

automobiles in the street and pedestrians and bicyclists on pathways and sidewalks.

The following section discusses the key access design guidelines that were used during the analysis of the Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan. The specific ways in which these criteria or standards have been applied to particular communities and sites along the corridor is outlined in the following chapters.

Tools and Techniques Access management can be accomplished through a variety of techniques, both physical and regulatory. Specific recommendations that consider Increasing spacing between existing access points along Gratiot and potential new ones are illustrated adjacent driveways and cross streets on a series of drawings contained within the chapter for each community. can reduce congestion and crash Recommendations and regulations are based on the following techniques. potential, especially near signalized intersections. • Driveway Spacing from Other Driveways: Driveways need to provide adequate spacing from other driveways to ensure that turning movement conflicts are minimized. Generally, the higher the posted speed limit, the greater the driveway spacing needed.

Spacing standards recommended for this corridor are based upon MDOT guidelines for minimum distances between driveways, centerline to centerline (shown in the table to the left). The posted Minimum Driveway Spacing speed limits in spring 2009 for the corridor are illustrated on the recommendations maps. Posted Min. (MPH) Spacing • Limit Number of Access Points: The number of access points to a 25 130 feet development should be limited to one where possible. Every effort 30 185 feet 35 245 feet should be made to limit the number of driveways; and encourage 40 300 feet access off side streets, service drives, frontage roads, shared parking 45 350 feet areas, and shared driveways. Certain developments generate enough 50+ 455 feet traffic to consider allowing more than one driveway and larger parcels Source: MDOT Access Management with frontages that are wide enough to meet spacing standards may Guidebook, 2001. also warrant an additional driveway.

• Driveway Spacing from Intersections: Driveways need to be spaced far enough from intersections to ensure that traffic entering or exiting a driveway does not conflict with intersection traffic. Typical standards take into account the type of roadways involved, type of intersection control, and type of access requested.

For state trunkline roadways such as this corridor that have speed limits of 30 to 40+ miles an hour, full movement driveways should typically be at least 230 feet away from a signalized intersection (460 feet in 40 mph zones) and 115 to 230 feet away from unsignalized intersections.

Above: data from the National • Design of Access Points: The geometric design of access points, Highway Institute indicates that most including the width, throat, radius, and pavement type, should meet driveway crashes involve left-turn current standards wherever possible to promote smooth transition to movements

Page 2.4 [Access Management Guidelines]

and from Gratiot at driveways.

• Shared Driveways and Cross-Access: Sharing or joint use of a driveway by two or more property owners should be encouraged. This will require a written easement from all affected property owners before or during the site plan approval process. Where future shared access is desired, the developer should construct a ‘stub’ drive up to the property line (with access easement) or initiate a floating cross- access easement that will be reciprocated by adjacent development in the future to facilitate an easy connection when opportunities arise on adjacent property.

• Promote Service Drives: Frontage drives, rear service drives, and shared driveways should be used to minimize the number of driveways, while preserving the property owner’s right to reasonable access. Such facilities provide customers with access to multiple shopping/commercial sites without re-entering the main roadway. In areas within one-quarter mile of existing or future signal locations, access to individual properties should be provided via these alternative access methods first, rather than by direct connection to a major arterial. Above: rear service drives and shared driveways are important techniques In areas where service drives are proposed or recommended, to reduce the number of access points, but adjacent properties have not yet developed, the site should especially near cross streets. be designed to accommodate a future service drive, with access Below: the success of different types easements provided. The local municipalities / MDOT / RCMC may of shared drives, roads, and parking temporarily grant individual properties a direct connection to Gratiot connections are dependent on lot Ave. until the or service drive is constructed. The direct depth, building placement, and access point to the main roadway should be closed when the frontage parking configuration. road or service drive is constructed. In any case, care should be taken to minimize any negative traffic impacts of service drive connections to residential side streets.

A critical design element of service drives, especially frontage roads, is the amount of space between the through traffic lane and the service drive (also known as throat depth or storage space). For shared access drives providing access to two small commercial uses, the throat/ storage depth should be at least 40 feet. For drives providing access to more than two small commercial uses, the throat/storage depth should be at least 60-100 feet (potentially more depending on the trip generation of the land uses served).

Rear service drives are often preferred over frontage drives because they do not create issues with driveway depth and facilitate placing parking to the rear of buildings and moving the buildings closer to the road. Additionally, rear service drives have the potential for integrated access and circulation with other development further to the rear of deeper development areas, such as office or residential areas. Several areas along the Gratiot Ave. corridor have many contiguous deep lots where most development area is on the front 200’ of the lot. This arrangement may facilitate the development of a rear service

Page 2.5 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

drive, , or future public road to provide rear access to businesses fronting Gratiot Ave. and direct access to land areas beyond the new drive.

Service drives are usually constructed and maintained by the property owner or an association of adjacent owners. The service drive itself should be constructed to public roadway standards in regard to cross section (ie. 22-30 feet wide), materials, design, and alignment. Parking along service drives is discouraged, as it can interfere with internal circulation and access to the arterial. In some cases where space or existing conditions warrant, all or portions of a service drive may consist of connected parking drive aisles across multiple properties.

• Driveway Alignment and Offsets Relative to Other Driveways: On corridor segments or cross streets without a center median, driveways should be aligned with those across the street or offset a sufficient distance to prevent left turn turning movement conflicts. Minimum offsets on the corridor should be determined by posted speeds and range from 325 feet for a 30-mile per hour zone to 750 feet in a 55- mile per hour zone.

• Median Crossover Spacing and Alignment: Generally, 75% of all crashes related to access are associated with left turns in or out of a site. Where medians exist, driveways are functionally right-in/right- out only, which reduces the potential for crashes. Thus, the most important dimensions focus on spacing from signalized intersections Driveways located too close to median and from median crossovers. For those segments on the corridor crossovers cause weaving that can that have a center median (or may in the future), driveways should increase congestion and crashes. be sufficiently spaced from median crossovers to reduce the need for vehicle weaving over a short distance between an access point and median crossovers, or vice versa. The standard MDOT offset distance is determined by posted speeds and ranges from 525 feet for a 40-mile per hour zone to 750 feet in a 50+mile per hour zone. That preferred distance is not likely to be practical along Gratiot Ave.; therefore, Advantages of Center Medians access decisions for development within 500 feet of a crossover should involve the road agency and community so access is located as • Reduced delay and better far from the crossover as practical. Agenices should collaborate on site progression for through traffic on the major arterial. design review near crossovers to determine what solution presents • Increased capacity at the main the best opportunity to reduce crash potential. intersection. • Fewer stops for through traffic. • New Median Design Concept: Center medians have been shown • Reduced risk to crossing to improve traffic movement and reduce crash potential on high pedestrians. volume corridors by eliminating left turns into individual properties, • Fewer and more separated conflict points. all benefits experienced in the south segment of the corridor and • Two-phase signal control allows elsewhere in southeast Michigan. Wide center medians with shorter cycle lengths, thereby directional crossovers (indirect left turns) are currently located in permitting more flexibility in Eastpointe, Roseville and the south part of Clinton Township. This traffic signal progression. wide median includes a “Michigan Left” that allows most vehicles Source: U.S. Federal Highway to complete a U-turn fairly easily. As more intense development in Administration the north portions of the corridor leads to increased traffic volumes

Page 2.6 [Access Management Guidelines]

along Gratiot, the construction of medians may become a desirable option. In certain portions of the corridor, some types of median will likely not be feasible due to existing right-of-way widths and existing access patterns. In some cases, a more narrow median with direct left turns could be considered where right-of-way is limited, speeds are moderate, and left turns by larger vehicles can be accommodated.

• Internal Connections to Public System: Sites should be designed to include internal sidewalks or pathways that are clearly marked and located at a prominent location to encourage use, but clearly separated or otherwise protected from driveway and internal circulation lanes. This is especially important for segments of the corridor that have higher densities of residential nearby or where senior oriented residential developments are located that generally have a higher amount of sidewalk traffic to and from businesses.

Other Access Standards Implementation of the above access guidelines will help to maximize the utility of the right-of-way, preserve capacity, increase safety for all modes, and increase the useful life of the plan corridor. In addition to location and number, the geometric design of access points is also important to the overall operation of a corridor.

Local Support and Achieving improved access is accomplished through dedication to access management and persistent implementation of this plan’s Planning Considerations recommendations. Once the plan is complete, the responsibility to ensure proper access design falls on the shoulders of both the regulating road agency and each local community. It is imperative that local officials understand the basis for, benefits of and procedural demands of access management. Equally important is coordination between these agencies and communities to ensure everyone’s needs are considered. The following actions support continued vigilance in implementing this plan:

• Adopt the plan into the master plan.

• Adopt appropriate ordinance amendments.

• In advance of development, consider those places where pre-planning of service drives or secondary side streets can help with access. Due to the complex relationship between public jurisdiction in • Continue coordination with other corridor communities and road and and adjacent to the right-of- transit agencies. way, coordination between local communities and the road agency • Regularly meet to review and, if necessary, update the plan as (and transit providers, where conditions change. applicable) is key to coordinated decisions on access design.

Page 2.7 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Page 2.8 Chapter 3: [Non-Motorized and Transit] Guidelines

The focus of this Corridor Improvement Plan is to address access-related issues along the Gratiot Ave. corridor. However, as access is improved over time, communities should also consider other ways to enhance the corridor. These can include ways to make Gratiot Ave. more walkable and convenient for transit users. Redevelopment within sites and reconstruction within the road right-of-way also provides opportunities to apply “green infrastructure” techniques to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff. These improvement concepts are described in this chapter.

Many of the more urban communities along the Gratiot Ave. corridor are served by sidewalks, bike paths and transit service. The cities of Eastpointe, Roseville, Mount Clemens and Richmond have generally continuous sidewalk systems along both sides of Gratiot Ave. Communities with larger areas of undeveloped land (mostly in the northern segments) have sidewalks along frontage of some, often more recent, developments, but have many gaps that can make navigating the corridor difficult. As development along the corridor continues and transit service is planned to expand, the importance of a connected non-motorized system increases.

As properties along the Gratiot corridor continue to develop and redevelop, and as regional transit options are considered, investment should be balanced to ensure non-motorized infrastructure is in place, complemented by green infrastructure where feasible, to connect transit and community destinations with businesses and homes. The following sections outline site and access design considerations to support safe

Page 3.1 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

access for non-motorized and transit facilities, and explains how use of green infrastructure and low impact development (LID) concepts can enhance them.

The amount of non-motorized and transit use will depend on the local context and design of local facilities. Providing pedestrian-friendly streets is critical to encouraging use of other options because they prioritize the pedestrian and bicyclist and improve the comfort level of users. For instance, residents of the northern segments are less likely to ride their bikes along Gratiot since there are no existing sidewalks or pathways. Other areas in the southern segment have sidewalks in need of repair, or transit stops in need of additional amenities. This plan seeks to improve the existing non-motorized systems in the southern segment and augment the system in the northern segment, all while encouraging improvements that will interface with regional transit plans and benefit future transit riders. The following sections summarize access design considerations and local initiatives toward enhancing transit and non- motorized activity and improving the natural environment and suggest additional tools and policies that local communities can implement to support them.

Non-Motorized Access Guidelines Regional Trail Systems The planned Stony Creek to Metro Beach Trail extends southeast from the Stony Creek Metropark in Shelby Township to the Metro Beach Metropark in Harrison Township. While several gaps still exist, the oldest

Macomb County Non-Motorized Trail Network portion crosses Gratiot Ave. connecting 16 Mile Rd. to Metro Beach. Local MEMPHIS communities should pursue connections to destinations along Gratiot

RICHMOND TWP Ave. near the Trail, even as far north as Mt. Clemens or Macomb Mall to the ARMADA TWP BRUCE TWP ARMADA south. RICHMOND

LENOX TWP RAY TWP Macomb County recently developed the Macomb Orchard Trail, which WASHINGTON TWP

NEW HAVEN connects Shelby Township northeast through Washington, Bruce and Armada Townships, through the Village of Armada, then southeast NEW BALTIMORE CHESTERFIELD TWP SHELBY TWP MACOMB TWP through Richmond Township and terminates in the City of Richmond. The path terminates just west of Gratiot Ave., at the intersection of Main St. and UTICA Division Ave. Sidewalks along Main St. generally connect the trail to MOUNT CLEMENS HARRISON TWP CLINTON TWP STERLING HGTS Gratiot Ave., and with some improvement, signs and/or paths could be developed along Division Ave. to create a clearer or more substantial FRASER / Legend Gratiot Avenue connection. WARREN ROSEVILLE Municipal Boundaries

ST CLAIR SHORES Non-Motorized Trail Netowrk CENTERLINE Built EASTPOINTE Proposed LAKE TWP The Gratiot corridor has the potential to connect the Orchard and Stony Source: Macomb County Planning Creek Metro trails over time if non-motorized facilities are properly planned. In some communities, sidewalks and pathways exist that can connect pedestrians and bicyclists to the regional trails; connectivity should be reviewed and gaps filled where feasible.

Page 3.2 [Non-Motorized and Transit Access Guidelines]

Local Sidewalk/Pathway Systems Most of the non-motorized system along Gratiot Ave. consists of sidewalks installed over time in conjunction with development. The more urban communities along Gratiot Ave. have generally continuous sidewalk systems. The southern segment of the study in particular contains complete sidewalk systems that connect local neighborhoods to commercial businesses and downtown areas. Some of the townships along the corridor have gaps in their sidewalks that hinders non-motorized navigation. Where activity areas generate pedestrian traffic, such as schools, public places or transit stops, pedestrians have been observed to unsafely cross Gratiot away from crosswalks.

Non-Motorized Access Design Guidelines While providing sidewalks and pathways is a common goal, designing any non-motorized system requires careful planning that considers safety, efficiency, convenience and cost v. benefit. It is important to provide clearly delineated areas both along the corridor and within private commercial developments, especially in areas where vehicular traffic is high. When planning for future non-motorized systems, communities should follow the guidelines listed below.

• Design Access Points in Consideration of Pedestrians/Bicyclists. The geometric design of access points, including the width, throat, radius, and pavement type, should all include consideration of the interaction with off-street non-motorized users. Excessively wide driveways with little or no separation from off-street parking areas and broad, sweeping driveway provide an unprotected non-motorized environment that lacks clear definition for turning movements and increases the amount of time a pedestrian or bicyclist is exposed to traffic. Driveways should include a clear-vision zone at the entrance, free of visual obstructions like shrubs, signs, utility boxes, or other barriers.

• Delineate Driveway Crossings. Sidewalk or pathway crossings of driveways should be clearly delineated. For higher volume areas (traffic or pedestrian) the crossing could be striped or constructed of durable contrasting material. Textured or colored are good options since they can withstand vehicular weight while attracting the attention of motorists. Maintenance of crosswalk markings should be made a condition of site plans, just like maintenance of parking lot striping.

• Mid-block Non-Motorized Crossings. Gratiot is the county’s highest volume transit corridor and therefore presents a great need for safe non-motorized crossings. In cases where signalized intersections are a significant distance apart, additional mid-block non-motorized crossings should be considered to provide safe, visible crossings. While mid-block crossings are more common in urban areas where vehicles are traveling at slower speeds, newer design technologies and more advanced signalization options are now available to facilitate

Page 3.3 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

mid-block non-motorized crossings. Mid-block crossings could be considered near school sites, key transit stops or other locations that attract relatively high volumes of pedestrian and bicycle traffic across Gratiot Ave. due to the likelihood that non-motorized users will try to cross mid-block.

One example where a mid-block enhanced and/or signalized crosswalk could be evaluated is adjacent to New Haven High School which is located on the east side of Gratiot Ave. Students regularly cross Gratiot to visit commercial businesses on the west side. There are no nearby signalized intersections and many students cross the road at unsafe locations.

• Non-Motorized System Connectivity. As Macomb County moves Above: a mid-block non-motorized toward more advanced transit service along Gratiot, corridor crossing should include multiple communities should assess the connectivity of their local non- elements to increase visibility and distinguish the crossing area from motorized system. Some bus stop locations in the north do not the roadway, similar to the treatment provide adequate connections to public sidewalks to local businesses shown here. or park and ride lots. These basic connections are needed not only to support transit, but to increase safety of non-motorized travel. Over time, communities should seek to provide a continuous system of sidewalks and pathways along the entire Gratiot Corridor.

• Accommodate Bicyclists. Non-motorized systems must also accommodate bicycle activity. Amenities like bicycle storage, staging areas, and rest spots should be included in community-wide non- motorized systems. Bike traffic can be accommodated along Gratiot by off-street, multi-use pathways. Due to the high speeds and traffic volumes along Gratiot, this plan suggests that bike routes and/or on-street bike lanes be provided along parallel corridors for those desiring to commute or otherwise bike along the corridor.

Transit Access Guidelines Combined with the economic downtown, higher fuel prices and more “transit friendly” attitudes by younger workers have led to more focus on transit opportunities in the region both generally and specifically along Gratiot. This section provides an overview of the Regional Transit Concepts planned for the south segment of the corridor by the Regional Transit Coordinating Council (RTCC) and discusses the transit access design criteria to support existing and future transit facilities.

Regional Transit Concepts In it’s 2008 Comprehensive Regional Transit Service Plan, RTCC outlines transit improvements throughout the region through the year 2035, including Gratiot Ave. as one of three potential Light Rail Transit corridors. Communities can maximize benefit of future transit investment by allowing A phased approach toward light rail is envisioned to begin with enhanced/ pedestrian-oriented development express bus service (referred to as Arterial Rapid Transit) that may lead to around transit and development Bus Rapid Transit and possibly a light rail or streetcar system. Light Rail nodes. Transit along Gratiot from downtown Detroit to M-59 by 2035 is part of a

Page 3.4 [Non-Motorized and Transit Access Guidelines] long-range plan for the region.

Transit Access Design Guidelines The following is a summary of transit facilities standards related to access management to support transit and pedestrian flow, especially around higher use transit stops.

• Improve Visibility and Safety of Transit Stop Locations. The location of transit stops along the entire corridor should continue to be evaluated regularly by SMART to improve bus stop spacing and respond to changes in ridership. Bus stop designations should consider the relationship to nearby access points, the visibility of a stopped bus to approaching traffic, and the proximity of crossing points for boarding and de-boarding riders to cross Gratiot Ave.

