arnum riddering schmidt howlettllp

GRAND RAPIDS LANSING KALAMAZOO GRAND HAVEN MILWAUKEE

201 N. WASHINGTON SQUARE SUITE 810 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933

TELEPHONE 517 / 482-6237 FAX 517 / 482-6937 WWW.VARNUMLAW.COM

ERIC J. SCHNEIDEWIND E-MAIL [email protected]

February 29, 2008 Ms. Mary Jo Kunkle Michigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantile Way P.O. Box 30221 Lansing, MI 48909 Re: Case No. U-15234 Dear Ms. Kunkle: Attached for paperless electronic filing is the Testimony of Rodney L. Arroyo, Richard K. Carlisle and Steven S. Gravlin on Behalf of the City Of Taylor. Also attached is the original Proof of Service indicating service on counsel. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

VARNUM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & HOWLETTLLP

Eric J. Schneidewind EJS/mrr cc: ALJ parties

1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

*************************

In the matter of the Petition of CITY OF ) TAYLOR, Michigan for Allocation of Cost ) As to THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY ) Case No. U-15234 __________________________________________)

QUALIFICATIONS AND DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

RODNEY L. ARROYO

VICE PRESIDENT, BIRCHLER ARROYO ASSOCIATES, INC.

2

Q. Please state your name and business address. 1

A. Rodney L. Arroyo, AICP, Birchler Arroyo Associates, Inc., 28021 Southfield Road, 2

Lathrup Village, MI 48076 3

Q. What is your position? 4

A. Vice President 5

Q. What is your educational background? 6

A. Master of City Planning, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 1982. Bachelor 7

of Arts in Political Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 1980. 8

Q. Would you briefly outline your work experience? 9

A. I have over 25 years of experience in the field of municipal planning and transportation 10

planning. Since 1989, I have been co-owner and Vice President of Birchler Arroyo 11

Associates, Inc. Prior to my current position, I was Senior Associate at Barton-Aschman 12

Associates, Inc. (now Parsons Transportation Group). Prior to Barton-Aschman, I was 13

Assistant Director of the South Florida Regional Planning Council in Hollywood, 14

Florida. 15

I am a certified planner by the American Institute of Certified Planners and an approved 16

Access Management Instructor by the Michigan Department of Transportation. I have 17

previously served as an executive officer of the Michigan Chapter of the American 18

Planning Association (APA) - now the Michigan Association of Planning - and I am the 19

former editor of Planning Michigan. I have authored articles and instructed on planning 20

and transportation issues throughout my consulting career. 21

22

I provide both planning and traffic consulting services to municipalities and the private 23

sector. My planning expertise includes master plans, corridor plans, recreation plans, site 24

plan and subdivision review, and visioning / public participation. My transportation 25

3

expertise includes thoroughfare plans, parking studies, traffic impact studies, corridor 1

plans, training, and access management. 2

3

I have been honored to receive several national and state awards including the Award for 4

Excellence from the APA’s Small Town & Rural Planning Division for the City of 5

Adrian Comprehensive Plan (2007), Bridgewater Township & Manchester Township 6

Wireless Facilities Plan (2005), Bridgewater Township Master Plan (2002) and Village of 7

New Haven Master Plan (1998). State awards include the Outstanding Planning Project 8

for the City of Troy Big Beaver Corridor Study, Bridgewater Master Plan, City of Detroit 9

Development Manual, Village of New Haven Master Plan, and City of Novi 10

Development Review Guidebook. 11

Thousands of planners (professional, citizen, and student) have been trained through my 12

instructional programs. Examples include classes for Michigan State University 13

Extension’s Citizen Planner certification program, guest lectures at University of 14

Michigan and Wayne State University, and work on behalf of the Michigan Association 15

of Planning. I directed the development of the Michigan Association of Planning’s 16

Advanced Training Programs in Site Plan Review and Subdivision Review and Design. 17

Q. Have you previously testified before the Commission? 18

A. No. 19

Q. What other activities have you undertaken in the regulatory area? 20

A. I have prepared numerous zoning ordinance updates and amendments throughout my 21

consulting career. I was invited by the American Planning Association’s Growing Smart 22

project to participate in a focus group exploring Michigan’s planning and zoning statutes. 23

I was also invited by the President of Michigan State University to serve as a land use 24

expert providing input to the Michigan Land Use Leadership Council on ways to enhance 25

planning and zoning activities in the State. I was asked by the Road Commission for 26

Oakland County to serve on a sub-committee exploring impact fees. 27

Q. On whose behalf are you testifying? 28

4

A. City of Taylor 1

Q. Are you sponsoring any exhibits in connection with your Testimony? 2

A. Yes. 3

Ex. TA-1 (RA-1) A survey drawing prepared by Wade-Trim that shows driveways 4

and poles along Telegraph Road prior to construction. 5

Ex. TA-2 (RA-2) Driveway, Side Street, and Traffic Signal Frequency Along 6

Telegraph Road In Taylor – PreConstruction 7

Ex. TA-3 (RA-3) Estimated Crash Rates by Unsignalized and Signalized Access 8

Density – Urban and Suburban Areas, from 2004 American 9

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 10

“Green Book” 11

Ex. TA-4 (RA-4) Excerpt from 1998 MDOT Annual Average 24-Hour Traffic 12

Volumes Map 13

Ex. TA-5 (RA-5) 2001 Wayne County Department of Public Services Primary Road 14

Congestion Map Legend 15

Ex. TA-6 (RA-6) UTPS Daily Service Volumes for Level-of-Service “D” and “E” 16

Ex. TA-7 (RA-7) Excerpt from 1994 MDOT Publication “Evaluating Traffic 17

Impact Studies” 18

Ex. TA-8 (RA-8) Excerpt from 1989 City of Rochester Traffic Study and 19

Comprehensive Transportation Plan, BRW, Inc. 20

Ex. TA-9 (RA-9) Pre-construction Photo 1 of Telegraph Road, obtained from the 21

City of Taylor 22

Ex. TA-10 (RA-10) Pre-construction Photo 2 of Telegraph Road, obtained from the 23

City of Taylor 24

5

Ex. TA-11 (RA-11) Utility Pole Frequency Along Telegraph Road 1

Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this matter? 2

A. To review the facts in the case and determine if Telegraph Road was heavily congested in 3

its pre-construction condition prior to the reconstruction of the roadway and burying of 4

utility lines. 5

Q. Please provide background for your presentation. 6

A. The City of Taylor began planning for the reconstruction of the Telegraph Road Corridor, 7

from Ecorse Road to Eureka Road (approximately 4 miles) in 1999. This section of 8

Telegraph Road is lined with hundreds of businesses, including many high-turnover 9

establishments such as restaurants, gas stations, retail shops, convenience commercial 10

(Ex. TA-9 (RA-9) and Ex. TA-10 (RA-10)). Some businesses, particularly automobile 11

dealerships, call for unloading to take place on Telegraph Road because the dealer sites 12

cannot accommodate large trucks. 13

In 2000, the City of Taylor enacted the Telegraph Road Relocation Ordinance (#00-344) 14

which determined that the relocation of utility lines and removal of utility poles was 15

related to public health, safety, and welfare. It directed all public utilities and others to 16

relocate underground all of their overhead lines and remove all poles. The City of 17

Taylor’s position is that Detroit Edison is required to bear the sole cost of underground 18

relocation of its utilities in “heavily congested business districts,” and the City found that 19

this area of Telegraph Road is a “heavily congested business district.” Based on a dispute 20

between the City and DTE, the City paid for the cost of relocating the underground utility 21

lines and is now seeking to obtain reimbursement from DTE. 22

23

Q. What is your professional opinion in view of this background? 24

25

A. After reviewing the facts in this case, it is my professional opinion that the facts clearly 26

support the conclusion that Telegraph Road, from Ecorse to Eureka, was “heavily 27

congested” prior to commencement of the Telegraph Road improvement project in 2001 28

6

and 2002. The focus of my analysis relates to the term “heavily congested.” Mr. Richard 1

Carlisle, AICP, PCP, President of Carlisle Wortman Associates, will be presenting 2

evidence on behalf of the City that addresses why this corridor is a “business district.” 3

4

The rules of the MPSC provide no specific guidance on how the term “heavily 5

congested” is defined. Based on my review of the facts and my professional experience, 6

I offer the following observations: 7

8

Q. Please explain the relevance of traffic volumes to the determination of congestion. 9

10

A. One of the key measures used to define congestion is traffic volume and, more 11

specifically, volume in relation to roadway capacity, often referred to as volume to 12

capacity ratio (v/c). As noted in 3) below, the City of Taylor’s Master Land Use Plan / 13

2000 used a v/c ratio to define congestion, and there is recognition of using this approach 14

at the local (City of Taylor), county (Wayne County), state (Michigan Department of 15

Transportation), and federal (U.S. Department of Transportation) levels of government. 16

The v/c ratio provides planning level guidance for identifying congestion on roadways. 17

18

Q. Please discuss the local measures of traffic volume congestion that are relevant to this 19

case. 20

21

A. Planning for the Telegraph Road reconstruction began in 1999. According to the 22

Michigan Department of Transportation’s (MDOT) 1998 Annual Average 24-Hour 23

Traffic Volumes Map (Ex. TA-4 (RA-4)), Telegraph Road, south of Ecorse Road, was 24

carrying 66,700 vehicles per day. A 1997 count obtained from the City of Taylor shows 25

a 24-hour volume of 63,933 vehicles north of Koths (south of Wick). The MDOT 26

Volume Map also shows a 1998 volume on Telegraph, north of Eureka, at 43,600 27

vehicles per average day. 28

29

Q. Please discuss county measurements of congestion that are relevant. 30

7

A. The Wayne County Department of Public Services (WCDPS) has prepared a methodology to 1

document roadway congestion. Figure 1 below shows how WCDPS defines congestion, 2

depending upon volumes and the number of lanes of through traffic (see also Ex. TA-5 (RA-3

5)). For a 6-lane roadway, congestion (shown with yellow bars) begins at 22,500 vehicles 4

per average day (ADT). Heavy congestion (shown with the red bars) begins at 37,500 5

vehicles per day. For a 7-lane road (6 lanes plus center turn lane), heavy congestion begins 6

at 40,000 vehicles. The Wayne County graph does not show a value for a 6-lane boulevard, 7

but other similar methodologies (see 3 & 4 below) show that a 6-lane divided road generally 8

has about 25 percent more capacity than a 6-lane undivided road. This would provide a 9

heavy congestion value of about 47,000 vehicles per day for a 6-lane divided roadway. 10

11

The Telegraph Road traffic counts noted above have been plotted on the WCDPS graph. At 12

the south end of the corridor, closest to Eureka, the 1998 MDOT reported traffic volume 13