• Non-Motorized Connectivity to Transit Stops. Successful transit depends upon a connected non-motorized system in the areas around transit stops. Many existing bus stops do not include sidewalks and amenities to provide a comfortable experience for transit riders. In some cases, bus stops are simply marked only by a SMART sign at a Source: RTCC Regional Transit Plan location lacking basic features, such as a sidewalk connection or hard surface to stand on when waiting for a bus. In some cases during the BRT stands for Bus Rapid Transit, winter months, pedestrians are forced to stand in the travel lanes of which uses surface roads to the roadway to find an area clear of snow. accommodate faster, more comfortable bus service. BRT vehicles look like a train, but are Furthermore, the need for new mid-block non-motorized crossings more versatile and lower cost than may emerge where high volumes of pedestrian and bicycle traffic rail systems because they can run on need to cross Gratiot to access transit stops. While higher volume existing roads. transit stops should be located near existing signalized crossings when possible, the need for additional signalized crosswalks near key LRT, or Light Rail Transit, operates on a fixed rail, but is more maneuverable transit stops should be monitored. than traditional railroad equipment. LRT is more reliable because the • Park and Ride Access. Efficient, convenient access to park and ride system is usually separate from and facilities, especially those served by an internal or enhanced bus stop, not vulnerable to heavy vehicular should be given priority relative to other access points. Addressing traffic, but are generally more the absence of sidewalk-connected Park and Ride lots in high traffic expensive due to dedicated right-of- way and rail system. areas north of M-59 is a top priority to encourage traveler choices.

• Reduce Walking Distances to Local Destinations and Commercial Nodes. When discussing “walkability,” planners often refer to the commonly accepted threshold of a quarter mile, or 5 minute walk, after which a pedestrian is more likely to drive or use other modes of transportation. As transit service is enhanced, corridor communities and road agencies should promote more compact development around key transit stops while diversifying transportation spending to accommodate all modes.

• Consideration of Alternate Transit Modes. The location and design of access points and parking areas should consider future alternate/ advanced transit. Driveways should generally by limited in the vicinity of transit stops to help prevent conflicts. Source: U.S. DOT - FTA

Page 3.5 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Green Infrastructure As previously mentioned, incorporating green infrastructure with access Guidelines management improvements provides numerous benefits to property owners, regulatory agencies and the general public:

• Reduces municipal infrastructure and utility maintenance costs (e.g., streets, curbs, gutters, storm sewers). • Reduces stormwater runoff volume and improves stormwater quality. • Increases energy and cost savings for heating, cooling, irrigation. • Protects community character/aesthetics. • Reduces salt usage and snow removal on paved surfaces. • Protects/restores the water quality of rivers and lakes. • Improves air quality. • Improves urban wildlife and habitat opportunities.

Stormwater systems are expensive to build and maintain. Techniques to lessen the amount of runoff and its rate of flow can help reduce those costs. Stormwater runoff along this corridor has historically been directed to privately-owned and municipally-owned storm sewer systems with little regard for the volume, flow and especially the quality of the water. Improved water quality benefits the environment and can help reduce the need for these costly hardscape improvements that have the added benefit of more appealing landscapes. Design options to consider include use of rain gardens, native plant species, street trees (i.e. Planter Boxes, Tree Pits), bioswales and porous pavement. In many cases, these beneficial design alternatives offer a significant long-term cost savings, even when factoring in some additional maintenance costs.

The guidelines below should be considered as part of any site plan review. Download SEMCOG’s Low Impact Similar to the recommended practice for a review of access points, each Development Manual for Michigan at http://www.semcog.org/ community’s site plan review process should provide a mechanism for a LowImpactDevelopment.aspx stormwater management plan review when significant site modifications are proposed.

Green Infrastructure Design Guidelines

While discussion of green infrastructure is provided in a general context within this plan, the design of these systems is very site specific. While low impact design is encouraged wherever it can be applied along the corridor, it is specifically warranted in areas where vegetation may be installed in lieu of impervious surfaces (i.e. pavement). In all situations, a clear understanding of the regulatory authorities that may require review, approval and permitting for green infrastructure techniques is necessary. For more detailed design criteria, please review SEMCOG’s Low Impact Development Manual (A Design Guide for Implementation and Reviewers).

• Bioretention (Rain Gardens) & Bioswales should be considered in areas between the new or existing sidewalk where driveways are removed and in areas where the road median is relocated or enlarged.

Page 3.6 [Non-Motorized and Transit Access Guidelines]

It is important to clearly define the drainage area and the stormwater volume that will be managed. For larger drainage areas, a series of rain gardens should be considered and in all situations, an overflow should be provided for larger rain events. Plant species should be salt tolerant, provide aesthetic benefits and be low maintenance. Sidewalks should be designed to direct runoff into these areas, and maintenance agreements should be included as part of any approval.

• Native Street Tree Planters are recommended where earth is disturbed due to the removal or relocation of a driveway or median crossover. Maximizing exposed soil around the tree will facilitate water infiltration; however, tree grates and planter options can be applied in more urban or high pedestrian traffic areas. Street tree species should be varied to minimize the potential of invasive threats.

• Porous pavement may be considered instead of previous applications (i.e. asphalt or concrete) in parking areas or the road gutter. To function properly, porous pavement requires adequate subsurface soil conditions, overflow connection to a storm sewer or other final discharge location and routine vacuum maintenance. Porous Top: Streetscape raingardens could pavement should not be installed in areas where there is a potential be implemented where driveways are for soil contamination. elliminated. Bottom: Pervious pavers could be used as a porous alternative to traditional pavement in parking lanes to reduce runoff. Images source: SEMCOG

Local Support and When implemented in community planning, the following strategies Considerations support goals for both transit and more walk able communities:

• Plan for and zone for a density of residents and employees to support transit, especially in the vicinity of major transit stops. • Allow Mixed Use in transit areas. • Create a Destination around transit stops. • Make transit stops a focal point. • Create non-motorized links to points of interest. • Improve the streetscape, including elements that calm traffic and improve aesthetics for auto and non-motorized users alike. • Ensure pedestrian/bicyclist connectivity between bus stops and nearby destinations. • Incorporate a “greening” strategy with other access changes as an integral element contributing to more livable streets.

Page 3.7 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Page 3.8 Chapter 4: [Implementation]

How to Use the Corridor Access management, non-motorized and transit recommendations for Improvement Plan Chapters specific sites within the overall plan area are described and illustrated in the following chapters by community. The numbering of maps starts at the southern end of the plan segments (south: Eight Mile Road (M-102) in Eastpointe; north: Hall Road (M-59) in Macomb Township) and proceed northerly through the plan segments.

Each community chapter begins with an inventory of existing conditions, problems, and opportunities, and concludes with parcel-specific illustrative recommendations for improving access and adjacent non- motorized and transit facilities along the corridor. The illustrative recommendations should be used in concert with Chapters 1-3, which provide standards and guidelines for new development or redevelopment not specifically addressed in the illustrative plan.

A successful access management program includes three components: Implementation of the Plan Standards and 1. A corridor improvement plan with guidelines and site-specific Recommendations recommendations (this Plan).

2. Zoning ordinance amendments for local communities in the

Page 4.1 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Incremental Implementation Process study area to enact consistent standards and solidify the plan’s role in Site Plan Reviews.

3. Consistent protocol for inter-agency communication and coordination in transportation and land use along the corridor.

This Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan is based on both state and nationally recognized standards. The plan makes recommendations for developing and implementing standards to be used for future access considerations. It also identifies specific recommendations for improvements to existing access systems that will reduce crash potential and provide better efficiency throughout the corridor. These recommendations are typically referred to as “retrofit” access improvements. As these improvements are made over time, simultaneous review of stormwater systems is also needed to determine the amount of low impact design or green infrastructure that can be applied.

While the highly developed nature of some communities within the plan corridor makes it difficult to implement the optimal access spacing standards in those communities, the goal still is to minimize the number of driveways as much as possible with additional consideration of the interaction between access points and non-motorized and transit users.

In many cases, especially where driveways already exist, not all the MDOT standards can be met. In most cases, the hierarchy should be:

For areas with a median: 1. Maximize spacing from signalized intersections. 2. Ensure sufficient spacing from crossovers. 3. Maximize spacing from other driveways.

For non-median areas: 1. Maximize spacing from signalized intersections. 2. Line up directly with, or provide sufficient offset from, access across the street. 3. Maximize spacing from other driveways on the same side of the street.

Where minimums are not practical, access should be located to maximize the spacing. In some cases, a shared access system should be considered.

To provide a legal basis for requiring access design in site plan review, each community’ should incorporate the plan recommendations and standards by reference, via ordinance amendment and organize and consolidate all access-related standards and review procedures in the local codes. In addition to the inherent flexibility of this Plan, the zoning ordinance amendments adopted by each community include the ability for Planning

Page 4.2 [Implementation]

Commissions to modify the standards on a case-by-case basis, with the guidance of the plan recommendations where applicable. Standards and plan recommendations can be modified during site plan review, provided the intent of the standards and/or recommendations is being met to the maximum extent practical on the site.

When community officials review a development proposal for a specific property, additional information should be shown on the site plan or lot split request including the dimensions between proposed access points and existing ones on adjacent properties along both sides of the street. This can help in evaluating if the recommended spacing can be met consistent with the zoning requirements. For lot splits or phased projects with outlots, the community should require an overall access system plan to illustrate how individual sites will be linked rather than each having individual access points. That access system should be clearly approved as part of the site plan, including any access easements or recording of access restrictions on the outlots. Recommendations are based on Retrofit recommendations in the following chapters of the plan will only published standards and a specific be possible when an owner or developer volunteers or triggers an access review of conditions along the Gratiot Avenue Corridor in 2009. Like other review with MDOT, the RCMC, and/or local communities during another aspects of the Master Plan, this approval process. Others may be implemented through other programs corridor plan is intended to be used as and incentives, outlined in the implementation opportunities section, from a guide to reference during review of a the townships, cities, county, and MDOT to assist businesses with the costs development proposal. of closing and reconstructing driveways. Planning Commissions and those involved in access permit review should In some cases, where a service drive to link businesses is a long-range consider this Plan but can vary from alternative, temporary access may need to be approved. The site plan the standards when warranted, such as if conditions have occurred or there is should include a note that the driveway is temporary and will be removed new information related to a particular by the owner upon availability of a shared access system in the future. location. For example, in some cases Location for a shared access connection should be shown on the site a community and MDOT may agree plan and an “access agreement” provided to allow construction of that to close a different driveway than connection in the future including the responsibility for initial construction recommended, or to change the access design rather than close it. costs and on-going maintenance. Liability usually is absorbed by the individual property owners. There may also be opportunities with a major redevelopment to reduce the number of existing driveways more In addition to standards, specific recommendations, and ordinance dramatically than illustrated. The language for implementation, this project has gone beyond the typical overall goal is for practical application exercises of an access management project both in its incorporation of consistent with the overall intent to non-motorized, transit and green infrastructure considerations and its reduce the number of access points and conceptualization and consideration of the potential positive impacts of eliminate or redesign those that have the most potential to impede traffic flow coordinated public and private investment along the corridor. or cause crashes.

A coordinated and comprehensive access management approach is essential if future development and redevelopment in the plan area is to be accommodated and traffic safety and flow in the area is to be improved. Development decisions along the plan corridor are under the purview of several agencies.

This plan is a flexible document that is subject to adjustments and

Page 4.3 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

improvements as the plan corridor develops or redevelops. Although the basic design parameters should remain in place, exact locations and configurations of driveways and service/frontage roads may shift as development plans come into focus.

Community and Agency Role in the Plan Successful implementation of the recommendations in the Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan requires a partnership between the local communities, road and other agencies, transit providers, developers and the public to accommodate planned development along the corridor while reducing the negative impacts of unorganized and poorly design access.

While some of the recommendations in this plan can be directly Local Community Role: implemented, many are long-term initiatives that will require an on-going partnership and commitment between the members of the Steering • Maintain and Update Plan every Committee. To keep local officials and boards aware of the benefits of 5 years as part of the Master Plan review. access management and their role in implementation, this plan includes an informational ‘road show’ that can be presented by Steering Committee • Cooperatie with Macomb County members, complete with an informational project/access management and other local communities toward corridor-wide implementation. brochure and a PowerPoint presentation.

• Coordinate with RCMC and/or MDOT Recognizing that several areas of transition between local communities on development reviews along Gratiot exist along the corridor, a pro-active approach to collaboration on projects Ave. and plans is essential. Successful coordination will help create smoother • Work with SEMCOG toward transition across the boundaries, while providing for both a high quality implementing green infrastructure image for the corridor and unique identity for each community. opportunities along the corridor. Larger development projects that cross or are within ¼ mile of a community boundary should include a review by both communities early in the project process. This important step is reflected in the Access Review/Approval Procedure Flow Chart later in this Chapter. In addition, special attention should be paid to the interaction of access points, non- motorized facilities, and transit facilities at and around these transition areas when making decisions.

The local communities have jurisdiction over land use planning, zoning, site plan and subdivision review outside the corridor right-of-way. The cities and village have full jurisdiction on side streets, the Road Commission of Macomb County has jurisdiction over the township roads, and MDOT has control over improvements within the corridor right- of-way. This complex network of agencies makes a formal, mutually agreed upon access approval procedure a critical element for the future implementation and success of this plan.

Page 4.4 [Implementation]

The flow chart illustrated in this Chapter outlines the recommended Site Plan Access Review and process to be followed in reviewing a typical development proposal or Approval Procedure situation that triggers access review along the plan corridor. It provides for a coordinated review by the cities, village, townships, RCMC, and MDOT. The intent of the process is to ensure that local government review of the access design and the RCMC and/or MDOT access permit processes are coordinated to implement the recommendations of this plan and realize the maximum benefits of access management. The process provides feedback loops between the planning commissions and RCMC/MDOT as modifications are made to access and circulation.

Figure 4.2: Site Plan Access Review/Approval Procedure Flow Chart

Site Plan Access Review/Approval Procedure Flow Chart

Applicant submits site plan (and Traffic Impact Study (TIS), if required) to the community (If within 1/4 Mile of boundary, send copy to adjacent community) Macomb County Planning

Community staff ensures road agency SEMCOG & has copy of application materials and ins Macomb aware of timing for any input. Community County Drain reviews for compliance with AM Plan and Commission AM ordinance regulations. If standards If request requires are met modification from AM Standard Road Agency

(MDOT and/or RCMC) Planning Commission Planning Commission Input reviews and provides Input review (contingent any comment to w/ road agency consent on other site plan community standards) (contingent on other site plan standards)

Site Plan Site Plan approved approved

Applicant requests driveway permit from road agency (MDOT and/or RCMC)

Permit issued

Community issues building permit or Certificate of Occupancy

Page 4.5 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Other Implementation Opportunities Implementation of the Plan’s recommendations is expected to be gradual, taking a number of years with a few driveways closed or modified each year. In addition to site plan review at the community level, there may be other opportunities to accelerate implementation of the Plan’s recommendations. These include:

1. Implementation of access management recommendations as part of road reconstruction or resurfacing projects. 2. Pilot projects. 3. Establishment of a local or county funding source to cover some or all of the expense associated with closing or consolidating driveways.

Implementation as Part of Road Reconstruction or Resurfacing Projects. When access management is part of a publicly funded project, such as streetscape plans or road reconstruction projects, the agencies involved should include access improvements in the design and budget. This should include time for coordination and meetings with private property owners. If budget restrictions prohibit large-scale implementation, the agency should strategically decide which access points need modification or removal. Priority should be given to modifying or removing access points that contribute to congestion or an unsafe condition. Some reconstruction and other resurfacing of segments along the corridor is planned in the future. Implementation of driveway closures could accompany these projects, but only after meetings between MDOT and property owners to agree on access changes before design plans are finalized.

Pilot Projects. Access management is implemented when site plan reviews are submitted. However, the stagnant development environment in this current era of economic uncertainty and reluctance to add to a developer’s cost to improve a site will delay implementation of recommendations. As a method to “kick-start” implementation of the Plan and to continue momentum from the initial plan and ordinance adoption sought during this project, the Macomb County Department of Planning and Economic Development, with assistance from SEMCOG and MDOT, is championing a series of pilot projects to illustrate the benefits of access management.

While the Gratiot Access Corridor Improvement Plan has provided each community with a wealth of technical data and community action items regarding transportation efficiency and safety, the project team seeks to establish a pilot project in each community to ensure that the benefits, principles, policies, and procedures set forth in the document take hold. An implementation ‘opportunity zone’ was identified and mapped for each community. A zone’s selection was based on several factors including the location of critical crash segments, areas with high driveway densities, DDA/TIFA boundaries and where clusters of other

Page 4.6 [Implementation] access recommendations are shown. The zones do not identify any specific pilot project; rather they identify areas that are particularly in need of improvement. Working with local community leaders and property owners, Macomb County staff will select pilot projects based on anticipated redevelopment proposals, the willingness of property owners to participate, and where improvements are needed to correct a serious safety concern. Once a pilot project is selected the County will work with the property owner(s) and the local community to develop a viable plan of action (acceptable to all parties) to implement the recommended improvements. Because the full or partial costs of improvements will be absorbed by a public road agency, a property owner can benefit from being selected for a pilot project.

Establishment of a Local or County Funding Source to Cover Some or all of the Expense Associated with Closing or Consolidating Driveways. Implementation of most of the Plan’s recommended improvements will depend on available funding. In some cases, the costs of the improvements will be borne by the property owner; most often as part of a property’s development or redevelopment. Other funding sources will be identified as projects proceed, and may come from State or federal grants, the County or local community transportation funds. In cases where a recommended improvement is located in the boundaries of a Downtown Development Authority or Corridor Improvement Area, the DDA may have funds to contribute to implementation. The DDA is likely to recognize that the creation of a safer and more efficient road network will result in a commercial area that is more attractive to potential customers and the economic benefits generated.

Preferably, an on-going fund should be established by the community or Macomb County to assist in implementing the recommended improvements on a continuous basis. Annual contributions to the fund could be made by the County, local community, DDA or other identified sources.