(43,600) is in the red zone for a 6-lane road with center turn lane. That volume would be in 14

the yellow congestion zone, just below the red heavily-congested zone, for the boulevard 15

scenario (not on chart). The count north of Goddard (63,933) and the reported volume south 16

of Ecorse (66,700) are off the chart, representing even heavier congestion. 17

8

The City of Taylor’s Master Land Use Plan / 2000, adopted in 1998, and in effect at the 1

time the Telegraph Road improvement was planned and constructed, indicates that traffic 2

congestion occurs when the traffic volume to road capacity (v/c) ratio exceeds 0.90 (p. 3

55). The document does not distinguish between congestion and heavy congestion. 4

5

This use of a v/c ratio is generally consistent with methodologies established by the U.S. 6

Department of Transportation through its Urban Transportation Planning System (UTPS) 7

Telegraph Road volumes (in red) added

by author

Figure 1

9

program and applied throughout the country to evaluate roadway congestion (Ex. TA-6 1

(RA-6)). 2

3

Q. Please explain how the federal Level Of Service method of measuring congestion is 4

relevant. 5

6

A. Roadway Level Of Service ranges from “A” (least congested) to “F” (most congested). 7

A v/c ratio of 0.90 is equal to the limit of service volumes for Level of Service “D”. 8

When a v/c ratio exceeds 0.90, it reflects service volumes at Level of service “E” or “F”. 9

10

LOS “D” is generally considered as approaching unstable flow. At LOS “D” the ability 11

to maneuver is severely restricted due to traffic congestion. LOS “E” is defined as 12

unstable traffic flow, where the v/c ratio is > 0.90 to 1.00. Operations are at or near 13

capacity. LOS “F” (v/c > 1.00) is defined as forced flow, where volume has exceeded 14

capacity. 15

16

While LOS “D” is reflective of traffic congestion, LOS “E” and “F” are reflective of 17

heavily congested conditions. Heavily congested conditions were clearly present on 18

Telegraph Road in the late 1990s. 19

20

Q. How does LOS measurement apply to Telegraph Road? 21

22

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has recognized that there are business 23

districts, referred to as outlying business districts, which are located outside of traditional 24

central business districts (CBDs). A six-lane divided arterial roadway in an outlying 25

business district has a maximum daily service volume of 50,200 vehicles at Level of 26

Service (LOS) “D” (0.90 v/c ratio). At LOS “E” (v/c ratio of 1.0), the maximum daily 27

service volume is 55,700 vehicles. 28

29

The MDOT volume of 66,700 vehicles per day on Telegraph Road, south of Ecorse, is 30

well in excess (33 percent more) of the 50,200 daily service volume for LOS “D” (v/c 31

10

ratio 0.90). The 1997 count on Telegraph Road, referenced above, shows a 24-hour 1

volume of 63,933 vehicles north of Koths (south of Wick), which also exceeds the LOS 2

“D” volume (by 27 percent). These counts reflect that volumes exceeded capacity and 3

heavily congested conditions were present. 4

5

Birchler Arroyo Associates, Inc., has used for planning purposes a value of 45,000 6

vehicles per day as the maximum desirable volume for a 6-lane boulevard. The 66,700 7

and 63,933 daily traffic values reported above would clearly represent a heavily 8

congested roadway under this threshold. 9

10

BRW, Inc., another nationally-known traffic consulting firm - now part of URS 11

Corporation and authors of the City of Rochester Traffic Study and Comprehensive 12

Transportation Plan – uses a value of approximately 44,000 vehicles per day as the 13

threshold where Level of service “D” (0.90 v/c) is no longer maintained (Ex. TA-8 (RA-14

8)). BRW’s thresholds are cited in the MDOT publication entitled Evaluating Traffic 15

Impact Studies: A Recommended Practice For Michigan Communities (Ex. TA-7 (RA-16

7)). 17

18

Q. What are your conclusions? 19

20

A. Based on congestion assessment methodologies used at the local, county, and federal 21

levels, it is clearly evident that Telegraph Road was heavily congested prior to the 22

commencement of the Telegraph Road construction project. 23

24

Q. Please explain how number of driveways is relevant to measuring congestion. 25

26

A. “The most basic fact associated with access related traffic crashes is that more driveways 27

along a roadway result in more crashes.”1 Prior to the reconstruction of Telegraph Road, 28

there were 216 private driveways along both sides of the road within the study area, or an 29

1 Michigan Department of Transportation’s Access Management Guidebook, October 2001.

11

average of 27 driveways per mile of frontage (see Ex. TA-2 (RA-2)). Many of these 1

driveway served high-turnover commercial businesses. This represents about 3.1 times 2

as many private driveways as would be provided (69) with average driveway spacing 3

consistent with the Michigan Department of Transportation’s minimum spacing guideline 4

of 455 feet for 50 mph roads (south of Brest) and 350 feet for 45 mph (north of Brest). 5

6

Research has shown that the estimated crash rate per million vehicle miles of travel at the 7

pre-construction driveway spacing was over 40% greater than that potentially occurring 8

with driveway spacing following MDOT guidelines (Ex. TA-3 (RA-3)). The greater 9

number of potential points of conflict between driveway traffic and through traffic – far 10

in excess of MDOT guidelines - represents a form of heavy congestion. 11

12

Q. Please explain how number of poles is relevant to measuring congestion. 13

14

A. Prior to the reconstruction of Telegraph and the burying of power lines, there were 15

approximately 400 utility poles along both sides of the road, or an average of 50 poles per 16

mile of frontage (Ex. TA-11 (RA-11)). Research has categorized a pole density of 50 or 17

more per mile as “high.” Most of these poles were only 10-15 feet from the road and 18

many were even closer. This type of congestion impacts driver sight distance, leads to 19

more crashes, and visually clutters the business district. 20

21

Q. What are your final conclusions? 22

23

A. Based on review of the facts cited above, it is my professional opinion that Telegraph 24

Road was heavily congested during the late 1990s when planning for the road 25

reconstruction and utility relocation took place. 26

Q. Does this conclude your Testimony? 27

A. Yes. 28

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-1 (RA-1)

February 29, 2008

A survey drawing prepared by Wade-Trim that shows driveways and poles along Telegraph Road prior to construction (SHEETS A-H).

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-2 (RA-2)

February 29, 2008

Driveway, Side Street, and Traffic Signal Frequency Along Telegraph Road in Taylor - PreConstruction

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-3 (RA-3)

February 29, 2008

Estimated Crash Rates by Unsignalized and Signalized Access Density - Urban and Suburban Areas, from 2004 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials "Green

Book"

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-4 (RA-4)

February 29, 2008

Excerpt from 1998 MDOT Annual Average 24-Hour Traffic Volumes Map

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-5 (RA-5)

February 29, 2008

2001 Wayne County Department of Public Services Primary Road Congestion Map Legend

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-6 (RA-6)

February 29, 2008

UTPS Daily Services Volumes for Level-of-Service "D" and "E"

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-7 (RA-7)

February 29, 2008

Excerpt from 1994 MDOT Publication "Evaluating Traffic Impact Studies"

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-8 (RA-8)

February 29, 2008

Excerpt from 1989 City of Rochester Traffic Study and Comprehensive Transportation Plan, BRW, Inc.

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-9 (RA-9)

February 29, 2008

Pre-Construction Photo 1 of Telegraph Road, obtained from the City of Taylor

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-10 (RA-10)

February 29, 2008

Pre-Construction Photo 2 of Telegraph Road, obtained from the City of Taylor

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-11 (RA-11)

February 29, 2008

Utility Pole Frequency Along Telegraph Road

STATE OF MICHIGAN 1

2

BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 3

4

************************************ 5

6

7

In the matter of the ) 8

Petition of CITY OF TAYLOR, ) 9

MICHIGAN for Allocation of ) Case No. U-15234 10

Cost as to THE DETROIT EDISION ) 11

COMPANY ) 12

_____________________________ ) 13

14

15

QUALIFICATIONS AND DIRECT TESTIMONY OF 16

17

18

RICHARD K. CARLISLE, AICP, PCP 19

20

21

22

CARLISLE/WORTMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 23

24

25

26

27

February 27, 2008 28

29

1

Part I 1

Qualifications of Richard K. Carlisle, AICP, PCP 2

Case No. U-15234 3

4

5

Q. Please state your name and business address? 6

7

A. My name is Richard K. Carlisle. My business address is 605 S. Main Street, Suite 1, Ann 8

Arbor, MI 48104 9

10

Q. What is your position? 11

12

A. I am the President of Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. 13

14

Q. What is your educational background? 15

16

A. In 1972, I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Social Studies from Miami 17

University. From 1972 to 1973, I studied City and Regional Planning in the graduate 18

program of the Georgia Institute of Technology. In 1974, I received a Masters of Science 19

Degree in Resource Development, School of Natural Resource from The Ohio State 20

University. 21

22

Q. Do you hold any professional licenses and/or certifications? 23

24

A. I am licensed in the State of Michigan as a Professional Community Planner. I am a 25

member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. 26

27

Q. Would you briefly outline your work experience? 28

29

A. While completing my graduate education, I worked as a Planner for the Ohio Department 30

of Natural Resources from 1973 – 1974. From 1975 – 1976, I worked as a Planner for 31

2

the Great Lakes Basin Commission in Ann Arbor. From 1976 – 1977, I served as a 1

Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner. 2

3

In 1977, I began a career in consulting that has extended over thirty years when I joined 4

Ayres, Lewis, Norris and May, Inc., an engineering firm in Ann Arbor. From 1977 – 5

1982, I was the Planning Department Supervisor and an Associate of the firm. From 6

1982 – 1985, I served as Vice President of Community Planning and Management, PC, 7

based in Utica, Michigan. In 1985, I became an independent contractor until 1988 when I 8

founded Carlisle Associates. 9

10

In 1991, Carlisle Associates was changed to Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. 11

Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. provides community planning and landscaping 12

architecture consulting services to municipalities throughout the State of Michigan. In 13

1999, Mr. R. Donald Wortman and I founded Code Enforcement Services, Inc., a 14

company that provides building code consultation and code enforcement services to 15

municipalities. On January 1, 2008, Code Enforcement Services was merged with 16

Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. 17

18

Q. What have been some of your professional activities? 19

20

A. I am a past President of the Michigan Association of Planning and a former member of 21

the Chapter Presidents Council of the American Planning Association. In 2003, I served 22

as a Technical Advisor to the Michigan Land Use Leadership Council. 23

24

Q. Have you previously testified before the Commission? 25

26

A. No. 27

28

Q. Have you previously provided expert testimony on any matter? 29

30

A. Yes, I have been an expert witness on numerous cases pertaining to zoning and 31

condemnation. 32

3

Part II 1

Direct Testimony of Richard K. Carlisle, AICP, PCP 2

Case No. U-15234 3

4

5

Q. What is the scope of your testimony? 6

7

A. I have been asked to evaluate whether Telegraph Road in the City of Taylor would be 8

considered a business district. In the course of this evaluation, I have reviewed 9

legislation of the State of Michigan defining business districts, as well as demographic, 10

land use planning, property valuation, and zoning data pertinent to the City of Taylor. 11