On-going Implementation

Communities along Gratiot Ave. should continue to update this Corridor Improvement Plan as part of their 5 year community Master Plan review. This ensures the recommendations in the Plan are relevant, reflect current conditions and policy, and respond to changes in access along the corridor. Communities should work with Macomb County to further regional pathway initiatives, and should maintain relationships with regional transit agencies in order to ensure future plan updates reflect their efforts and progress toward improved transit service.

To continue implementation of the Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan, the Steering Committee could continue to meet on a regular basis; this plan recommends a quarterly meeting. In addition to continuing

Page 4.7 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

the inter-jurisdictional cooperation, these meetings will provide a forum to discuss and coordinate major development proposals, heritage or other route designations along the corridor, traffic impact studies, right-of-way preservation and roadway cross-section designs, rezoning proposals, ordinance text amendments, local master plan updates, roadway improvements or reconstruction, non-motorized transportation, streetscape enhancement, green infrastructure implementation, and other issues along the corridors. The Steering Committee or an alternate on-going committee can seek funding for and coordinate the strategic implementation of recommended improvements to maximize the resulting benefits. Because of its familiarity with the Plan and its knowledge regarding the status of recommended improvements, the committee can serve as an important resource when the Plan is in need of updating.

It should be noted that the recommendations outlined in this plan can be used on other area corridors with existing or expected future access management issues. The underlying benefits obtained by maintaining good control of the number and location of commercial access points can be realized on all major roads. While the access management standards adopted by each community only initially apply to the boundaries of the overlay zoning districts adopted by each community, expansion of the district boundary or future amendments can allow application of the standards established in this plan throughout each community.

Page 4.8 Chapter 5: City of [Eastpointe]

Located along the southern edge of Macomb County, the City of Eastpointe is the gateway to the Macomb Gratiot corridor from 8 Mile and points south in Detroit. Just over two miles of the corridor traverse the city, connecting to Roseville at 10 Mile Rd. Eastpointe is a predominantly residential suburb, with most employed residents commuting to work outside the city limits using Gratiot, 8 Mile and the other major cross- streets to connect to major destinations.

Existing and Future Along Gratiot Ave. in Eastpointe, land uses are predominantly auto- Land Use oriented and general commercial, including auto dealerships, restaurants, and general retail and office. Several places of worship, East Detroit High School, and the Eastpointe City Hall are also located along Gratiot. The city’s downtown, located south of 9 Mile, includes several blocks of more traditional downtown building form, while most of the rest of the corridor has developed with older single-story commercial and more recent suburban style infill.

The largest uses along Gratiot in Eastpointe include a shopping plaza at the southwest corner of 9 Mile and Gratiot, Immanuel United Methodist Church and a garden center. Most of the corridor is planned and zoned consistent with current development patterns. East Detroit High School

Page 5.1 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Roadway Conditions and Concepts Roadway Conditions Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along this portion of the corridor is approximately 27,820. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH. While the street Figure 5.1: 2007 Average Daily Traffic cross section includes three lanes and a 45 ft. (typical width) median with (ADT) along the Gratiot Corridor in the City of Eastpointe indirect and direct crossovers, the pavement width also includes 8-9 feet of width for on-street parallel parking (signed as two hour parking) along the Between ADT length of Gratiot in Eastpointe. There is no clear striping separating this 8 Mile Rd. and 10 27,820 Mile Rd. area from the adjacent travel lane of increasing the opportunity for crashes and congestion. Source: SEMCOG Crash Analysis and Concepts For more details on the The intersections along Gratiot in Eastpointe with the highest number of methodologies for Crash crashes in 2007 are Gratiot and 9 Mile (20 crashes) and Gratiot and 10 Mile Analysis and Intersection Rd. (14 crashes). Between 2003 and 2007, there were 70 crashes at Gratiot Evaluation, refer to Chapter 1. and Ten Mile Rd. and 67 crashes at Gratiot and 9 Mile Rd. However, none of the fully signalized intersections in Eastpointe meet or exceed the critical crash rate established by SEMCOG. Figure 5.2: Eastpointe Segment Crash Data

Head-On+ Angle + Sideswipe Head-on Sideswipe Uncoded + Location Crash Rate Single MV Opposite Left Rear-end Same Other Total NB Gratiot from 8 Mile to Toepfer 4.05 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 5 / 56% 2 / 22% 2 / 22% 0 / 0% 9 NB Gratiot from Couzens to 9 Mile X-over 4.97 0 / 0% 1 / 8% 5 / 39% 3 / 23% 2 / 15% 2 / 15% 13 # / #% = Number of Crashes / Percentages of Crashes

Outside of the intersection areas, two segments of Gratiot Ave. in Eastpointe exceeded the critical crash rate and frequency. Details of crash data for these two segments are shown in Figure 5.2.

The first high crash segment is on northbound Gratiot between 8 Mile Rd. and Toepfer Dr. Figure 5.3 illustrates locations of the crashes for north- bound Gratiot in this area. This segment had a higher than expected number of angle and head-on left-turn crashes. The majority of these crashes were centered around the Gratiot crossover at Sprenger Ave. By reviewing the physical conditions in this area, it was observed that there is only one southbound Gratiot crossover that serves the neighborhood to the east of Gratiot Ave. and south of Toepfer Dr. Any vehicles going south on Gratiot Ave. that want to access this neighborhood would have to use the Sprenger crossover, which suggests that it is highly utilized.

There are two possible recommendations to reduce the number of crashes. The first recommendation would be to realign the cross-overs along north- Figure 5.3: Crash concentration on northbound Gratiot near Sprenger Ave. bound and southbound Gratiot to align with the following roadways:

Page 5.2 [City of Eastpointe]

• Northbound crossover at Hayes Ave. • Southbound crossover at Sprenger Ave. • Southbound crossover at Veronica Ave.

This recommendation would remove one of the northbound crossovers, just north of Collinson Ave., due to minimum distances required between crossovers. The northbound crossover just south of Toepfer Dr. would remain. A second option recommend could be to signalize the crossover location at Sprenger Ave. A signal warrant evaluation would need to be conducted, and installing a signal at this location may cause additional delay along Gratiot Ave.

The second high crash segment in Eastpointe was on northbound Gratiot Ave. between Couzens Ave. and the crossover south of 9 Mile Rd. Figure 5.4 illustrates the crash locations in this area. In this location there were higher than average angle crashes. This could be due to vehicles exiting Oak Ave. or businesses south of Oak Ave. attempting to access the crossover to southbound Gratiot that is located across the northbound lanes just north of Oak Ave. The rear-end crashes could also be a result of backups at the signal at the northbound crossover north of Oak Ave. It is recommended that the northbound crossover south of Oak Ave. be moved further south and designed to meet minimum MDOT clearances between crossovers. Figure 5.4: Crash concentration on Northbound Gratiot north of Couzens.

Existing Access Conditions Access Conditions and Eastpointe predominantly contains well-established land uses. A number Recommendations of the commercial driveways are wider than modern standards, in need of repair, or poorly delineated from Gratiot, the sidewalk, and off-street parking areas. Most uses are served by at least one dedicated driveway. The City should close excess driveways and encourage shared access between adjacent properties when opportunities arise. Including cross streets, Gratiot Ave. in Eastpointe has about 76 access points per mile, compared to the MDOT standard of approximately 30 access points per mile for the same length/posted speed. This plan recommends closing 39 driveways in Eastpointe, a 23% reduction in driveways.

Access Recommendations Map tiles 1 through 6 illustrate site-specific recommendations for access management, including ways to improve the relationship between vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. As outlined in Example of poorly defined pedestrian Chapter 4: Implementation, these recommendations are based on state and crossing and excessively wide driveways along Gratiot. national research, a thorough review of the conditions along the corridor, significant public input, and the extensive experience and expertise of the plan team with access management across the state.

Due to the shallow depth of most frontage parcels on Gratiot, Page 5.3 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Map Tiles 1 through 6 illustrate specific recommendations in Eastpointe focus on creating new and clearer recommendations in Eastpointe for access connections between adjacent businesses, alleys, and cross-streets to management (such as the sample shown reduce the need for individual access points to each business. More below) including how to improve the specifically, the plan recommends the elimination of one or two of the relationship between vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. All of driveways at the gas stations at the northeast corner of 8 Mile and Gratiot the Map Tiles are located after Chapter 8. and the southwest corner of 10 Mile and Gratiot. Many of the other recommendations also focus on corner parcels where access directly on Gratiot can be reduced or eliminated in favor or side street and cross access to adjacent businesses.

Immediately north of the 9 Mile/downtown area, auto-oriented uses on both sides of Gratiot are recommended to close excess drives, add connections to adjacent businesses and to cross streets. On the west side of Gratiot between Park Ave. and 9 Mile Rd., the auto service station, Big Boy Restaurant, and corner gas station have 6 access points onto Gratiot and no cross-connections. The plan recommends closing 4 of those driveways in favor of cross-connections.

Because the recommendations are based on the conditions at the time this Sample Recommendations north of 9 Mile Rd. plan was developed, a significant change in conditions along the corridor should prompt a thorough consideration of any proposed project in the context of the policies, standards, and goals of this plan. The City, MDOT, and members of the Steering Committee will play an important role in reviewing development proposals along this corridor to promote more efficient and safe access.

Non-Motorized and Non-Motorized Transit Conditions and Sidewalks are found all along Gratiot Ave. in Eastpointe. Pedestrians and Recommendations bicyclists cross the Gratiot corridor at various signalized crosswalks in the city, including at 8 Mile Rd., Toepfer Dr., Couzens Ave., 9 Mile Rd., Stephens Dr. and 10 Mile Rd. Mid-block crossings, located in conjunction with transit stops, and intersection improvements may be needed to reduce potential for automobile versus pedestrian or bicycle crashes in key areas.

Transit SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) offers bus routes throughout Eastpointe and Macomb County. Fixed line service is available along Gratiot Ave. and along 9 Mile Rd. and 10 Mile Rd. SMART bus routes connect to Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) routes, which provide access to shopping malls, educational institutions, medical facilities and other daily needs throughout Metro Detroit.

As outlined in Chapter 3: Non-Motorized and Transit Guidelines, the RTCC (Regional Transit Coordinating Council) 2008 Regional Transit Service Plan designation of Gratiot as one of three key “spokes” in Metro Detroit for transit increases the likelihood of more intense transit service in the future. As Eastpointe has a natural node of density and uses in its downtown, priority should be given to reducing the number of access points in the area within 1/2 mile of the intersection of Gratiot and 9 Mile. Page 5.4 Chapter 6 : City of [Roseville]

Positioned along Gratiot between 10 Mile Rd. and 14 Mile Rd., Roseville is an inner-ring suburb located in southern Macomb County. It is positioned with access to six freeway interchanges, including two along Gratiot that provide access east and south along I-94 and west along I-696. Over 2 million square feet of retail and restaurant space are located between just south of 13 Mile Rd. and 14 Mile Rd., comprising the largest concentration of commercial uses anywhere along the Gratiot corridor in Macomb County.

Existing and Future Land Ten Mile Rd. to Twelve Mile Rd. Use Between 10 Mile Rd. and 12 Mile Rd., land use along Gratiot includes a variety of convenience commercial uses, offices, restaurants and institutional uses including the Roseville Municipal Complex, Bethel Baptist Church and a VFW Hall. Development in the southern half of the city is similar in character to Eastpointe, with shallow commercial frontage and smaller individual commercial buildings with some larger shopping centers in more recent development areas. Large commercial uses include a K-Mart store, Kroger grocery, Eastgate Shopping Center, Costco, and Roseville Plaza (including a Walmart). The only major residential development directly accessing Gratiot is a manufactured housing community, located just north of 10 Mile Rd. on the east side of the corridor.

Page 6.1 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Twelve Mile Rd. to Fourteen Mile Rd. Moving north between Twelve Mile Rd. and Fourteen Mile Rd., the land use pattern includes a variety of convenience commercial uses, offices, restaurants and institutional uses. As the north half of Roseville was developed more recently, the character is more similar to outer suburbs such as Clinton Township and Sterling Heights, with large, deep commercial centers. Along Gratiot, malls and big box retail developments dominate the landscape, especially north of 12 Mile Rd. Large commercial developments include the Macomb Mall, big box shopping centers at 13 Mile Rd. west of Gratiot and north and south of Masonic east of Gratiot, and a large auto dealership.

Roadway Conditions and Roadway Conditions Concepts All four miles of the Gratiot corridor in Roseville have four through travel lanes in each direction separated by a 45 foot (typical) wide median. Indirect and direct left turn crossovers provide access to businesses and cross-streets. South of 12 1/2 Mile Rd, an additional lane of pavement is Figure 6.1: 2007 Average Daily Traffic signed for on-street parking but is not delineated as individual spaces or (ADT) along the Gratiot Corridor in the City of Roseville a parking lane. The city should work with MDOT to identify solutions that Between ADT increase visibility and reduce confusion related to parking areas and travel lanes. 10 Mile Rd. and 33,614 Frazho Rd. Frazho Rd. and 11 The posted speed limit is 40 MPH. In 2007, average Daily Traffic (ADT) 35,004 Mile Rd. along this portion of the corridor ranged from approximately 34,000 near 11 Mile Rd. and 45,028 10 Mile Rd. to over 76,000 vehicles per day north of the I-94 connector in Common Rd. front of the Macomb Mall. This segment of Gratiot had the highest ADT of Common Rd. and 13 40,900 any segment in the corridor. The I-94 connector ramp alone handled over Mile Rd. 35,000 vehicles each day in 2007. Masonic Blvd. and 76,188 14 Mile Rd. Crash Analysis and Concepts Source: SEMCOG The intersections along Gratiot in Roseville with the highest number of crashes in 2007 are Gratiot and Masonic Blvd. (36 crashes) and Gratiot and 13 Mile Rd. (22 crashes). Between 2003 and 2007, there were 168 crashes at Gratiot and Masonic Blvd. and 116 crashes at Gratiot and 13 Mile Rd. For more details on the The intersection of 11 Mile Rd. and Gratiot (at I-696) exceeds the critical methodologies for Crash crash rate established by SEMCOG (discussed later in this section). Analysis and Intersection Evaluation, refer to Chapter 1. Outside of the intersection areas, numerous segments of Gratiot Ave. in Roseville exceed the critical crash rate. Details of crash data for these segments are summarized in Figure 6.2.

Page 6.2 [City of Roseville]

Figure 6.2: Roseville Crash Segment Analysis Crash Type Head-On+ Angle + Sideswipe Head-on Sideswipe Uncoded + Location Crash Rate Single MV Opposite Left Rear-end Same Other Total SB Gratiot from Masonic to I-94 Ramp 11.40 3 / 13% 0 1 / 4.5% 13 / 56% 5 / 22% 1 / 4.5% 23 NB Gratiot from Frazho to Eastgate X-over 9.13 1 / 4% 0 10 / 37% 12 / 44% 4 / 15% 0 27 NB Gratiot from Brohl St to X-Over at Mesle St 6.25 1 / 4% 0 7 / 27% 15 / 57% 2 / 8% 1 / 4% 26 SB Gratiot from 11 Mile X-over to Eastgate X-over 4.89 1 / 7% 0 1 / 7% 10 / 72% 1 / 7% 1 / 7% 14 SB Gratiot from X-Over north of 11 Mile to 11 Mile 4.88 1 / 6% 0 4 / 22% 11 / 61% 2 / 11% 0 18 SB Gratiot from Masonic to I-94 Ramp 4.82 1 / 4% 0 4 / 15% 16 / 59% 5 / 18% 1 / 4% 27 NB Gratiot south of Florence St to X-Over south of 12 Mile 4.19 0 0 0 9 / 75% 3 / 25% 0 12 SB Gratiot from X-over north of Voiland St to Waterbury St 2.64 0 0 3 / 21% 5 / 36% 5 / 36% 1 / 7% 14 SB Gratiot from Waterbury St to X-over north of Masonic 2.53 0 0 5 / 28% 12 / 67% 1 / 5% 0 18 # / #% = Number of Crashes / Percentages of Crashes

SB Gratiot from Masonic to the I-94 Ramp The segment with the highest crash rate in Roseville is southbound Gratiot from Masonic to the I-94 connector ramp. The percentage of rear-end crashes is 56% (higher than the average crash percentage for that crash type), which are most likely due to vehicles wanting to get onto the I-94 ramp and stopped traffic along the left lane of southbound Gratiot which is currently shared as a through or left turn lane. It is recommended that a dedicated dual left-turn lane be added to southbound Gratiot Ave. to the I-94 connector ramp. The exit ramp from I-94 to northbound Gratiot is discussed later in this section and illustrates the proposed recommendation.

Gratiot from Frazho Rd. to Eastgate St. The next highest critical crash segment is northbound Gratiot from Frazho Rd. to the Eastgate Center. Figure 6.3 illustrates the locations of the crashes in this segment. There is a higher than expected amount of angle crashes; most of these crashes tend to be located by the crossover across from Eastgate St. and the driveway north of Frazho Rd. The crossovers both north and south of Frazho Rd. allow the left lane to become the lane for the crossover. In addition, the crossover spacing between these two crossovers is approximately 45 feet, well below the recommended Figure 6.3 : Frazho to Eastgate

Page 6.3 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

MDOT minimum spacing of 100 feet. This could be causing sight distance problems for the vehicles wanting to enter Eastgate St. from the crossover.

Another crash location is southbound Gratiot Ave. north of Frazho Rd. also shown in Figure 6.3. These crashes appear to be the result of the signal at Frazho as well as the left-most lane turning into the crossover south of the intersection. The crossover south of Frazho is also 235 feet from the intersection, which is below the recommended MDOT minimum distance. It is recommended that the locations of the cross-overs in this area be reviewed by MDOT.

Northbound Gratiot from Brohl St. to Mesle St. Northbound Gratiot Ave. from Brohl St. to the crossover at Mesle St. also was a critical crash segment. This segment has a high percentage of angle and rear-end crashes Figure 6.4 illustrates the locations of these crashes. There is a high turnover grocery store located east of the roadway just north of Brohl St. The driveway to the grocery store is located across from Figure 6.4: Brohl to Mesle the crossover to southbound Gratiot. The driveways at this locations were recently updated so that only one driveway is located off of Gratiot Ave. instead of two.

Gratiot Ave. and 11 Mile Rd. Intersection Area The intersection of 11 Mile Rd. and Gratiot Ave. was the only one to exceed the SEMCOG regional crash rate threshold. Figure 6.6 summarizes the number and percentage of crashes for the three-year period between 2005 and 2007. This intersection had a higher percentage of single motor vehicle and rear-end crashes as compared to all other intersections in southeast Michigan.

Figure 6.6: 11 Mile & Gratiot Intersections Crash Type Head- On+ Side- Angle + Side- Single swipe Head-on Rear- swipe Uncoded MV Opposite Left end Same + Other Total Northbound Gratiot at Eastbound 11 Mile Rd. 0 1 3 22 7 0 33 Northbound Gratiot at Westbound 11 Mile Rd. 1 0 14 9 13 0 37 Southbound Figure 6.5: Gratiot and 11 Mile Gratiot at Westbound 11 Mile Rd. 5 1 6 22 7 1 42 Southbound Gratiot at Eastbound 11 Mile Rd. 4 0 7 16 9 1 37 Total 10 / 7% 2 / 1% 30 / 20% 69 / 46% 36 / 25% 2 / 1% 149 # / #% = Number of Crashes / Percentages of Crashes

Page 6.4 [City of Roseville]

The crashes attributed to dual left-turn or dual right-turn lanes are sideswipe crashes. There were 38 sideswipe crashes at 11 Mile Rd., 12 of which had an MDOT crash code assigned to either dual left-turn or dual right-turn lanes. The highest number of sideswipe same crashes occurred at northbound Gratiot at westbound 11 Mile Rd. Most of these crashes occurred in 2005 (8) and decreased during 2006 (3) and 2007 (3). Overall for the intersection, 64% of the sideswipe same crashes occurred in 2005, with 14% in 2006 and 22% in 2007. Given the decreasing trend, no changes are recommended at this location in the intersection area. Recently, MDOT updated the signal timings along Gratiot Ave., the changes to the signal timings should improve progression along the corridor and reduce the number of rear-end crashes at the intersection.

The majority of the crashes along southbound Gratiot Ave. north of 11 Mile Rd. are rear-end crashes. These crashes are most likely due to the signal at 11 Mile Rd. and could also be attributed to the southbound cross- over located north of 11 Mile Rd. There is a dual right-turn lane located from southbound Gratiot Ave. to westbound 11 Mile Rd., which could be causing some of the rear-end crashes.

Signal timings at Gratiot Ave. at 11 Mile Rd. were requested to be reviewed as part of the analysis. It was determined that the intersection is operating at acceptable levels of service. Synchro traffic model analysis of the intersection shows that reducing the dual right-turn lane to a single right-turn lane would not cause any added congestion in the morning or evening peak hours. Additional signs assigning the dual right-turn lanes to the I-696 ramp and westbound 11 Mile Rd. (respectively) may also help reduce crash potential at this intersection. While the westbound 11 Mile Rd. approach appears to be operating fine, crashes and congestion should be monitored, and a dual left-turn lane could be one solution to reduce delay along the westbound approach. No other changes are recommended.

Masonic and Macomb Mall Link Crashes There were 32 link crashes on Southbound Gratiot Ave. between Voiland St. to the crossover north of Masonic Blvd. Figure 6.7 illustrates these crashes along southbound Gratiot Ave. Approximately 35% of crashes on the links with driveways to Macomb Mall (north of Masonic) occurred on a Saturday or a Sunday. The volumes entering these driveways are typically higher on the weekends causing the higher percentage of crashes on the weekend.

The driveways and the cross-overs accessing Macomb Mall may be causing some confusion to drivers. Figure 6.8 illustrates one of the Macomb Mall driveways accessing southbound Gratiot Ave.

Southbound Gratiot Ave. south of Masonic Boulevard Total crashes on the link of SB Gratiot just south of Masonic were evaluated Figure 6.7: Masonic and Macomb Mall Area

Page 6.5 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

due to the recent reduction of driveways. It was found that the crashes along the roadway did not decrease significantly, however, the number of crashes attributed to the signal did decrease. Figure 6.9 summarizes the number of crashes along the link as well as the number of crashes at the intersection. Crashes on the link were not reduced, but crashes at the signal were.

Figure 6.9: Number of Crashes along Gratiot Ave. and Masonic Boulevard Total 2005 2006 2007 % of % of % of % of Location # crashes # crashes # crashes # crashes Link 91 9 100% 2 22.2% 3 33.3% 4 44.4% Signal 20 101 100% 58 57.4% 13 12.9% 30 29.7% Figure 6.8: Macomb Mall Access Total 110 100% 60 54.5% 16 14.5% 34 30.9%

Figure 6.10: Number of Driveway Crashes at the signal at Masonic Blvd. that were coded as being related to Related Crashes along Southbound driveways (MDOT codes 18-20) declined from 2005 to 2007. Gratiot south of Masonic Year 2005 2006 2007 The types of crashes at the signalized intersection changed as well. The Crashes Related 7 6 1 number of angle and rear-end crashes decreased between 2005 and to Driveways 2007. The table below summarizes the crashes for all approaches at the intersection, even though only the driveway access was changes along southbound Gratiot Ave. only.

Figure 6.11: Types of Crashes at Gratiot Ave. and Masonic Boulevard Single Angle/ Sideswipe Other/ Year MV HO Left Head On Rear End Same Unknown Total 2005 1 28 1 22 6 1 58 2006 1 8 0 2 1 1 13 2007 3 5 2 14 7 0 30 Total 5 41 3 38 14 2 101

Gratiot Ave. at I-94 Connector Ramp Northbound and southbound Gratiot Ave. at the I-94 Ramps were requested to be reviewed as part of the analysis. The crash analysis found numerous rear-end crashes along southbound Gratiot Ave. at the I-94 on-ramp. It was recommended that the dual left-turn lane be changed such that it is a dedicated dual left-turn lane onto the westbound I-94 on-ramp. Northbound Gratiot Ave. north of I-94 on-ramp was not a high- crash location, however, field observation found that a high number of vehicles are entering Gratiot Ave. from the I-94 off-ramp. There is a cross- over located approximately 730 feet north of the off-ramp junction. Figure 6.12 illustrates the location of the off-ramp and the cross-over north of the ramp. There is also a major driveway to a retail development located between the off-ramp and the cross-over causes additional weaving in this segment.

Figure 6.12: Gratiot and I-94 Off Ramp

Page 6.6 [City of Roseville]

There is currently a road sign instructing drivers from the I-94 off-ramp not to use the crossover. This sign is shown below.

Due to the multiple weaving maneuvers occurring in this segment, there were several recommendations considered. The first was signalizing the I-94 off-ramp with northbound Gratiot Ave. and the second was moving or removing the crossover. Currently, northbound Gratiot Ave. is signalized with the southbound Gratiot Ave./I-94 on-ramp signal just south of the off- ramp junction. Given that the I-94 off-ramp has volumes in the AM peak hour of 1,065 vehicles and 1,200 vehicles in the PM peak hour, there would need to be three lanes if a signal was added to the junction. The on-ramp would need to be redesigned to accommodate the three lanes entering As with any project that includes onto Gratiot Ave. It is recommended that MDOT and Roseville evaluate right-of-way acquisition, changes these options more in depth before making a decision on the design. in road alignment and lanes and reconstruction, additional evaluation, design and study will be needed A second solution to the weaving would be to remove the crossover before this type of project would be completely or move the crossover further north just south of Masonic to constructed. allow more distance for the weave. Removing the crossover would the cause more traffic to go through the Gratiot/Masonic intersection to the crossover is north of Masonic Boulevard. Moving the crossover north to just south of Masonic Blvd. would require moving the southbound crossover south to the Sam’s Club entrance, to present geometric conflicts.

Access Conditions and Existing Access Conditions Recommendations As an older suburb, Roseville contains a well-established land use pattern. Map Tiles 6 through 15 illustrate specific A number of the older commercial driveways are wider than modern recommendations in Roseville for access standards, in need of repair or poorly delineated from Gratiot, the sidewalk management (such as the sample shown and on- and off-street parking areas. Most uses are served by at least below) including how to improve the relationship between vehicle access and one dedicated driveway. The city should close excess driveways and non-motorized and transit facilities. All of encourage shared access between adjacent properties when opportunities the Map Tiles are located after Chapter 8. arise. Including cross streets, Gratiot Ave. in Roseville has 77 access points per mile, compared to the MDOT standard of approximately 35 access points per mile. This plan recommends closing 83 driveways in Roseville, a 24% reduction in driveways.

Access Recommendations Map tiles 6 through 15 illustrate site-specific recommendations for access management, including ways to improve the relationship between vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. As outlined in Chapter 4: Implementation, these recommendations are based on state and national research, a thorough review of the conditions along the corridor, significant public input, and the extensive experience and expertise of the plan team with access management across the state. Sample Recommendations at 12 Mile Especially in the southern half of the city, the shallow depth of many frontage parcels on Gratiot limits recommendations to creating new and

Page 6.7 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

clearer connections between adjacent businesses, alleys, and cross-streets to reduce the need for individual access points to each business. Many of the recommendations in these shallow commercial areas also focus on corner parcels where access directly on Gratiot can be reduced or eliminated in favor of side streets and cross access to adjacent businesses.

As the development pattern expands to larger, deeper commercial uses, recommendations focus on the interaction between shared commercial driveways and both internal parking circulation and nearby crossover openings. Especially north of 13 Mile Rd., the maps include recommendations in concert with the Crash Analysis and Concepts section of this chapter that include consolidating and relocating major shared access points in conjunction with relocating median crossovers farther from major intersections.

Because the recommendations are based on the conditions at the time this plan was developed, a significant change in conditions along the corridor should prompt a thorough consideration of any proposed project in the context of the policies, standards, and goals of this plan. The City, MDOT, and members of the Steering Committee will play an important role in reviewing development proposals along this corridor to promote more efficient and safe access.

Sample Recommendations at 12 Mile Rd.

Non-Motorized and Transit Conditions and Non-Motorized Recommendations Sidewalks are found along most of Roseville’s segment of Gratiot Ave. There are several significant gaps in the sidewalk system that are identified on the maps and need to be addressed. There are also a number of locations where pedestrians must cross over wide commercial driveways that do not include defined pedestrian crossings; the plan includes recommendations to close or redesign many of these driveways.

Page 6.8 [City of Roseville]

A provides mid-block crossing through median at Delaware St. Additional enhanced and/or signalized the mid-block pedestrian crossings should be considered as transit and other uses that attract walking and biking emerge along the corridor. These crossings should be separated from traffic movements associated with median crossovers. Signalized non-motorized crossings could be considered in the future when higher frequency transit adds more transit users who need to cross the street.

Transit SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) offers bus routes throughout Roseville and Macomb County. Along Gratiot, a fixed line service is provided. Fixed line service is also available along major cross streets. SMART bus routes also connect to Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) routes, which in concert provide access to shopping malls, educational institutions, medical facilities and other daily Pedestrian crossing at Delaware St. needs throughout Metro Detroit. The Macomb Mall area is currently a SMART hub where several routes converge.

As outlined in Chapter 4: Transit Guidelines, the RTCC (Regional Transit Coordinating Council) 2008 Regional Transit Service Plan designation of Gratiot as one of three key “spokes” in Metro Detroit for transit increases the likelihood of more intense transit service in the future. As Roseville has several natural nodes of density and uses in its downtown and at the Macomb Mall, priority should be given to reducing the number of access points in the area within 1/2 mile of the intersection of Gratiot and Utica, and also around the Macomb Mall area as redevelopment occurs.

When considering the recommendations of this plan and regulations in the appropriate ordinance, MDOT and the City should also consider how site design, including access placement and design, can support safe and convenient transit for the community.

Page 6.9 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Page 6.10 Chapter 7: [Clinton] Township

Positioned at the north end of the South Gratiot Corridor Improvement Plan segment, Clinton Township surrounds the City of Mt Clemens on three sides. An outer-tier suburb with many distinct areas of character, the township has developed sporadically over the last 6 decades. Clinton Township includes large tracts of single family residential neighborhoods whose residents filter to Gratiot Ave. to satisfy many of their entertainment, shopping, and service needs. Gratiot also serves as the main conduit for Clinton Township residents commuting south to Roseville, Detroit, and other points south and southwest. The site-specific recommendations in this plan account for the township’s varied conditions to pave a path to improved access, good traffic flow and reduced crash potential throughout.

Existing and Future Land Southern Township Segment (south of Mt. Clemens) Use This southern segment of Gratiot, located between 14 Mile Rd. and Remick Dr., includes a mix of retail, auto-oriented, office and restaurant uses. Large land uses include several large shopping centers (at Quinn Rd., 15 Mile Rd. and 16 Mile Rd.), several large cemeteries northeast of Quinn Rd., a lumber yard and several auto dealerships. There are also several areas with single family residential and vacant platted lots, especially between 15 Mile Rd. and 16 Mile Rd.

Page 7.1 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Developed piecemeal throughout the last 60 years, this stretch of the Gratiot corridor resembles built out suburbs such as Roseville or Sterling Heights, with a mix of older, shallow commercial buildings and large lot big box strip centers. As such, the access pattern is very inconsistent and uncoordinated and will benefit from this plan and access management standards. Almost the entire stretch of frontage is master planned for the same uses currently found along the corridor.

As Gratiot splits into one-way pairs just south of the City of Mt Clemens (between Remick Dr. and the Clinton River), the land uses adjacent to the pairs includes a variety of commercial and service uses such as gas stations and fast food restaurants. There is also a key area in between the pairs just as they split north of Remick Dr., which was previously, a car dealership located on two blocks. As this property along Gratiot and Iroquois redevelops, care and coordination between developers, Clinton Township, the City of Mt Clemens, and MDOT will be key to improving access in this area.

Northern Township Segment (north of Mt Clemens) From Mt Clemens (Scott Blvd.) north to Canfield, the land use pattern includes single family homes, office and light industrial uses with a character indistinguishable from that in adjoining Mt Clemens neighborhoods.

From Canfield St. north to Hall Rd. (M-59), a diverse mix of uses include several newer light industrial parks, a large auto dealership, restaurants, and several large vacant parcels. In addition to uses with frontage along the corridor, several large residential developments access Gratiot along this segment. The master plan for the Township in this area designates all of the frontage north of the one-way pairs split as either a light industrial or commercial business use.

Roadway Conditions and Concepts Roadway Conditions Southern Township Segment From Mt Clemens south to Roseville, Gratiot is an 8-lane boulevard with Figure 7.1: 2007 Average Daily Traffic a 45’-plus (typical) center median with indirect and direct crossovers to (ADT) along the Gratiot Corridor in the access businesses and cross streets. For the northernmost 1/2 mile, the Clinton Township boulevard splits into the two one-way pairs that flow through the City Between ADT of Mt Clemens all the way to the north township segment at Scott Blvd. South Twp - Gratiot Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along the south was 76,000 vehicles per day in 76,108 & 14 Mile Rd. 2007 at 14 Mile Rd. and the posted speed is 40 and 45 MPH. North Twp - Gratiot 35,668 & Hall Rd. Northern Township Segment Source: SEMCOG From Mt Clemens north to Macomb Township, Gratiot immediately merges from one-way pairs to a 5-lane cross section (2 through lanes in each direction with a center left turn lane). ADT along this section of Gratiot

Page 7.2 [Clinton Township] was almost 36,000 vehicles per day at Hall Rd. (M-59), and the posted speed is 40 MPH.

Crash Analysis and Concepts For more details on the In evaluating the intersection crash data fro signalized intersections in methodologies for Crash Clinton Township, there were no instances where the crash rate met or Analysis and Intersection exceeded the SEMCOG regional critical crash rate. Evaluation, refer to Chapter 1.

Outside of the intersection areas, two segments of Gratiot Ave. in Clinton Township exceeded the critical crash rate and frequency. Details of crash data for these two segments are shown in Figure 7.2 below. The following paragraphs discuss the patterns in more detail and other recommendations to reduce crash potential where an opportunity may exist.

Figure 7.2: Clinton Township Critical Segment Crashes Crash Type Head- On+ Angle + Crash Single Sideswipe Head-on Rear- Sideswipe Uncoded Location Rate MV Opposite Left end Same + Other Total NB Gratiot from X-over south of Quinn Rd to 7 / Quinn Rd 2.654 0 1 / 6% 7 / 41% 41% 2 / 12% 0 17 NB Gratiot from X-over at Ulrich St to Remick Dr 5 / Figure 7.3: High crash segment on Gratiot Ramp 6.849 2 / 11% 0 7 / 37% 26% 2 / 16% 2 / 10% 19 south of Remick # / #% = Number of Crashes / Percentages of Crashes

The highest crash location is located along northbound Gratiot south of Remick Dr. Figure 7.3 illustrates the crashes along this segment of roadway. Just south of this location, northbound Gratiot is four lanes and then narrows down to three lanes. Then, north of Stair Dr. there is a left-turn only lane which will allow a direct left-turn onto Remick Dr.. It is recommended that the left-turn only lane to Remick Dr. is extended further south and follows Gratiot Ave. farther north. Figure 7.4 illustrates the recommendation for redesigning the crossover to Remick Dr. for this segment of roadway. Figure 7.4: Recommended redesign of the northbound Gratiot Ave. crossover to Remick Dr. (looking west toward Remick Dr.) shows elongated turn lane to provide longer merge opportunity.

Page 7.3 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

The second critical crash segment in Clinton Township is on northbound Gratiot just south of Quinn Rd, with 2005-2007 crash shown for this segment in Figure 7.3. There are currently two driveways on this segment of roadway that serve a high turnover retail center. It is recommended that one of the driveways be removed to reduce the number of conflict points along the roadway.

Figure 7.3: Gratiot south of Quinn

Access Conditions and Recommendations Existing Access Conditions Because of the varied intensities and types of development in Clinton Township, access design ranges from sites with multiple drives to sites with shared access and sites included within a larger planned commercial development. However, most uses are served by one or more access points that are not shared with other uses.

Map Tiles 15 through 21 and 26 through A number of uses have more access points than are necessary to 29 illustrate specific recommendations in provide adequate means of access. The Township should close excess Clinton Township for access management driveways and encourage shared access between adjacent properties (such as the sample shown on the next when opportunities arise. Including cross streets, Gratiot Ave. in Clinton page) including how to improve the Township has about 66 access points per mile in the southern segment relationship between vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. All of and about 62 access points per mile in the northern segment, compared the Map Tiles are located after Chapter 8. to the MDOT standard of approximately 35 access points per mile for the same posted speed. This plan recommends closing 86 driveways in Clinton Township, a 27% reduction in driveways.