12

In 2002, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the City of Taylor 13

completed a major reconstruction of US-24, Telegraph Road. In anticipation of major 14

improvements planned for Interstate 75 nearby, MDOT called for an ambitious project 15

schedule for the Telegraph Road reconstruction, in order to complete it in time to be used 16

as a detour route. Telegraph Road is unique within the region in that it provides a 17

connection between two major interstates (I-94 and I-75) solely within the boundaries of 18

Taylor. 19

20

In order to capitalize on the development of the Taylor Sportsplex, a regionally 21

prominent, 160,000 square foot indoor athletic and multi-purpose venue developed by the 22

City, Taylor recognized the need for improvements along Telegraph Road. Regardless of 23

the short time frame and large scope of the reconstruction project, the City of Taylor 24

seized the opportunity to incorporate a series of context-sensitive design elements that 25

may not otherwise have been possible and devoted considerable resources to design and 26

implement its vision. 27

28

The improvements planned by the City of Taylor were welcomed by MDOT, so long as 29

the project was coordinated with the reconstruction project and remained on schedule. 30

The context sensitive solutions included in the project were: 31

32

4

• The installation of curb and gutter. 1

• A reduction in the speed limit from 50 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour. 2

• The installation of new storm drains. 3

• Innovative, setback outlets to drainage courses to encourage stormwater 4

infiltration and filtering. 5

• The burying of overhead utilities. 6

7

The cost to the City of Taylor of the Telegraph Road reconstruction, lighting and other 8

streetscape improvements was nearly 19 million dollars. In 2000, the City of Taylor 9

enacted the Telegraph Road Improvement and Underground Relocation of Overhead 10

Lines Ordinance (#00-344). The Ordinance requires the underground relocation of all 11

electrical utility, cable, television, telecommunication, traffic signal and other overhead 12

lines and removal of poles and other related equipment and facilities along Telegraph 13

Road within the City. 14

15

Q. Are you sponsoring any Exhibits? 16

17

A. Yes. 18

19

Exhibit TA-12 (RC-1): 20

Saginaw General 21

Code: Article 11 Conduit District 22

23

Exhibit TA-13 (RC-2): 24

Two photographs of West Genesee Avenue in Saginaw within Conduit District Number 25

Two 26

27

Q. How does the State of Michigan define business districts? 28

29

A. The State of Michigan has enacted a number of programs designed to facilitate and 30

stimulate economic development in local communities. Several pieces of legislation 31

5

allow a community to target specific geographic areas or districts in order to apply the 1

tools of the legislation. More specifically, there are three Acts which refer to a business 2

district and require justification for applying the particular legislation within a 3

community. The Michigan legislature has defined business districts in the following 4

manner: 5

6

• Principal Shopping Districts, Business Improvement Districts and Business 7

Improvement Zones 8

9

The Principal Shopping District and Business Improvement District Act, Public 10

Act 120 of 1961, as amended, authorizes municipalities to establish districts to 11

foster development and redevelopment. The Act defines a “business 12

improvement district” as one or more portions of a local government unit or 13

combination of contiguous portions of two or more local government units that 14

are predominantly commercial or industrial in use. A “principal shopping 15

district” means a portion of a local government unit designated by the governing 16

body that is predominantly commercial and that contains at least ten (10) retail 17

stores. 18

19

• Downtown Development Authority Act 20

21

The Downtown Development Authority Act, Public Act 197 of 1975, as amended, 22

allows a municipality to establish an authority in a designated downtown area. A 23

downtown district is defined as that part of an area in a business district that is 24

specifically designated by ordinances of the governing body. A “business 25

district” is defined by the Act as an area in the downtown zoned and used 26

principally for business. 27

28

6

• Corridor Improvement Authority Act 1

2

The most recent legislation is the Corridor Improvement Authority Act, Public 3

Act 280 of 2005. The Act authorizes municipalities to establish a corridor 4

improvement authority for the purpose of correcting and preventing deterioration 5

in business districts and to promote economic growth. 6

7

The Act gives broad discretion to a municipality in the creating of a corridor 8

improvement authority and defines a “business district” as an area of a 9

municipality zoned and used principally for business. Further, to comply with 10

criteria established in the Act, more than ½ of the existing ground floor square 11

footage is classified as commercial real property. 12

13

The Michigan legislature has specifically authorized and given broad discretion to local 14

government to determine what constitutes either a downtown or a business district. The 15

recent Corridor Improvement Act has recognized the economic importance of roadway 16

corridors, which constitute the equivalent of suburban downtowns in communities such 17

as Taylor. Furthermore, the Corridor Improvement Act recognizes the economic 18

importance of corridors from the standpoint of both jobs and tax base, and places them on 19

equal legislative footing with more traditional downtowns. 20

21

Aside from the formal designation as a tool for economic development, business districts 22

are also created through zoning. Michigan municipalities are given the exclusive 23

authority to adopt zoning regulations. The City of Taylor had zoned the entire frontage 24

of Telegraph Road for commercial use. 25

26

Q. Where have ordinances similar to the Telegraph Road Relocation Ordinance been 27

applied? 28

29

A. The City of Saginaw established a Conduit District Ordinance in 1960 that would require 30

underground installation of utilities (see ex. TA-12 (RC-1)). There are three district areas 31

encompassed in the City’s two conduit districts. Conduit District 1 is Saginaw’s 32