Access Recommendations Map tiles 15 through 21 and 26 through 29 illustrate site-specific recommendations for access management, including ways to improve the relationship between vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. As outlined in Chapter 4: Implementation, these recommendations are based on state and national research, a thorough review of the conditions along the corridor, significant public input, and the extensive experience and expertise of the plan team with access

Page 7.4 [Clinton Township] management across the state.

There are a number of opportunities for shared access between existing uses, or access to public alleys and side streets that could reduce or eliminate access points directly onto Gratiot. The existence of underutilized and vacant sites provide additional opportunities for shared access when they are redeveloped or reused. Coupled with site-specific recommendations shown on the Clinton Township Map Tiles, proper access management principles outlined in this plan will help to maintain efficient traffic flow and reduce crash potential.

Because the recommendations are based on the conditions at the time this plan was developed, a significant change in conditions along the corridor should prompt a thorough consideration of any proposed project in the context of the policies, standards, and goals of this plan. The City, MDOT, Sample Recommendations between 14 Mile and members of the Steering Committee will play an important role in and 15 Mile reviewing development proposals along this corridor to promote more efficient and safe access.

Non-motorized and Non-Motorized Transit Conditions and Aside from a few significant gaps, sidewalks are located along both sides of Gratiot between 14 Mile Rd. and Shader St. Sidewalks continue along Recommendations the west side to Ulrich St. There are no sidewalks between Ulrich St. and Remick Dr. Sidewalks are missing in a number of places between Remick Dr. and the south side of the Clinton River and they are missing from a large portion of the segment north of Mount Clemens.

As mentioned in Chapter 3, the Stoney Creek-Metro Beach Trail traverses Clinton Township at 16 Mile Rd. As the trail is completed to the west and connected to other regional trails, its use will likely increase.

In concert with the City of Mt Clemens and Macomb County, a non- motorized pathway is planned to connect the trail at 16 Mile Rd. north to the Riverwalk in Downtown Mt Clemens. The plan is to route the pathway along the east side of Gratiot Ave. (northbound side) from 16 Mile Rd. up to Remick Dr., continuing along the east side of the northbound Gratiot Ave. one-way pair up to the Clinton River. At that point, a connector will split off to the east to connect the pathway to an existing , and the main pathway will continue north, either split as two 5-foot pathways on either side of the northbound one-way pair or as one wider path on the east side of the northbound one-way pair.

Other opportunities to feed adjacent areas, even as far south as Macomb Mall and north to a planned pathway connecting to the Mt. Clemens river trail, should be pursued to the extent possible to capitalize on this great regional recreational opportunity.

Page 7.5 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Transit SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) offers bus routes throughout Macomb County. A fixed line service is provided along Gratiot Ave. in Clinton Township. SMART also provides advanced reservation for medical and non-medical appointments. The service area includes Mount Clemens, Clinton Township and Harrison Township.

Adjacent to Clinton Township, Mount Clemens Community Transportation provides a curb-to-curb, site to site and parking shuttle connector within the city limits of Mount Clemens and contiguous parts of Clinton and Harrison Township.

As outlined in Chapter 3: Non-Motorized and Transit Guidelines, the RTCC (Regional Transit Coordinating Council) 2008 Regional Transit Service Plan designation of Gratiot as one of three key “spokes” in Metro Detroit for transit increases the likelihood of more intense transit service in the future. As Clinton Township has several potential nodes of density and uses around 15 Mile Rd. or 16 Mile Rd., priority should be given to reducing the number of access points in the area within 1/2 mile of those intersections as redevelopment occurs.

When considering the recommendations of this plan and regulations in the appropriate ordinance, MDOT and the City should also consider how site design, including access placement and design, can support safe and convenient transit for the community.

Page 7.6 Chapter 8: City of [Mt. Clemens]

Mt. Clemens is the county seat of Macomb County, and is an older city along the Gratiot corridor that was established in 1837 prior to suburbanization of the surrounding area. Similar to other established county seats across the state, the Gratiot trunkline was converted to two streets functioning as one-way pairs in mid-20th Century in response to increasing auto travel prior to the completion of I-94. Several pockets of the original single family homes that once existed on residential streets remain, and many other uses are still using driveways and buildings originally found in these neighborhoods.

Downtown Mt. Clemens contains an interconnected, grid street pattern and urban building form that is highly conducive to downtown activity. Recognizing the existing built character and downtown land use characteristics in Mt. Clemens relative to those of other communities along the Gratiot Avenue Corridor, special considerations are needed in the city. Additional flexibility in the access standards may be needed in consideration of the existing built environment. This Plan intends to apply the MDOT access management standards where practical, but to allow flexibility in their application. This Plan intends to complement efforts to make Gratiot Avenue and Downtown Mt. Clemens more walkable by improving the transit and non-motorized environments simultaneous with access changes along the corridor.

The segment of Gratiot Avenue within Mt. Clemens splits into north bound

Page 8.1 [South Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

and south bound components referred to as “one-way pairs” which present unique traffic operations. This unique road alignment calls for additional emphasis on the location of driveways to nearby road intersections, especially signalized intersections. Less emphasis is placed on spacing from opposing driveways, since all traffic flows in one direction though Mt. Clemens, either via the northbound side or southbound side. In general, the City should strive to achieve less direct access to Gratiot Avenue and redirect driveways to side streets. By limiting the amount of direct access to Gratiot Avenue, the number of potential vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes is also lessened, and the possibility of a continuous pathway along the corridor is improved.

Existing and Future Land Remick Drive north to Downtown (Cass Ave) Use Land use on the one-way pairs in this segment of the corridor is characterized by a mix of single family dwellings, commercial restaurants and retail, service uses such as offices and large financial businesses, and a number of institutional uses including Mt. Clemens High School, Mt. Clemens Senior Academy and several religious uses.

Downtown Mt Clemens (Cass Ave. to Wells St.) This segment is occupied by a wide range of uses typically found in a downtown setting. Major uses include the Macomb County offices and courthouse, several schools and churches, offices, retail stores, lodging and restaurants. Downtown Mt. Clemens also includes a major entertainment functions and offers a variety of bars, nightclubs, and the Emerald Theater. Several cross streets and frontage lots also have single family residential uses. Both city future land use and downtown planning call for infill mixed-use development in the future to increase intensity and promote downtown, urban-style character in a walkable setting.

Downtown north to Scott Blvd./Canfield St. Uses along this segment are distinctly different from one direction to the other. Southbound Gratiot (located generally in what was the back side alley area of commercial frontage on what is now northbound Gratiot) has total access restriction, with single family residential neighborhoods to the west and the back of the alley for commercial development on the east. Northbound Gratiot (the historic Gratiot) includes a range of auto-oriented uses, religious institutions, outdoor storage, offices and some single family dwellings. As much of the development pattern has been in place for decades, the future land use designations call for continued infill with compatible uses in the future.

Roadway Conditions and Concepts Roadway Conditions The segment of Gratiot Ave. within Mt. Clemens splits into north bound and south bound components. This configuration, typically referred to Page 8.2 [City of Mt. Clemens]

as “one-way pairs,” has three or four lanes of through traffic on one street, with the other directional street located one or more blocks away with land uses in between instead of a median. The entire length of Gratiot in Mt Clemens exists under this configuration.

The distance between the pairs ranges from commercial frontage depth in the north segment (approximately 100 feet) to several city blocks wide around the core downtown. While the one-way configuration eliminates crash potential associated with turning left across opposing traffic, they can contribute to confusing circulation and higher speeds. While previous planning efforts have considered the possibility of returning each pair to two-way traffic, the high volumes of through traffic and Gratiot’s role as the only alternate route to I-94 in the case of an emergency make that alternative improbable. An alternative treatment to provide opportunities to gain green space, increase sidewalk width, and reduce pedestrian crossing distance is what is known as a . A road diet should be considered during future major road projects along Gratiot in Mt Clemens to eliminate one or more travel lanes in favor of other amenities for the corresponding right-of-way area. The posted speed along Gratiot in Mt Clemens varies from 30 to 35 MPH.

Crash Analysis and Concepts For more details on the Several intersections along Gratiot in Mt Clemens had crashes in the methodologies for Crash Analysis and Intersection 2005-2007 data used in this plan and/or observed congestion and delay. Evaluation, refer to Chapter 1. However, none of the fully signalized intersections in Mt Clemens meet or exceed the critical crash ratio established by SEMCOG. The intersection area of southbound Gratiot and Cass Ave. and the intersection area of northbound Gratiot and North River Rd. were both requested for examination as part of this plan and are discussed in this section.

Outside of the intersection areas, six segments of Gratiot Ave. in Mt Clemens exceeded the critical crash rate and frequency. Details of crash data for these two segments are shown in Figure 8.1 below. The following paragraphs discuss the patterns in more detail and other recommendations to reduce crash potential where an opportunity may exist.

Figure 8.1: Mt. Clemens Critical Segment Crashes Crash Type Head-On+ Angle + Sideswipe Head-on Sideswipe Uncoded + Location Crash Rate Single MV Opposite Left Rear-end Same Other Total SB Gratiot from Robertson to south of Kibbee 3.94 4 / 17% 1 / 4% 9 / 39% 2 / 9% 6 / 26% 1 / 4% 23 NB Gratiot from Market to Walnut 4.82 1 / 6% 2 / 12% 0 9 / 53% 3 / 18% 2 / 12% 17 SB Gratiot from Jones to Market 7.09 4 / 13% 0 15 / 48% 4 / 13% 8 / 26% 0 31 NB Gratiot from Main to Joy Blvd 7.72 5 / 8% 2 / 3% 26 / 40% 10 / 15% 17 / 26% 5 / 8% 65 SB Gratiot from split to Joy Blvd 4.07 3 / 18% 0 7 / 41% 4 / 23% 2 / 12% 1 / 6% 17 NB Gratiot from Joy Blvd to split 3.93 2 / 13% 1 / 7% 6 / 40% 2 / 13% 4 / 27% 0 15 # / #% = Number of Crashes / Percentages of Crashes Page 8.3 [South Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

SB Gratiot from Robertson to south of Kibbee Southbound Gratiot Ave. south of Robertson St. is currently three lanes and then converts to four lanes with the intersection of Main St. It is recommended that a solid white line extend further south after the intersection of Main St. for the left most lane. This is shown in Figure 8.2.

Several of the other crashes along this segment are attributed to the intersection of southbound Gratiot Ave. and Kibbee St. There is a building located in the northeast quadrant of this intersection which may be causing some sight distance restrictions. It is recommended that a stop bar be installed along eastbound and westbound Kibbee St. with the intersection of southbound Gratiot Ave.

Northbound Gratiot from Market to Walnut Street Figure 8.3 illustrates the crashes along this segment of northbound Gratiot Ave. The majority of crashes in this segment are rear-end crashes and sideswipe-same crashes and occur at the split between northbound Figure 8.2: Southbound Gratiot at Main St. Gratiot to North River Rd. Currently there are three lanes that continue on northbound Gratiot in this location and the two right lanes continue onto North River Rd. There is a sign located south of intersection indicating that the right lane leads to I-94. However, there are no signs indicating that northbound Gratiot Ave. traffic needs to stay left. It is recommended that additional signs be placed south of Market St. indicating that northbound Gratiot Ave. traffic keep left.

A traffic analysis of this area was also conducted using existing and 2030 traffic volumes. The 2030 SEMCOG Model indicated that northbound Gratiot Ave. would increase by 17% in the PM peak hour by the 2030. There is not expected to be an increase in traffic volumes in the AM peak hour. The traffic along North River Rd., both eastbound and westbound would also remain the same as existing volumes. Figure 8.4 illustrates the current lanes of northbound Gratiot Ave. at North River Rd.

Figure 8.3: Crashes at North River Rd. Using existing and future 2030 traffic volumes, it was determined that reducing the number of lanes going onto and from North River Rd. would not cause additional congestion. Figure 8.5 illustrates the proposed lanes of northbound Gratiot Ave. at North River Rd.

Southbound Gratiot from Jones to Market Most of these crashes are occurring at the unsignalized intersections along southbound Gratiot Ave. between Jones Rd. to Market St.. The majority of these crashes are angle and sideswipe same crashes. Upon field review it was noted that most of the streets on the east side of the road were marked as leading to downtown Mt. Clemens. It is recommended that one roadway be marked leading to downtown Mt. Clemens and advanced signing be placed indicating to drivers of the preferred route. This could reduce some of the sideswipe same crashes along the corridor. The Figure 8.4: Current lanes at North River Rd. reduction of angle crashes would involve limiting the through movement

Page 8.4 [City of Mt. Clemens] of eastbound and westbound vehicles along the side street across southbound Gratiot Ave. Sight distance at some of these unsignalized intersections may also be an issue. It is recommended that sight distance be reviewed at the intersection of Clinton St. and southbound Gratiot Ave.

Northbound Gratiot from Main to Joy Blvd. Again, most of these crashes are occurring at the unsignalized intersections along northbound Gratiot Ave. between Main St. to Joy Blvd. It is recommended that sight distance be reviewed at the following intersections with northbound Gratiot Ave. due to the number of angle crashes: Brooks St., Clemens St., and Euclid St.

Northbound and Southbound Gratiot from split to Joy Blvd. Again, most of these crashes are occurring at the unsignalized intersections along Gratiot Ave. between Joy Blvd. and where Gratiot Ave. becomes 5 lanes. It is recommended that along northbound Gratiot Ave. that the left most lane become the left-turn lane to Patterson St. Currently, Figure 8.5: Proposed at North River Rd. the left most lane continues past Patterson St. and it drops shortly thereafter. Intersection Evaluation: Southbound Gratiot Avenue at Cass Ave. The intersection of southbound Gratiot Ave. at Cass Ave. was asked to be reviewed as part of the study. A review of the signal timings at the intersection found that in the morning peak hour, Cass Ave. receives a little more than half of the green time compared to Gratiot Ave.. There are a high number of vehicles traveling westbound in the morning and that approach may see some delay, but is still considered acceptable (LOS C). In the PM peak hour, Cass Ave. still receives a little more than half of the green time compared to Gratiot Ave., however, both eastbound and westbound Cass Ave. have significant traffic volumes. Both approaches are operating at a LOS C while Gratiot Ave. is operating at a LOS A. A field visit of the intersection showed that the westbound left-turn traffic typically had to wait one or two cycles to complete the left-turn. It is recommended that this signal be revisited by MDOT to determine if more green time needs to be allocated to Cass Ave. as well as if a westbound left-turn phase would reduce delay at the intersection.

Access Conditions and Existing Access Conditions Recommendations As an older community, Mt. Clemens predominantly contains land use patterns established long ago. These areas provide adequate access to these businesses; however, the City must remain vigilant that cross-access connections are planned for now before these opportunities are lost. A number of the commercial driveways are wider than modern standards, in need of repair, or poorly delineated from Gratiot, the sidewalk, and off-street parking areas. Most uses are served by at least one dedicated driveway. The City should close excess driveways and encourage shared access between adjacent properties when opportunities arise. Including

Page 8.5 [South Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

cross streets, Gratiot Ave. in Mt Clemens has about 74 access points per Map Tiles 22 through 26 illustrate specific mile, compared to the MDOT standard of approximately 57 access points recommendations in Mt Clemens for access per mile for the same posted speed. This plan recommends closing 49 management (such as the sample shown driveways in Mt. Clemens, an 18% reduction in driveways. below) including how to improve the relationship between vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. All of the Map Tiles are located after Chapter 8. Access Recommendations Map tiles 22 through 26 illustrate site-specific recommendations for access management, including ways to improve the relationship between vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. As outlined in Chapter 4: Implementation, these recommendations are based on state and national research, a thorough review of the conditions along the corridor, significant public input, and the extensive experience and expertise of the plan team with access management across the state.

As most of the corridor area in the city is built out with constrained lots and abutting land uses, the recommendations focus on eliminating excess driveways and forging new connections with adjacent parking and driveways. In addition, recommendations for Cass Ave. and the North River Rd. seek to reduce confusion and congestion that can contribute Sample Recommendations at Southbound to crash potential at these key access points to the corridor. Similarly, Gratiot and Church St. recommendation to return cross streets on the north end of the Mt Clemens segment that are currently one-way to two-way traffic hope to reduce unnecessary confusion and crash potential in this uniquely configured stretch of Gratiot.

Because the recommendations are based on the conditions at the time this plan was developed, a significant change in conditions along the corridor should prompt a thorough consideration of any proposed project in the context of the policies, standards, and goals of this plan. The City, MDOT, and members of the Steering Committee will play an important role in reviewing development proposals along this corridor to promote more efficient and safe access.

Non-Motorized and Transit Conditions and Non-Motorized Recommendations Sidewalks are missing in a number of places south of the Clinton River. North of the Clinton River, sidewalks are provided on both sides of southbound Gratiot.

An extensive sidewalk system is located throughout the downtown Mt. Clemens area of the corridor. However, there are several locations where pedestrians must cross very wide commercial driveways that do not include defined pedestrian crossings. As opportunities arise, driveways should be removed and/or reconstructed to more modern standards that increase visibility and minimize crossing distance for non-motorized users while also decreasing the crash potential for vehicles along the corridor.

Page 8.6 [City of Mt. Clemens]

In concert with Clinton Township and Macomb County, a non-motorized pathway is planned to connect the Stoney Creek - Metro Beach Trail at 16 Mile Rd. north to the Riverwalk in Downtown Mt Clemens. The plan is to route the pathway along the east side of Gratiot Ave. (northbound side) from 16 Mile Rd. up to Remick Dr., continuing along the east side of the northbound Gratiot Ave. one-way pair up to the Clinton River. At that point, a connector will split off to the east to connect the pathway to an existing bridge, and the main pathway will continue north, either split as two 5-foot pathways on either side of the northbound one-way pair or as one wider path on the east side of the northbound one-way pair.

Transit SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) offers bus routes throughout Macomb County. A fixed line service is provided along Gratiot Ave. in Mt. Clemens. The SMART bus routes are connected to the DDOT routes, providing access to shopping malls, educational institutions, medical facilities and other daily needs. SMART also provides the following curb-to-curb service:

• Advanced reservation for medical and non-medical appointments. The service area includes Mt. Clemens, Clinton Township and Harrison Township.

Mt. Clemens Community Transportation provides a curb-to-curb, site to site and parking shuttle connector within the city limits of Mt. Clemens and contiguous parts of Clinton and Harrison Township. Users must request service at least 1 hour in advance.

As outlined in Chapter 4: Transit Guidelines, the RTCC (Regional Transit Coordinating Council) 2008 Regional Transit Service Plan designation of Gratiot as one of three key “spokes” in Metro Detroit for transit increases the likelihood of more intense transit service in the future. Downtown Mt Clemens is a natural node of density and uses, and the city and DDA should continue their diligent efforts to connect the non-motorized network to current and future transit facilities.

When considering the recommendations of this plan and regulations in the appropriate ordinance, MDOT and the City should also consider how site design, including access placement and design, can support safe and convenient transit for the community.

Page 8.7 [South Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Page 8.8 Chapter 9: [Macomb] Township

As Macomb County’s fastest growing community in the 2000’s, Macomb Township witnessed explosive growth in population with many single family subdivisions and commercial developments. Several golf courses and large tracts of agricultural land contribute to the rural character but may also be viewed as opportunities for continued growth in the future. Located on the north side of M-59, Macomb Township is the southernmost segment of the North Gratiot Corridor Improvement Plan area. The Township’s east boundary traverses Gratiot Ave. near Erb Dr., where Gratiot Ave. enters Chesterfield Township.

Existing and Future Land Single-family residential is the predominant land use along the west side Use of Gratiot Ave., with some industrial uses toward the north end of the Township. Erb Industrial Park is an active industrial complex that attracts truck traffic to and from its accesses to Gratiot and 21 Mile Rd. The east side of this segment consists of auto-oriented uses including the gas station and dealership at the northeast corner of Hall Rd. and Gratiot Ave., with a manufactured home dealership and several drive-through restaurants and gas stations located farther north.

With the exception of several properties adjacent to and in between Abington Circle, the Macomb Township Master Plan classifies Gratiot Ave. frontage as commercial and industrial uses.

Page 9.1 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

overall, with one access point and preferably, a connection to adjacent Roadway Conditions and uses. Concepts Roadway Conditions Because the recommendations are based on the conditions at the time this The half mile of Gratiot Ave. (M-3) in Macomb Township is a five-lane plan was developed, a significant change in conditions along the corridor cross section, with two through lanes in each direction with a center left should prompt a thorough consideration of any proposed project in the turn lane. Most of this stretch has a full lane width paved some context of the policies, standards, and goals of this plan. The Township, motorists use as an acceleration/deceleration lane for accessing businesses Figure 5.1: 2007 Average Daily Traffic MDOT, Road Commission of Macomb County and members of the and cross streets. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along Gratiot Ave. in Macomb (ADT) along the Gratiot Corridor in the Steering Committee will play an important role in reviewing development Township in 2008 was approximately 37,000 vehicles per day, and the Macomb Township proposals along this corridor to promote more efficient and safe access. Between ADT posted speed limit is 45 MPH. There were no segments or intersections Hall (M-59) & 21 with high crash rates in this segment of the corridor. 36,278 Mile Rd. Source: SEMCOG Intersection Evaluation and Concepts Gratiot Ave. at Marketplace Blvd and Erb Drive One area selected for special study during this planning process was the Non-Motorized intersection at Marketplace Blvd. and Erb Dr. Community representatives and the public expressed concern about northbound and southbound The west side of this segment of the corridor lacks non-motorized facilities. left-turning vehi ons). A signal warrant analysis was conducted on both Most of the newer developments on the east side of the corridor have intersections and found that the approach volumes are not sufficient to installed sidewalks along the Gratiot Ave. frontage that create an almost meet standards for a signal. continuous sidewalk through Macomb Township. Sidewalk breaks are found along the frontage of residential uses and the older developed sites. Opportunities to fill these gaps, especially near transit stops, should be Access Conditions and taken to increase connectivity. Existing Access Conditions Recommendations Multiple driveways are the norm for most businesses in the township’s Transit Gratiot corridor, while connections between adjacent properties are SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) runs the few and far between. Shared access and other site alternatives could be North Macomb Connector Service to places in Macomb County north of pursued to reduce the number of driveways to the corridor. Including Hall Rd./M-59. One fixed route is offered along Gratiot Ave. between Hall cross streets, Gratiot Ave. in Macomb Township has 50 access points Rd. and 23 Mile Rd., where it proceeds east along 23 Mile Rd. toward New per mile, compared to the MDOT standard of approximately 30 access Baltimore. Curb-to-curb service is provided upon advance reservations points per mile. This plan recommends closing 10 driveways in Macomb to other locations. Transit stops in the township should include sidewalk Township, a 33% reduction in driveways. connections to businesses and other existing or planned sidewalks. Map Tiles 1 through 2 illustrate specific Access Recommendations recommendations in Macomb Township for access management (such as the Map tiles 1 through 2 illustrate site-specific recommendations for access sample shown) including how to improve management, including ways to improve the relationship between the relationship between vehicle access vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. As outlined in and non-motorized and transit facilities. All of the Map Tiles are located after Chapter 4: Implementation, these recommendations are based on state and Chapter 9. national research, a thorough review of the conditions along the corridor, significant public input, and the extensive experience and expertise of the plan team with access management across the state.

Driveway spacing near Hall Rd./M-59 and along the west side of the corridor is adequate; however, shared access could be pursued to bring the gas station driveway farther north and away from the intersection. Uses on the east side contain several driveways, usually two per drive-through business, with some exceptions. In most cases, a drive-through use can operate just as well internally, and much better for the Gratiot corridor

Page 9.2 [Macomb Township] overall, with one access point and preferably, a connection to adjacent uses.

Because the recommendations are based on the conditions at the time this plan was developed, a significant change in conditions along the corridor should prompt a thorough consideration of any proposed project in the context of the policies, standards, and goals of this plan. The Township, MDOT, Road Commission of Macomb County and members of the Steering Committee will play an important role in reviewing development Sample Recommendations north of M-59. proposals along this corridor to promote more efficient and safe access.

Non-motorized, and Non-Motorized Transit Conditions The west side of this segment of the corridor lacks non-motorized facilities. Recommendations Most of the newer developments on the east side of the corridor have installed sidewalks along the Gratiot Ave. frontage that create an almost continuous sidewalk through Macomb Township. Sidewalk breaks are found along the frontage of residential uses and the older developed sites. Opportunities to fill these gaps, especially near transit stops, should be taken to increase connectivity.

Transit SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) runs the North Macomb Connector Service to places in Macomb County north of Hall Rd./M-59. One fixed route is offered along Gratiot Ave. between Hall Rd. and 23 Mile Rd., where it proceeds east along 23 Mile Rd. toward New Baltimore. Curb-to-curb service is provided upon advance reservations to other locations. Transit stops in the township should include sidewalk connections to businesses and other existing or planned sidewalks.

Page 9.3 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Page 9.4 Chapter 10: [Chesterfield] Township

Positioned on the shores of Lake St. Clair’s Anchor Bay, Chesterfield Township is home to a wide variety of development, from lakefront residential enclaves, suburban subdivisions, and a variety of commercial and industrial areas. Historically, the township has developed from the lake inland toward Jefferson, I-94 and more recently portions of Gratiot Ave. As with Macomb Township and other area communities, more explosive growth occurred in the late 1990’s and 2000’s, bringing large swaths of homes and larger scale retail development out the Gratiot corridor in the western half of the township.

Areas in the northwest part of the Township, including Gratiot north of 24 Mile and New Haven Rd. (M-19) south of 26 Mile Rd., are the next frontier, planned for growth in the future. Chesterfield has access to five interchanges with I-94 and a main line of the Grand Trunk Western Railroad (GTWRR), positing it to accommodate all types of growth into the future. Development around the interchanges at 21 Mile Rd. and 23 Mile Rd. has led to increasing traffic congestion and crashes, especially during peak commuting travel periods.

Gratiot Ave. (M-3) south of 23 Mile Rd. Existing and Future Land Land uses in this segment of the corridor are varied. Especially from 21 Use Mile Rd. north, the west side contains a variety of light industrial, heavy

Page 10.1 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

commercial and auto service businesses. This west side of the corridor has been planned for industrial land, use with some commercial, through most of Chesterfield due to the parallel GTWRR corridor located approximately 1/4 mile west. From the west edge of the township north to approximately Cotton Rd., the east side of this segment contains strip-like commercial development with various office and retail uses, with some vacant properties available for future infill development. At various points along this segment, cross streets lead to single family and attached single family residential neighborhoods developed behind commercial frontage.

Approaching the 23 Mile Rd. development area from Cotton Rd., restaurants, lodging facilities, regional retail and auto-oriented food and gas establishments dominate the land use pattern. The east side of Gratiot Ave. has a number of national retailers located in shopping centers with common parking areas and access circulation. Rear and side public streets provide options for customers and service vehicles to access and travel between adjacent centers without using Gratiot Ave. On the west side of the corridor, Chesterfield Rd. provides a natural rear service road for the restaurants, auto service uses and movie theater located south of 23 Mile Rd., and intersects with 23 Mile Rd. at a signalized intersection that lines up with the west access drive to the Meijer store on the north side 23 Mile Rd.

23 Mile Rd. (M-3) from Gratiot Ave. east to I-94 Similar to Gratiot in this area of the township, the one mile stretch of 23 Mile Rd. connecting Gratiot to I-94 has been built out with a variety of auto-oriented businesses that include big-box retailers, auto service, and drive-thru restaurants.

Gratiot Ave. from 23 Mile Rd. north to 26 Mile Rd. Transitioning from the 23 Mile Rd. development area, land to the north is developing into more retail uses, including an emerging node at 24 Mile Rd. The Road Commission of Macomb County recently widened Gratiot Ave. north of 24 Mile Rd. from two lanes to five lanes to accommodate growing traffic in the area. Significant portions of this segment are undeveloped, or are used as contractor yards and service-related uses, predominantly on the west side. More residential uses are located on the east side, but many have reserved the Gratiot Ave. frontage for future development. With the corridor master planned for commercial and industrial development, there remains much development potential as vacant sites are sold and older developed sites are redeveloped.

New Haven Rd. (M-19) from Gratiot southeast to I-94 This connecting corridor links I-94 to the Village of New Haven and points north and west. It is currently agricultural land with a community park and MDOT Park and Ride lot adjacent to the . Future land use in the township calls for single family residential subdivisions to develop as the township continues to grow.

Page 10.2 [Chesterfield Township]

Roadway Conditions Roadway Conditions Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along this segment of the Gratiot Ave. corridor and Concepts ranges from approximately 22,000 to approximately 36,000, while the posted speed ranges from 45 to 50 MPH.

Gratiot Ave. (M-3) south of 23 Mile Rd. From Hall Rd. (M-59) north to 23 Mile Rd., Gratiot is signed as the M-3 Figure 6.1: 2007 Average Daily Traffic state trunkline. It currently has a five-lane cross section, with two through (ADT) along the Gratiot Corridor in the lanes in each direction and a center left turn lane. An additional lane Chesterfield Township width of paved shoulder is also used by some motorists as a acceleration/ Between ADT 23 Mile (M-3) & deceleration lane to access cross streets and businesses. Local police 23,000 observe that this maneuver is illegal and is believed to contribute to Bates confusions and crashes. At 23 Mile Rd. the road widens to seven lanes, 25 Mile & 26 Mile 21,600 with dual left turn lanes in the center and a dedicated right turn lane on 21 Mile & 22 Mile 33,200 the shoulder area. Hall (M-59)& 21 Mile 36,300 Source: SEMCOG 23 Mile Rd. (M-3) from Gratiot Ave. east to I-94 From the intersection of Chesterfield Rd. west of Gratiot through to I-94 east of Gratiot, 23 Mile Rd. (signed M-3) is generally a five-lane cross section, with two through lanes in each direction and a center left turn lane. At the signalized intersections with Gratiot Ave. and Colonial St., the road widens to seven lanes, with dual left turn lanes in the center and a dedicated right turn lane on the outside lane.

Gratiot Ave. from 23 Mile Rd. north to 26 Mile Rd. North of 23 Mile Rd., to New Haven Rd. (M-19) in the Village of New Haven, Gratiot Ave. is under RCMC jurisdiction. The county recently widened the road from 24 Mile Rd. to just north of 26 Mile Rd., bringing this entire segment to a full five lanes with full lane width paved shoulder.

New Haven Rd. (M-19) from Gratiot southeast to I-94 Connecting Gratiot Ave. to I-94, New Haven Rd. is signed as M-19, which continues north through Richmond and eventually connecting to I-69 and points north. In Chesterfield Township, New Haven Rd. (M-19) is a two lane road, which widens out to three lanes at the intersection with 26 Mile Rd. to provide a left turn lane.

Crash Analysis and Concepts For more details on the methodologies for Crash The intersections along Gratiot in Chesterfield Township with the highest Analysis and Intersection number of crashes in 2007 were at 21 Mile Rd. (49 crashes) and 23 Mile Rd. Evaluation, refer to Chapter 1. (34 crashes). Between 2003 and 2007, there were 254 crashes at Gratiot’s intersection with 21 Mile Rd. and 243 crashes at 23 Mile Rd. In evaluating the intersection crash data for signalized intersections in Chesterfield Township, there were no instances where the crash rate met or exceeded the SEMCOG regional critical crash rate (ie while the crash rate bay be high in Chesterfield Township, non are among the highest locations in the metropolitan area).

Page 10.3 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Outside of the intersection areas, two segments of Gratiot Ave. in Chesterfield Township exceeded the critical crash rate and frequency. Details of crash data for these two segments are shown in Figure 6.2 below. The following paragraphs discuss the patterns in more detail and other recommendations to reduce crash potential where an opportunity may exist.

Figure 6.2: Chesterfield Township Critical Segment Crashes Crash Type Head-On+ Angle + Sideswipe Head-on Sideswipe Uncoded + Location Crash Rate Single MV Opposite Left Rear-end Same Other Total Gratiot from Erb to Rose St. (south of 21 Mile Road) 2.64 1 / 4% 0 13 / 57% 9 / 39% 0 0 23 Gratiot from Rose to 21 Mile Road 5.96 0 2 / 5% 38 / 86% 3 / 7% 1 / 2% 0 44 Gratiot from Telstar to Cotton 2.54 0 0 11 / 65% 5 / 29% 1 / 6% 0 17 Gratiot from Cotton to L Vergate 3.34 0 1 / 4% 14 / 61% 6 / 26% 2 / 9% 0 23 23 Mile from Gratiot to Colonial Drive 4.85 1 / 2% 2 / 4% 25 / 52% 12 / 25% 7 / 15% 1 / 2% 48 23 Mile Road between the I-94 Ramps 6.80 5 / 8% 2 / 3% 17 / 28% 30 / 50% 6 / 10% 0 60 New Haven Road between the I-94 Ramps 8.05 1 / 6% 0 3 / 18% 11 / 65% 0 2 / 12% 17 # / #% = Number of Crashes / Percentages of Crashes

Gratiot from Erb to 21 Mile Rd. The crashes between Erb Dr. to Rose St. mainly comprised of crashes at unsignalized intersections or major driveway locations. However, north of Rose St., the crashes occurred mainly at driveway locations. Figure 6.4 illustrates the crash locations between Rose St. and 21 Mile Rd. There were a very high percentage of angle and head-on left-turn crashes in this segment. Figure 6.3 summarizes the number of crashes that occurred by type of crash. Figure 6.3: Erb Rd. to 21 Mile Rd. Segment: Number of Crashes by Type Head Sideswipe Year Angle Head On On-Left Rear End Same Total 2005 14 2 4 2 22 2006 6 1 1 8 2007 8 5 1 14 Total 28 2 10 3 1 44

Half of the crashes at this intersection occurred in 2005, with a decreasing trend occurring after that. The reduction in driveways in this segment

Page 10.4 [Chesterfield Township]

would help reduce future crash potential.

Gratiot from Telstar St. to Cotton Rd. There was a high percentage of angle crashes between Telstar St. and Cotton Rd. Most of these angle crashes occurred at or near Chesterfield Rd. Figure 6.5 illustrates the location of crashes at this segment.

Turning movement counts as well as 24-hour machine counts were taken at the intersection of Chesterfield Rd. and Gratiot Ave. An analysis was conducted to see if the intersection met any of the approved criteria (warranted for a traffic signal). But the intersection did not meet any of the accepted warrants. So instead of a signal, one recommendation is to line up the intersection of Chesterfield Rd. with Cotton Rd. to reduce the number of angle crashes at the intersection. A reduction in driveways along this segment could also reduce the number of angle crashes as well.

Gratiot from Cotton Rd. to south of 23 Mile Rd. This segment also had a high percent of head-on left-turn and angle crashes. These mainly occurred at driveways and at the unsignalized intersection of L. Vergate Rd. A reduction of driveways around the unsignalized intersection could help reduce the number of angle crashes in this segment. Figure 6.4: Crash concentration south of 21 Mile Rd. Intersections and Corridor Segment Evaluation: 23 Mile Rd. from Chesterfield Rd. to I-94 Ramps This segment had a high percentage of head-on left-turn and angle crashes as well as rear-end crashes. Figure 6.6 illustrates the locations of these crashes in this segment. The majority of the crashes occurred at the unsignalized intersection of L. Vergate St. with 23 Mile Rd. The other crashes along the segment occurred at driveway locations. 23 Mile Rd. also has a high number of crashes between the I-94 ramps, especially a high percentage of rear-end crashes. Recently, MDOT re-timed the signals along both this roadway which should help in reducing the number of rear-end crashes between the ramps. The following section discusses potential solutions above and beyond the recommended driveway closures and consolidations illustrated on Map 8 found at the end of the plan.