7

downtown. Conduit District 2 is composed of two separate and distinct areas. One 1

portion of Conduit District 2 is the Old Saginaw City Historic District, which is also 2

referred to as the West Side Business District. The other portion of Conduit District 2 is 3

composed primarily of the West Genesee Avenue corridor connecting an exit of I-675 4

across the Saginaw River to downtown. 5

6

It is the latter West Genesee Avenue portion of District 2 that is analogous to Telegraph 7

Road. It is a commercial corridor, not a traditional downtown, composed of properties 8

which front on West Genesee Avenue. It provides a connecting link from an interstate 9

into the central core of the community, just as Telegraph connects both I-94 and I-75 into 10

the core of Taylor. Finally, West Genesee is composed primarily of commercial 11

properties, similar to Telegraph (see ex. TA-13 (RC-2)). 12

13

What is remarkably dissimilar is that the West Genesee Corridor pales in comparison to 14

Telegraph in terms of the scale and amount of development. The West Genesee Corridor 15

is composed of 217,335 square feet of building area, 10% of the amount along Telegraph. 16

Further, the 2007 SEV in the West Genesee Corridor was $1,355,147, less than 2% of the 17

SEV of Telegraph Road. 18

19

Q. Where does the City of Taylor rank in the terms of population in Wayne County and 20

Michigan? 21

22

A. The City of Taylor occupies a unique position in Wayne County. With a population of 23

63,747, Taylor is the 18th largest city in Michigan out of 274 cities, larger that the City of 24

Saginaw. Taylor is third only to Dearborn and Westland in overall population among the 25

cities in Wayne County with the exception of Detroit. The five communities that are 26

directly adjacent to Taylor (Romulus, Dearborn Heights, Southgate, Brownstown 27

Township, and Allen Park) all have lower populations than Taylor. Given the relatively 28

high density in Wayne County when compared with other counties throughout Michigan, 29

it is notable that Taylor represents one of the main centers of population outside of 30

Detroit in this area. 31

32

8

Taylor is also the center of commerce and employment for its immediate surrounding 1

area. Table 1 shows the populations and population densities for Taylor and its 2

surrounding communities. 3

4

Table 1: Population 5

6 Community Estimated Population*

Taylor 63,747

Allen Park 27,683

Brownstown Township 29,672

Dearborn Heights 55,902

Romulus 24,450

Southgate 29,013

* Population is the 2008 SEMCOG estimate 7 8

Q. What is the existing and planned commercial land use in Taylor? 9

10

A. A more telling indicator of Taylor’s prominence as a commercial center is the land use 11

distribution in Taylor when compared with the five surrounding communities. 12

Commercial and office property account for 8.8 percent of the City of Taylor in 2000, the 13

most recent year comparable data was made available by Southeast Michigan Council of 14

Governments (SEMCOG). Industrial land in Taylor made up 8.3 percent of the 15

community. Residential was the largest land use category, but it only made up 16

approximately 40.8 percent of the community. Of the five adjacent communities, only 17

Southgate had a higher percentage of commercial and office uses, 15.2 percent, but it had 18

a far lower percentage of industrial land than Taylor, 2.3 percent. 19

20

9

Table 2: Land Use Percentages 1

2 Community Commercial

and Office*

Industrial* Commercial,

Office, and

Industrial

(employment uses)

Residential*

Taylor 8.8% 8.3% 17.1% 40.8%

Allen Park 5.7% 10.5% 16.2% 52.4%

Brownstown Township 2.0% 6.2% 8.2% 19.7%

Dearborn Heights 5.9% 1.6% 7.5% 68.5%

Romulus 3.5% 8.9% 12.4% 14.9%

Southgate 15.2% 2.3% 17.5% 53.6%

* Land use percentage is the 2000 SEMCOG estimate, and represents the percentage of that land use as part of the 3 overall land use within that community. 4

5

Taylor’s high percentage of commercial and industrial uses indicate that this community 6

bears a higher regional burden as an employment and service center than the other more 7

residential communities of Southgate, Dearborn Heights and Allen Park. 8

9

The City’s Master Plan provides guidance to the future growth and development of the 10

community. An asset which has and will influence growth is the excellent transportation 11

facilities that distinguish Taylor from other communities in southeast Michigan. 12

Telegraph Road bisects the central portion of the City, is an important State trunk line 13

and serves as the transportation “spine” for both inter- and intra-City traffic. It is the 14

most heavily traveled roadway in the City other than the interstate. 15

16

Telegraph Road has been a magnet for commercial development. Currently, there are 17

280 acres of commercial land use and 261 businesses located on Telegraph Road. 18

Recognizing the historic patterns and long-term potential for commercial development, 19

the City’s Master Plan designates 496 acres, nearly the entire frontage of Telegraph from 20

I-94 to the southern boundary at Pennsylvania as commercial. 21

22

10

The City’s zoning of Telegraph Road also mirrors the Master Plan. The entire frontage 1

of Telegraph between Ecorse and south of Goddard is zoned for commercial use. The 2

two predominant zoning categories are B-2 Regional Business and B-3 General Business. 3