The intersection of Gratiot Ave. at 23 Mile Rd. was requested to be reviewed as part of the study. As a result, the area of 23 Mile Rd. from Chesterfield Rd. to Donner Rd., as well as Gratiot Ave. from Chesterfield Rd. to north of 23 Mile Rd. was analyzed using computer traffic modeling (Synchro/SimTraffic) for both existing (2008) conditions and the “design” year (2030). Recently, MDOT re-timed the signals along Gratiot Ave. and 23 Mile Rd. Those two roadways were analyzed and re-timed separately. Since that time, a signal was installed at the intersection of Colonial Dr. and Figure 6.5: Crash concentration south of 23 23 Mile Rd, and was timed with the ramps at I-94. Mile Rd. near Cotton Rd.

Page 10.5 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Figure 6.6: Crash concentration along 23 The signal at the intersection 23 Mile Rd. and Gratiot Ave. is a fully actuated Mile Rd. east of Gratiot Ave. signal, meaning that the amount of green time and total cycle length fluctuates. All the other signals run on a fixed cycle length. This means that progression along 23 Mile Rd. between Chesterfield Rd. and Donner Rd. is impossible due to the fully actuated signal at Gratiot Ave. and 23 Mile Level-of-service (LOS) is a measure-of- Rd. Efficiency of traffic flow was evaluated through the computer traffic effectiveness by which traffic engineers determine the quality of service on a modeling. Using the commonly accepted practice, the Highway Capacity roadway (taking into account factors Manual, the “level of service” for each intersection was calculated on a such as length of travel delay along scale from A-F, with E and F considered potential problems (see Figure 6.7 segments or at intersections and below). congestion).

Figure 6.7: Existing Year Levels of Service along 23 Mile Rd. Corridor

Intersection AM Peak Hour* PM Peak Hour* 23 Mile Rd. and Chesterfield B/12 B/17 Cotton and Gratiot B/16 B/18 23 Mile Rd. and Gratiot C/26 D/39 23 Mile Rd. and Colonial A/6 C/21 23 Mile Rd. and westbound I-94 Off-ramp B/12 B/13 23 Mile Rd. and eastbound I-94 Off-ramp B/19 D/43 17. 23 Mile Rd. and Donner Rd. C/31 F/103 * X / # = Intersection Level of Service / Seconds of Control Delay

For 23 Mile Rd. at Donner Rd., the eastbound through, westbound left- turn, and northbound left-turn movements are failing. For 23 Mile Rd. at Gratiot Ave., each of the approaches are experiences a LOS D, however, none are failing.

Using the SEMCOG 2030 regional-wide travel demand forecasting model, it was determined that the area is expected by grow by 34% in the AM peak hour and 29% in the PM peak hour. Inputting these growth percentages into the more site specific computer modeling used for this plan calculated the future year 2030 levels of service at each of the intersections. Table 6.8 summarizes the 2030 levels of service.

Page 10.6 [Chesterfield Township]

Figure 6.8: 2030 Future Year (2030) Levels of Service along the 23 Mile Rd. Corridor

Intersection AM Peak Hour* PM Peak Hour* 23 Mile Rd. and Chesterfield B / 19 D / 47 Cotton and Gratiot C / 33 C / 25 23 Mile Rd. and Gratiot C / 32 D / 52 23 Mile Rd. and Colonial A / 7 D / 49 23 Mile Rd. and westbound I-94 Off-ramp B / 16 B / 15 23 Mile Rd. and eastbound I-94 Off-ramp F / 96 F / 134 17. 23 Mile Rd. and Donner Rd. F / 93 F / 219 * X / # = Intersection Level of Service / Seconds of Control Delay High traffic volumes, driveway density, poorly performing intersections and In the AM and PM peak hours the intersections of 23 Mile Rd. and the projected future growth along 23 eastbound I-94 off-ramp and Donner Rd. are both predicted to fail with Mile Rd. from I-94 to Gratiot require a LOS F. In the PM peak hour, eastbound 23 Mile Rd. is projected to fail more than just access management to improve the corridor. Our analysis between the Donner Rd. to Chesterfield Rd. At the intersection of 23 recommends evaluating a boulevard Mile Rd. and Gratiot Ave., most of the left-turning movements are also treatment to reduce the number of expected to fail. (Note: fail means very long delays usually considered direct left turns in and out of cross unacceptable). streets and access points.

There were several options considered for this segment. The first was putting in a roundabout at the intersection of 23 Mile Rd. and Gratiot Ave. to ease congestion along 23 Mile Rd. Using a microsimulation software called VISSIM, it was found that neither a 2-lane or a 3-lane roundabout As with any project that includes would sufficiently ease the congestion along 23 Mile Rd. and could make right-of-way acquisition, changes congestion worse in the area. in road alignment and lanes and reconstruction, additional evaluation, design and study will be needed A second option would be to install a median along 23 Mile Rd. (a before this type of project would be boulevard) from west of Chesterfield Rd. to west of the I-94 ramps. Figure constructed. 6.9 illustrates the median concept in this area.

Figure 6.9: Conceptual schematic of 23 Mile Rd. boulevard connecting Chesterfield Rd. (left side) with the I-94 ramps (off right edge of map).

Page 10.7 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

A Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) was also considered for the 23 Mile Rd. ramps at I-94. In contrast to the current interchange design that has a traffic signal on either end of the freeway (and significant congestion and delay in between them), this relatively new interchange design pulls the traffic from all four freeway ramps into a single point at a large intersection in the middle of the overpass. It is referred to as an urban style interchange because it uses less land area than a traditional interchange while moving traffic from the ramps and across the cross street very efficiently. Another reason it was considered is due to the close intersection spacing between the eastbound I-94 off-ramp and the Donner Rd. intersection.

Converting the interchange configuration to a SPUI would create more distance between the eastbound I-94 off-ramp signal (now part of one large intersection in the middle of the overpass) and the Donner Rd. intersection. Another interchange configuration to consider is having at the intersections of the westbound I-94 ramps, eastbound I-94 ramps and Donner Rd. It is expected that two-lane roundabouts would be needed at a minimum for each of these roundabouts due to the heavy eastbound and westbound movement along 23 Mile Rd. as well as those entering and exiting the freeway. It is recommended that additional study be conducted of 23 Mile Rd. due to existing and congestion and to more closely determine if the future year traffic growth predictions are still valid.

Access Conditions and Existing Access Conditions Recommendations Like many older commercial corridors, many of the businesses developed in the township were constructed over several decades, without any consideration of how adjacent sites might interact as development continues or with driveways on the opposite side of the street. Access design ranges from sites with multiple drives to those with shared access, often as part of more recent, larger planned commercial developments. Access points are generally well-designed using shared and driveways, especially those for newer developments.

Areas with the oldest commercial development, surrounding the intersections of 21 Mile and 23 Mile Rd., have the highest density and worst design and condition of driveways, which compounds the traffic problems already experienced there. The larger challenge will be improving movement of the high traffic volumes experienced on 23 Mile Rd. between Gratiot Ave. and I-94.

The Township should close excess driveways and encourage shared access between adjacent properties when opportunities arise. Including cross streets, Gratiot Ave. in Chesterfield Township has about 41 access points per mile, compared to the MDOT standard of approximately 30 access points per mile for the same length/posted speed. However, this number

Page 10.8 [Chesterfield Township]

is much higher in developed segments of the corridor, where there are Map Tiles 2 through 16 and 29 through over 60 access points in the mile between 22 Mile Rd. and 23 Mile Rd., and 32 illustrate specific recommendations as high as 85 access points per mile in isolated segments in the township. in Chesterfield Township for access This plan recommends closing 65 driveways in Chesterfield Township, a management (such as the sample shown below) including how to improve the 24% reduction in driveways. relationship between vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. All of Access Recommendations the Map Tiles are located after Chapter 9. Map tiles 2 through 16 and 29 through 32 illustrate site-specific recommendations for access management, including ways to improve the relationship between vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. As outlined in Chapter 4: Implementation, these recommendations are based on state and national research, a thorough review of the conditions along the corridor, significant public input, and the extensive experience and expertise of the plan team with access management across the state.

Shared access and rear service drives are possible where there are vacancies in the industrial areas throughout the township. Proper access management principles for the corridor will help to maintain efficient traffic flow.

As many areas in the township are vacant land planned for higher intensity use in the future, care must be taken when reviewing land divisions and development applications to ensure coordinated access to few, well placed driveways can be achieved in the township.

Auto-oriented uses and development patterns, especially on the west Sample Recommendations at 23 Mile Rd. side of Gratiot south of 23 Mile Rd., need to be assisted in exploring coordinated shared access to parking areas with both the road agency and neighboring businesses. A few example in this segment are shown on Map 7, including cross access connections to allow Gratiot frontage to gain access to Chesterfield Rd. to the west, and a potential north-south service drive providing access from businesses to each other and eventually out to 23 Mile Rd. west of Gratiot Ave.

Because the recommendations are based on the conditions at the time this plan was developed, a significant change in conditions along the corridor should prompt a thorough consideration of any proposed project in the context of the policies, standards, and goals of this plan. The Township, MDOT, RCMC and members of the Steering Committee will play an important role in reviewing development proposals along this corridor to promote more efficient and safe access.

Page 10.9 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Sample Recommendations for future development south of 24 Mile Rd.

Non-motorized and Non-Motorized Transit Conditions and Most of the commercial uses along the corridor contain sidewalks. With Recommendations the exception of vacant and older-developed sites, a continuous path extends on the east side from the southern extent of the Township to areas north of 23 Mile Rd. Newer developments on the west side have also installed sidewalks, although sidewalks on the west side are scarce. Areas north of the shopping centers at 23 Mile Rd. are also lacking non- motorized facilities, and evidence of worn roadside paths, especially between the Target site and the signalized intersection of Carriage Way, indicate a strong desire and need for them. To accommodate the existing fixed-route and Park and Ride facilities in the area (and any future transit), bus stops that are observed to have high regular use should have sidewalk connections between the existing sidewalk system, businesses, and bus stop locations.

Transit Fixed line bus service is provided through SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation). In spring 2009, The #560 line runs to 23 Mile Rd. where it turns east toward New Baltimore. The New Haven/ Lenox/Chesterfield Shuttle serves all of Macomb County, and additional curb-to-curb service is available on a reservation-basis.

When considering the recommendations of this plan and regulations in the appropriate ordinance, MDOT, RCMC and the Township should also consider how site design, including access placement and design, can support safe and convenient transit for the community. Especially in areas with extensive parking areas along transit routes, cooperative agreements with business and property to establish park and ride lots should be pursued.

Page 10.10 Chapter 11: Village of [New Haven]

Gratiot Ave. / M-19

(to downtown)Main St.

New Haven Rd./

M-19

Located along Gratiot Ave. between 26 Mile Rd. and north of 27 Mile Rd., the Village of New Haven is a small residential enclave in northeastern Macomb County. The older, established areas of the village, including the downtown commercial district, are located west of Gratiot on Main St. More recent commercial development around 26 Mile Rd. and around 27 Mile Rd. has brought more visibility to the village along the Gratiot corridor. Both 26 Mile Rd. and New Haven Rd. (M-19) lead to I-94 interchanges, and as such, the village experiences heavy traffic along Gratiot during peak commuting periods.

Existing and Future Land The predominant land use along Gratiot Ave. in the Village of New Haven Use is service-oriented commercial. More recent development in the southern portion of the village includes auto and service related uses, which supports New Haven’s position as a northern Macomb County gateway to I-94. Semi-trucks gather at local eateries or stop at the several gas stations in the area to refuel before continuing to I-94. The location of New Haven High School and the New Haven Health Facility just north of Main St. generate additional pedestrian traffic concerns along this segment of the corridor, as pedestrians cross between these east side uses and food and retail uses on the west side of the street.

Draft July 28, 2009 Page 11.1 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

The area north of Main St. along the west side of Gratiot contains a mixture of intense commercial uses which generate heavy truck traffic and a cluster of single-family homes. The northern portion of the village is still developing, especially near the Gratiot Ave./27 Mile Rd. area. Nearby residential land uses make this a true neighborhood commercial node.

A new elementary school, located within the Decora Park neighborhood on the east side of Gratiot, was opened. Decora Park has access to both Gratiot Ave. and 26 Mile Rd., and access to the school is through this residential neighborhood. Traffic from outside the neighborhood visiting the school contributes to heavier traffic volumes at the subdivision entrances during hours of peak morning traffic.

Roadway Conditions and Roadway Conditions Concepts Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along the Gratiot Ave. corridor ranges from approximately 15,000 to approximately 21,000 vehicles per day. Gratiot and New Haven Rd. (M-19) are currently 2 lanes, with dedicated left Figure 7.1: 2007 Average Daily Traffic turn lanes at signalized intersections. As area growth, traffic, and land (ADT) along the Gratiot Corridor in the City of New Haven use intensity along Gratiot increases, a continuous center left turn lane along Gratiot Ave. should be regularly evaluated by MDOT and RCMC to Between ADT reduce congestion and crash potential; this area could also be used for a 27 Mile & 28 Mile 15,000 pedestrian if future mid-block or signalized non-motorized Main & Clark/27 20,700 Mile crossings are considered. In the village, RCMC has jurisdiction along 26 Mile Gratiot between 26 Mile Rd. and New Haven Rd./Main St., while MDOT has jurisdiction along M-19 (New Haven Rd. east of Gratiot and Gratiot Source: SEMCOG north of New Haven Rd.). The posted speed in the village is 35 MPH. A key challenge in New Haven is accommodating the increasing volumes of truck and commuter traffic that are traveling via I-94.

Crash Analysis New Haven Rd. has a high number of crashes between the I-94 ramps, especially rear-end crashes. Recently, MDOT re-timed the signals along both this roadway which should help in reducing the number of rear-end

crashes between the ramps.

Intersection Evaluation: Gratiot Ave. at New Haven Rd. The intersection of Gratiot Ave. at New Haven Rd. was reviewed as part of the Plan. The figure to the left illustrates the current lane configuration of this intersection.

The northbound, westbound, eastbound approaches to the intersection are two lanes and do not have pavement markings for either lane. There are two lanes exiting the intersection on the east leg of the intersection. The southbound left-turn movement is prohibited at the intersection. In order to make the movement, there is a bypass located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection. MDOT recently re-timed this signal, therefore

Page 11.2 [Village of New Haven] turning movement counts and a Synchro/Simtraffic model was used for the analysis. Currently, all approaches are operating at acceptable levels of service in the AM and PM peak hours. To reduce confusion and crash potential, this plan recommends re-stripe the intersection such that there would be dedicated left-turn only lanes for northbound Gratiot Ave., and both directions of New Haven Rd. at the intersection. The illustration to the right shows the re-striping with the lanes necessary to keep acceptable levels of service at the intersection.

Another opportunity to re-configure the intersection would be to remove the bypass in the northwest quadrant and allow direct left-turns for southbound Gratiot Ave. The New Haven Master Plan calls for removal of this bypass. If RCMC and MDOT pursue widening or other reconstruction of Gratiot Ave. in this area, the removal of the bypass should be evaluated. The laneage needed for this alternative to keep acceptable levels of service is shown on the second illustration to the right.

By the year 2030 in the AM peak hour, it is expected that eastbound New Haven Rd. will increase by 19% and northbound Gratiot Ave. will increase by 40%. Southbound Gratiot Ave. is expected to have a less than 5% increase as well as westbound New Haven Rd.

In the PM peak hour, it is expected by the year 2030 that eastbound New Haven Rd. will increase by 24%, and northbound Gratiot Ave. will increase by 28%. Southbound Gratiot as well as westbound New Haven Rd. would have less than 5% growth.

Even with this type of growth to the year 2030, the laneage for either As with any project that includes option would be adequate to maintain acceptable levels of service. right-of-way acquisition, changes in road alignment and lanes and reconstruction, additional evaluation, design and study will be needed before this type of project would be constructed.

Access Conditions and Existing Access Conditions Recommendations As an older incorporated community, New Haven’s land use patterns were established long ago. This is especially true near the intersection at Main St./New Haven Rd., where several wide and shallow driveways provide Map Tiles 16 through 19 illustrate specific access to strip-like commercial developments. Newer development, such recommendations in the Village of New as the Tractor Supply Company near 26 Mile Rd. and the newer commercial Haven for access management (such as the sample shown) including how to improve developments at 27 Mile Rd. have been designed on more typical, the relationship between vehicle access suburban-sized retail lots and were constructed using more modern access and non-motorized and transit facilities. principles. All of the Map Tiles are located after Chapter 9. Many of the older commercial driveways are excessively wide and in need of repair. Individual residential driveways exist on the west side of Gratiot, while other side streets provide access to larger residential developments.

Page 11.3 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Including cross streets, Gratiot Ave. in New Haven has about 44 access points per mile, which matches the MDOT standard for the same length/ posted speed. Although New Haven currently meets the standard, new development will bring additional driveways that may affect the situation. This plan recommends closing 9 driveways in New Haven, a 16% reduction in driveways.

Access Recommendations Map tiles 16 through 19 illustrate site-specific recommendations for access management, including ways to improve the relationship between vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. As outlined in Chapter 4: Implementation, these recommendations are based on state and national research, a thorough review of the conditions along the corridor, significant public input, and the extensive experience of the plan team. In Sample Recommendations south of New Haven Rd./Gratiot Ave. intersection. addition to reducing driveways, the Main St. intersection should be re- striped/re-configured to provide dedicated left turn lanes.

Because the recommendations are based on the conditions at the time this plan was developed, a significant change in conditions along the corridor should prompt a thorough consideration of any proposed project in the context of the policies, standards, and goals of this plan. The village, MDOT, Road Commission of Macomb County and members of the Steering Committee will play an important role in reviewing development proposals along this corridor to promote more efficient and safe access.

Non-motorized and Non-Motorized Transit Recommendations The Gratiot corridor is lacking non-motorized facilities in New Haven. Concrete sidewalks have been installed with the newer commercial developments, but in general, the corridor is in need of dedicated pathways due to the location of the high school and surrounding residential uses, as well as its proximity to the core downtown. Institutional and civic uses like the high school and school administrative offices should be retrofitted with sidewalks or pathways, and new regulations established to require future developments to contain similar facilities.

Pedestrians and bicyclists cross the Gratiot corridor in several key points in the village, namely at the high school/medical center area and at 27 Mile Rd. Mid-block crossing and intersection improvements may be needed to An example of one of several gaps in the facilitate safe pedestrian movement in these areas. village’s non-motorized system north of New Haven Rd. Transit SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) offers bus routes throughout Macomb County. While no fixed line service is provided in New Haven, a daily shuttle is offered through partnership with Richmond Lenox EMS. Several shuttle stops in the village provide service in the morning and evening to 23 Mile Rd., where fixed service begins. Future service to the New Haven Rd/I-94 Park and Ride should be pursued.