Both districts permit retail commercial uses that are intended to serve a larger population 4

than Taylor. What distinguishes Telegraph from other areas within Taylor is that the 5

majority of the frontage is zoned B-3, which is specifically intended for retail commercial 6

services. No other area in Taylor has the concentration of B-3 as Telegraph. 7

8

Q. Where does Taylor rank in terms of employment? 9

10

A. For the five communities adjoining Taylor, statistics indicate that Taylor serves as one of 11

the primary employment centers among those communities. Table 3 illustrates the top 12

four places of employment identified by the residents of the six communities studied. In 13

other words, residents were asked their place of employment and Taylor appeared in five 14

of six communities. The only community where Taylor was not one of the four highest 15

places where residents work was Dearborn Heights. 16

17

Table 3: Most Popular Places Where Residents Work* 18

19 Community 1 2 3 4

Taylor 23.3% Taylor 12.1% Detroit 8.4% Dearborn 8.1% Romulus

Allen Park 15.1% Allen Park 14.6% Detroit 13.2% Dearborn 7.2% Taylor

Brownstown Township 11.2% Detroit 9.1% Taylor 8.5% Dearborn 8.1% Brownstown

Township

Dearborn Heights 18.1% Dearborn 12.9% Detroit 10.9% Dearborn

Heights

8.0% Livonia

Romulus 27.8% Romulus 9.6% Detroit 5.7% Taylor 5.4% Wayne

Southgate 19.7% Southgate 13.3% Detroit 9.3% Taylor 8.9% Dearborn

* Based on SEMCOG estimates from 2000 Census figures, the most recent year for which data is available. 20 21

Q. How does Telegraph Road contribute to employment? 22

23

11

A. Currently, there is 2,113,945 square feet of building area devoted to retail and service, 1

office and entertainment. The total along Telegraph is broken down into the following 2

general categories: 3

4

Use Area (sq. ft.) 5

6

Office/Medical = 253,528 sq. ft. 7

8

Retail = 1,730,364 sq. ft. 9

10

Entertainment = 130,053 sq. ft. 11

12

Total = 2,113,945 sq. ft. 13

14

The amount of employment generated by these uses is tremendous. Applying job-15

estimating figures supplied by the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments, there 16

are over 4,400 estimated jobs created by the uses along Telegraph Road, as illustrated by 17

Table 4. Given the amount of land that has planned for commercial, the amount of 18

employment could double. 19

20

Table 4: Telegraph Road Employment 21

22 Use Jobs/Sq. ft. Total Sq. ft. # of Jobs

Office/Medical 1/225 253,528 1126

Retail 1/550 1,730,364 3146

Entertainment 1/1,000 130,053 130

Total Jobs 4,402

23

Q. How does Telegraph Road contribute to tax base? 24

25

A. Telegraph Road also generates significant tax base. Table 5 illustrates the contribution of 26

Telegraph towards the City’s tax base. The 2008 SEV is 105,394,600, representing over 27

12

23% of the City’s commercial tax base and 5% of the City’s total SEV. Telegraph Road 1

has had substantial growth in SEV over the past 13 years. In 1995, the SEV for 2

Telegraph Road was 33,690,282, thus the growth in tax base to 2008 has been nearly 3

320%. 4

5

The City has significantly increased economic development and promotion since 1998. 6

The results have been evident with the tax base along Telegraph doubling between 2000 7

and 2008. 8

9

Table 5: Commercial Property – Assessed and Taxable Values as Percentage of Totals 10

11 Year Assessed Value Taxable Value

1995 Total Commercial (AV & TV) 226,324,560 225,843,994

Total Telegraph Rd Commercial (AV & TV) 33,690,282 33,260,346

Percentage of Total 14.89% 14.73%

Total SEV of all Classes of Real Property 910,671,909

Commercial Percent of Total 24.85%

Year Assessed Value Taxable Value




Total SEV of all Classes of Real Property 1,256,169,237





13








1

Q. What are your findings as to whether Telegraph Road is considered a business district? 2

3

A. Under any reasonable application of planning practice, Telegraph Road would be 4

considered a business district for the following reasons: 5

6

1. Under any definition of Michigan economic development legislation, Telegraph 7

Road would qualify as a business district. Broad discretion and specific statutory 8

authorization is given to local government to determine what constitutes a 9

business district. The recent Corridor Improvement Act recognizes the economic 10

importance of roadway corridors as the suburban equivalent of traditional 11

downtowns. 12

13

2. The City of Saginaw has adopted an ordinance similar to Taylor, requiring the 14

underground installation of public utilities. The Saginaw ordinance applies to a 15

nontraditional downtown, West Genesee Avenue, which is a roadway corridor 16

similar to Telegraph on a smaller scale. West Genesee Avenue is composed 17

primarily of commercial property fronting on the roadway. 18

19

3. In Michigan, the exclusive power to zone is granted by the State to local units of 20

government. In the case of Taylor, the entire frontage of Telegraph has been 21

zoned for commercial use, primarily B-3, which is intended to serve a larger retail 22

14

market than the immediate community. Essentially, B-3 permits the most intense 1

commercial activity permitted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. 2

3

4. The City’s zoning has been based upon the Master Plan, which envisions 4

Telegraph as a center of commerce. The Master Plan designates 496 acres along 5

Telegraph for commercial use. 6

7

5. Telegraph Road currently supports 2,113,945 square feet of commercial use and 8

261 businesses. 9

10

6. The City of Taylor is a center for regional employment, as evidenced by U.S. 11

Bureau of Census figures. Specifically, the commercial development along 12

Telegraph Road generates an estimated 4,400 jobs. 13

14

7. Telegraph Road also produces a significant tax base that has been increasing over 15

the past 13 years. Since 1995, the SEV has increased over 320% and represents 16

5% of the City’s tax base, on less than 2% of the total land area of the City. 17

18

8. The City’s economic development efforts since 1998 have shown significant 19

results. Between the years 2000 and 2008, the tax base along Telegraph has 20

doubled. 21

22

Q. Does this conclude your testimony? 23

24

A. Yes. 25

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-12 (RC-1)

February 29, 2008

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-13 (RC-2)

February 29, 2008

Case U-15234 Exhibit TA-13 (RC-2)

1

STATE OF MICHIGAN


******************************** In the matter of the Petition of CITY OF ) TAYLOR, Michigan for Allocation of Cost ) As to THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY ) Case No. U-15234 _______________________________________)

QUALIFICATIONS AND DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

STEVEN S. GRAVLIN, PE, PS

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, WADE TRIM ASSOCIATES, INC.