Page 11.4 Chapter 12: [Lenox] Township

Located between the Village of New Haven and the City of Richmond, Lenox Township is a rural community in northeast Macomb County. Wide expanses of agricultural land comprise the corridor, with the LEED® certified Lenox Township complex located at approximately the mid-point serves as a scenic element for numerous commuters and heavy trucks traversing the township to access points north and west. Lenox has an advantage in that is has the ability to plan for proper access in the future if agricultural areas redevelop as more intense uses.

Existing and Future Land Along the Gratiot corridor through Lenox, agricultural land use dominates Use the landscape. In addition to scattered single family homes, some heavy commercial and contractor service uses are scatted along the corridor. More recent developments include a mini-storage and golf driving range. Aside from scattered industrial service, residential and religious uses, the corridor is predominantly undeveloped.

Although the predominant land use is agriculture, the Township Master Plan has a variety of more intense designations along the corridor. The intersections of 28 Mile Rd. and 30 Mile Rd. with Gratiot Ave. both have commercial nodes planned. In addition, the land on the east side of Gratiot north of 29 Mile Rd. (across from the township civic complex)

Page 12.1 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

is planned for a town center style commercial district; a similar smaller commercial center is planned just north of 30 Mile Rd. on the west side. Industrial uses are planned between 28 Mile Rd. and 29 Mile Rd. along Gratiot, in an area close to the landfill located east of the corridor. When these area begin to convert from agriculture, the plan and regulations should be integral to planning for access.

Roadway Conditions and Roadway Conditions Concepts Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along the corridor is approximately 16,000. Throughout the township, Gratiot is a 2 lane road, with only a few areas with a paved on the shoulder or wider road for dedicated Figure 8.1: 2007 Average Daily Traffic left turn lane. As traffic and development increase in the future, a more (ADT) along the Gratiot Corridor in the Lenox Township continuous center left turn lane may be warranted. Between ADT There are several mile road intersections in Lenox Township; however, Main (M-19) & 17,000 Clark/27 Mile Rd none are signalized – other than the intersection at 27 Mile that it shares Lowe Plank to 29 with the Village of New Haven. Heavy truck traffic from the landfill 16,600 Mile Rd primarily uses the intersection at 29 Mile Rd. to access Gratiot Ave.; MDOT 29 Mile Rd to 30 and the Township should monitor any need for signalization in the future. 15,300 Mile Rd The posted speed in the Township on Gratiot Ave. is 55 MPH. 27 Mile Rd (Clark) to 16,500 28 Mile Rd Source: SEMCOG

Access Conditions and Recommendations Existing Access Conditions As a predominantly undeveloped community, the Gratiot corridor through Lenox contains only a handful of non-residential access points. Due to the largely undeveloped nature of this portion of Gratiot Ave., access is generally well spaced and functions properly. However, future development could compromise these conditions and regulations should be enacted to ensure this does not occur.

As growth and development resume, the township should use this plan and access standards in the zoning ordinance to require design of coordinated, shared access points along Gratiot. In addition to a reduction of crash potential, keeping strong control of access points will minimize congestion and delay even as traffic volumes rise. Including cross streets, Gratiot Ave. in Lenox Township has about 15 access points per mile, compared to the MDOT standard of approximately 22 access points per mile for the same length/posted speed. This plan recommends closing 11 driveways in Lenox Township, a16% reduction in driveways.

Access Recommendations

Page 12.2 [Lenox Township]

Map tiles 18 through 27 illustrate site-specific recommendations for Map Tiles 18 through 27 illustrate specific access management, including ways to improve the relationship between recommendations in Lenox Township for vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. As outlined in access management (such as the sample Chapter 4: Implementation, these recommendations are based on state and shown below) including how to improve the relationship between vehicle access national research, a thorough review of the conditions along the corridor, and non-motorized and transit facilities. significant public input, and the extensive experience and expertise of the All of the Map Tiles are located after plan team with access management across the state. Chapter 9.

As the township develops, many of the agricultural access drives should be closed off in favor of fewer, properly spaced and designed access points, both as prescribed on the plan maps and regulated through the township’s zoning ordinance amendment. In addition, road intersections may need to be modified as volumes increase, such as the high-angle intersection of the unpaved Lowe Plank Rd. and Gratiot Ave. shown as reconfigured in Figure 8.2. Figure 8.2 Lowe Plank Rd. Recommendation In particular, the township’s plan for a town center development across from the municipal complex will provide an opportunity to coordinate internal circulation throughout development areas to access Gratiot with the fewest driveways possible, preferably aligned with the municipal driveways on the opposite side of the street.

Because the recommendations are based on the conditions at the time this plan was developed, a significant change in conditions along the corridor should prompt a thorough consideration of any proposed project in the context of the policies, standards, and goals of this plan. The Township, MDOT, RCMC and members of the Steering Committee will play an important role in reviewing development proposals along this corridor to promote more efficient and safe access.

Non-Motorized and Non-Motorized Transit Conditions and The corridor has very limited non-motorized facilities due to the land Recommendations use and development patterns. As developments occur, sidewalks and/ or multi-use pathways should be connected to destinations as both recreational and transportation options.

Transit SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) offers bus routes throughout Macomb County. No fixed line service is provided in Lenox, although a daily shuttle is offered through a partnership with the Richmond Lenox EMS. Shuttles travel from stop locations to 23 Mile Rd. where fixed service begins.

When considering the recommendations of this plan and regulations in the appropriate ordinance, MDOT, RCMC and the Township should also consider how site design, including access placement and design, can support safe and convenient transit for the community, especially when intensity increases along Gratiot Ave. Page 12.3 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Page 12.4 Chapter 13: City of [Richmond]

Established in the 1870’s, Richmond is a historic city located at the north end of the study corridor where M-19 turns from Gratiot Ave. northwest to Memphis and eventually I-69. The city serves as a commercial and service hub for both city residents and residents living in the surrounding rural areas, and M-19 serves as a major route for traffic heading to and from the Detroit Metro area from the Richmond area. In contrast to the traditional downtown located west of Gratiot on Main St., the Gratiot corridor on the east edge of the city contains several retail and service businesses to serve east side residents and the numerous through vehicles. While only a small portion of the corridor is located in Richmond, this section of the corridor, known as the Muttonville area, provides an important link between M-19, Gratiot and 32 Mile Rd., which connects to I-94.

Existing and Future Land Land along the Gratiot corridor through Richmond has developed into an Use array of commercial retail and service uses. Many auto-oriented uses have located here due to the convenient access to traffic from M-19 and I-94, including gas stations, drive-through banks and restaurants, and other commercial such as grocery stores and convenience stores. The corridor is generally surrounded by agricultural land use and scattered larger lot residential. Both the City and Township master plans designate the land in and south of Richmond along Gratiot for commercial development.

Page 13.1 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

Roadway Conditions and Concepts Roadway Conditions Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along the corridor is approximately 15,600 between 30 Mile Rd. and 31 Mile Rd. and approximately 7,500 between Figure 9.1: 2007 Average Daily Traffic Muttonville Rd. to County Line Rd. Gratiot Ave. is signed as M-19 in (ADT) along the Gratiot Corridor in the Richmond from the south limits up to Main St., where M-19 turns City of Richmond northwest through the city. Gratiot is a two lane road throughout the city, Between ADT except at and between the signalized intersections of 31 Mile Rd. and Main 30 Mile Rd. to 31 15,600 St. (M-19), where dedicated left turn lanes add a center lane. Connecting Mile Rd Muttonville, Main St., and 31 Mile Rd. are all also 2 lane roads with Muttonville Rd to 7,500 dedicated left turn lanes where necessary. The posted speed in the City on County Line Rd Gratiot Ave. is 40 MPH. Source: SEMCOG

Crash Analysis and Concepts The several signalized intersections along Gratiot in Richmond experienced various types of crashes between 2005-2007. However, none For more details on the methodologies for Crash of the fully signalized intersections in Richmond meet or exceed the critical Analysis and Intersection crash ratio established by SEMCOG (i.e. while the crash rate may be high, Evaluation, refer to Chapter 1. none are among the highest locations in the metro area).

Outside of the intersection areas, one segment of Gratiot Ave. in Richmond exceeded the critical crash rate and frequency (among the highest segments along the corridor). Details of crash data for this segment are shown in Figure 9.2 below. The following paragraphs discuss the patterns in more detail and other recommendations to reduce crash potential and improve traffic flow and congestion where opportunities may exist.

Figure 9.2: Richmond Critical Segment Crash Data Crash Type Head-On+ Angle + Sideswipe Head-on Sideswipe Uncoded + Location Crash Rate Single MV Opposite Left Rear-end Same Other Total Gratiot from Main to County Line 7.92 4 / 27% 0 10 / 67% 0 1 / 7% 0 15

# / #% = Number of Crashes / Percentages of Crashes

There were a high number of angle and head-on left-turn crashes in this area. Most of these crashes were occurring at the intersection of Gratiot Ave. with Muttonville Ln. as well as with County Line Rd. The angle of County Line Rd. with Gratiot Ave. is most likely contributing to the crashes at this intersection. More discussion of this intersection area as it interacts with the other two intersections in Richmond follows.

In addition to the Muttonville/County Line Rd./Gratiot Ave. intersection, the intersections of Gratiot Ave. with Main St. and 31 Mile Rd. were Crashes in the segment near Muttonville and requested as part of this study. Recently, MDOT retimed the signals along County Line Roads Gratiot Ave. in this area and also installed a new signal at the intersection

Page 13.2 [City of Richmond] of Gratiot Ave. and Main St. According to the existing Synchro/Simtraffic computer traffic simulation model, there is not any congestion during the AM or PM peak hours. However, there are numerous driveways located between Main St. and 31 Mile Rd. which could be causing congestion that can not be modeled in the software.

According to the 2030 SEMCOG Model (which projects the amounts of traffic along roadways in the future), it is expected that there will be 148% traffic growth along Gratiot Ave. to southbound County Line Rd. in the AM peak hour. Northbound County Line Rd. is expected to grow by 130% in the AM peak hour. Eastbound Main St. is expected to increase by 13% and southbound Gratiot Ave. south of Richmond is expected to increase by 15%. Northbound Gratiot Ave. in the AM peak hour is expected to grow by 13%. In the PM peak hour, northbound County Line Rd. is expected to increase by 136%, most of the traffic is going to northbound Gratiot Ave. Northbound Gratiot Ave. is expected to increase by 6% and southbound Gratiot is expected to increase by 14%. Eastbound Main St. is expected to increase by 13%. Figure 9.3 summarizes the levels of service for the existing 2009 year and future 2030 year.

Figure 9.3: Existing and Future Levels of Service Level-of-service (LOS) is a measure-of- 2009 2030 effectiveness by which traffic engineers determine the quality of service on a Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour roadway (taking into account factors Gratiot and 31 such as length of travel delay along Mile Rd. 11 / B 13 / B 12 / B 14 / B segments or at intersections and Gratiot and Main 10 / B 13 / B 19 / B 13 / B congestion). Gratiot and Muttonville* 12 / B 18 / C 15 / B 25 / C Gratiot and County Line* 9 / A 13 / B 16 / C 23 / C * Level of Service reported for worse stopped approach

Figure 9.4 summarizes the measures of effectiveness (MOE) for the study area. This allows a direct comparison between the 2009 conditions, 2030 conditions, and the various alternatives that were tested. Such measures of effectiveness that were used were the total delay experienced in the study area, the number of stops, total travel time, and the performance index. The performance index takes into account the other measures of effectiveness and provides an overall measure for comparison.

Figure 9.4: Existing and Future MOE’s 2009 2030 Network-wide AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total Delay (hours) 8 18 14 28 Number of Stops 1809 3223 2421 5441 Total Travel Time (hr) 27 49 37 64

Page 13.3 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

2009 2030 Network-wide AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Performance Index 13.1 26.5 21.1 43.1

While there is not a significant congestion issue, the number and configuration of the intersections in this area cause confusion and there Figure 9.5.1: Alternative 1 - Raised median is a fair amount of induced congestion due to the driveways that can’t be between Main St. and 31 Mile Rd. to prevent modeled. There were several intersection configurations that were tested mid-block left turns using computer traffic modeling software Synchro/SimTraffic. Below is a summary of the configurations that were reviewed as part of this study: • Alternative 1: Raised median on Gratiot between 31-Mile and Main to prohibit mid-block left turns. • Alternative 2: Offset intersections at County Line/Muttonville. • Alternative 3: Roundabout at County Line/Muttonville with Main as one-way and Muttonville to two-way. • Alternative 4: Roundabout at County Line/Muttonville with removal of Main.

Figure 9.5.2: Alternative 2 - Offset Alternative 1 could not be modeled within Synchro/Simtraffic since Intersections at Muttonville & County Line Rd. driveways are not modeled. This is a short-term alternative that is recommended for Gratiot Ave. between Main St. and 31 Mile Rd.. A raised median would eliminate any left-turning movements except at the signalized intersections thereby reducing the number of conflicts and induced congestion in the area. Longer term solutions are Alternatives 2-4. Illustrations of these alternatives are shown in Figures 9.5.1 through 9.5.4. Each of these alternatives were input into Synchro/Simtraffic to determine the number of lanes and general configuration and updated signal timings in order to make the computer model function with a LOS D or better for all intersections. Given that the evening (PM) peak hour is the worst of the two time periods analyzed, Figure 9.6 summarizes the level of service at each of the study intersections for the PM peak hour Figure9.5.3: Alternative 3 – Roundabout with Main St. Figure 9.6: Future PM Peak Hour Levels of Service for Alternatives

3: Roundabout with 4: Roundabout Intersection 2: Offset Main without Main Gratiot and 31 Mile Rd. 16 / B 14 / B 15 / B Gratiot and Main 15 / B 10 / A 14 / B Gratiot and Muttonville 14 / B 9 / A* 4 / A* Gratiot and County Line 25 / C * SimTraffic results

Figure 9.5.4: Alternative 4 – Roundabout As represented in Figure 9.7, alternative 2 has an increase in all measures without Main St. of effectiveness, however, it is also the least costly of the alternatives and

Page 13.4 [City of Richmond] increases the safety of the Muttonville/County Line Rd. intersections. The As with any project that includes amount of delay for the network increases due to the intersections of right-of-way acquisition, changes Muttonville Rd. and County Line Rd. becoming signalized. The roundabout in road alignment and lanes and alternatives significantly decrease the amount of delay and travel time in reconstruction, additional evaluation, the corridor, as well as the number of stops. The roundabout alternatives design and study will be needed before this type of project would be are more expensive and may have some right-of-way implications as well. constructed. More extensive study of these and other alternatives would be required before the final design and construction could occur.

Figure 9.7 Computer model output of MOEs for 2030 PM Peak Hour

2030 PM Alt 3: Roundabout Alt 4: Roundabout Measures Peak Hour* Alt 2: Offset with Main without Main Total Delay (hours) 28 37 16 14 Number of Stops 5441 3680 4087 4329 Total Travel Time (hr) 64 73 54 49 Performance Index 43.1 47.2 27.1 26.3 *From last column in Figure 9.4

Access Conditions and Existing Access Conditions Recommendations Just as land use along Gratiot developed over several decades, the access pattern reflects a lack of coordination or consideration of adjacent site design or driveways on opposing side of the street. As the area continues to evolve into more of a commercial business area, access and site design Map Tiles 27 through 28 illustrate specific should be carefully coordinated to seize every opportunity to improve recommendations in Richmond for access the situation. As current congestion and crash patterns demonstrate, management (such as the sample shown driveways near signalized intersection are particularly troublesome and below) including how to improve the should be the focus of efforts to reduce the overall number of driveways. relationship between vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. All of the Map Tiles are located after Chapter 8. The City should continue to close excess driveways and encourage shared access between adjacent properties whenever opportunities arise. Including cross streets, Gratiot Ave. in Richmond has about 55 access points per mile, compared to the MDOT standard of approximately 35 access points per mile for the same posted speed. This plan recommends closing 7 driveways in Richmond, a 23% reduction in driveways.

Access Recommendations Map tiles 27 through 28 illustrate site-specific recommendations for access management, including ways to improve the relationship between vehicle access and non-motorized and transit facilities. As outlined in Chapter 4: Implementation, these recommendations are based on state and national research, a thorough review of the conditions along the corridor, significant public input, and the extensive experience and expertise of the plan team with access management across the state.

As most of the land area within the city limits along Gratiot is built-out, the Sample Recommendations at 31 Mile Rd.

Page 13.5 [Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan]

recommendations in this plan focus on forging cross-connections between adjacent businesses and improving the current access patterns through closure and consolidation of driveways. The commercial development on the southeast and southwest corners of 31 Mile Rd. intersection present the most apparent opportunity, as the two businesses on the southeast corner have been vacant and may be difficult to use without redevelopment or renovation. The larger Kroger-anchored shopping center behind these properties has excellent internal circulation, and the illustrative recommendations show several potential points for cross access when redevelopment occurs.

Because the recommendations are based on the conditions at the time this plan was developed, a significant change in conditions along the corridor should prompt a thorough consideration of any proposed project in the context of the policies, standards, and goals of this plan. The City, MDOT, and members of the Steering Committee will play an important role in reviewing development proposals along this corridor to promote more efficient and safe access.

Non-Motorized and Non-Motorized Conditions Transit Conditions and All new development in the City is require to construct sidewalks along Recommendations street frontage, which should resolve gaps on and near Gratiot as development occurs. Due to limited right-of-way width through most of the city, the distance between the sidewalk and street are often less than 10 feet. Landscaping and streetscape elements could help promote a feeling of safety for pedestrians and bicyclists along Gratiot in the city.

Transit Conditions SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) offers bus routes throughout Macomb County. No fixed line service is provided in Richmond, although a daily shuttle is offered through a partnership with the Richmond Lenox EMS. Shuttle stops are located at select locations north of Hall Rd./M-59 with the closest stop located at the Lenox Township Hall. Shuttles travel to 23 Mile Rd. where fixed service begins. Sidewalk connections and other amenities should be provided at select stop locations as opportunities arise.

Page 13.6