2

Q. Please state your name and business address 1 2 A. Steven Gravlin, PE, PS, Wade Trim Associates, 25251 Northline Road, Taylor, MI 3

48188 4 5

Q. What is your position? 6 7

A. Senior Vice President 8 9 Q. On whose behalf are you presenting this Testimony? 10 11 A. On behalf of the City of Taylor. 12

13 Q. What is your connection to the project? 14

15 A. I was the project manger working for MDOT for the design of Telegraph Road from 16

Eureka to Wick. 17 18

Q. What are your credentials? 19 20

A. Licensed Professional Engineer-State of Michigan (PE) 21 Licensed Professional Surveyor-State of Michigan (PS) 22 Member, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 23 ITE Planning Council 24 ITE Traffic Engineering Council 25 ITE Safety Council 26 Affiliate-Transportation Research Board 27

28 Q. What is the purpose of your Testimony? 29 30 A. To discuss the impact on traffic safety of the Telegraph Road project. 31 32

Q. Please provide a list of Exhibits which you are sponsoring. 33 34

3

A. TA-14 (SG-1) Cost Effectiveness of Countermeasures for Utility Pole Accidents 1 2 TA-15 (SG-2) Traffic Volumes 3

4 Q. Would you provide the background of the Telegraph Road project? 5

6 A. In September 1999, Wade Trim was selected to design the reconstruction of US-24, 7

Telegraph Road, from Eureka Road to Ecorse Road, 4.5 miles of Boulevard. The 8 construction was to take place in 2001 and 2002. The purpose of the Project was to 9 reconstruct US-24 due to the distressed pavement condition. Northbound US-24 10 was also to be used as a detour for I-75 in 2002. 11

12 Considerations for the design included upgrading cross street radii, relocation of 13 crossovers, and upgrading the design to current standards. The lanes were to be 14 upgraded to 12-foot wide. The entire corridor was to be curbed on both the median 15 side and the access sides of the boulevard section. This would help to better define 16 the driveways. In addition, opportunities to eliminate or combine driveways were 17 identified. 18

19 After the design was underway, the City of Taylor approached MDOT with a 20 proposal to include the utility ductbanks, the watermain, and the sidewalk work as 21 part of the US-24 project. MDOT and the City came to an understanding that the 22 Project must be completed on time and that the City would be take full responsibility 23 for the additional work and the design and Right-of-Way acquisition would be 24 completed on MDOT’s schedule. MDOT intended to proceed with the project without 25 the City improvements if the City did not meet MDOT’s schedule. The City met the 26 schedule of MDOT and the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) and the project 27 was constructed as planned in 2001 and 2002. 28

29 Other safety enhancements to the corridor included adding right-turn lanes to 30 reduce rear-end crashes, locating the cross-overs in locations that would improve 31 the operation of the corridor, reducing the number of head-on and sideswipe 32 crashes. 33

34

4

Car dealerships were of particular concern. MDOT worked with Ray Whitfield Ford 1 to provide a turn lane that could be used for loading and unloading vehicles, since 2 there was no place for them to do this on their property, and under the existing 3 conditions they were using the shoulder. 4

5 Q. Would the removal of the poles improve the safety of the corridor? 6

7 A. Anytime you reduce the number of fixed objects in the clearzone, you improve 8

safety. The existing conditions from the topographical survey from1998 show 9 numerous poles within five to 15 feet of the edge of pavement. FHWA publication 10 Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design Features, Volume III: “Cross Sections”, 11 Publication No. FHWA-RD-91-046, dated November 1992, indicates that 12 “…removing poles from the roadway, increasing pole spacing, undergrounding of 13 utility lines…” reduce the frequency of utility pole crashes. It goes on to say that 14 reducing utility offset from five feet to 20 feet would reduce crashes by 61 percent. 15 This increased offset would not be feasible within the limited available right-of-way 16 on US-24. Although poles could not be eliminated entirely due to street lighting and 17 signal requirements, the vast reduction in poles did increase safety. 18

19 Prior to the reconstruction, there were approximately 50 poles per mile. According to 20 Zeeger, C.V. and Parker, M.R., “Cost Effectiveness of Countermeasures for Utility 21 Pole Accidents”, Report No. FHWA/RD-83/063. Exhibit TA-14 (SG-1) of the report 22 indicates a relationship between frequency of utility pole crashes and their offset, 23 depending on pole density. With a high pole density the frequency of crashes are 24 between 0.75 and 1.75 crashes per mile. 25

26 In Exhibit TA-15 (SG-12), the addition of Traffic volumes is added. In 1999, the 27 projected average daily traffic volumes (ADT) for US-24 south of Goddard were 28 43,000 vehicles per day (VPD) in 2002 and 59,000 VPD in 2027. Between Goddard 29 and Ecorse the projected ADT on US-24 was 70,400 VPD in 2002 and 90,300 VPD. 30 Taking this into account, the accident frequency expected would be between 1.5 31 and 2.75 crashes per mile. Over a ten year period, there was an average of 1.5 32 utility pole crashes per mile per year. These findings are consistent with the 33 empirical findings of Zegeer et al. The reduction in poles would likely decrease the 34

5

number of crashes that would be expected. Since the remaining poles that are on 1 the Project are typically 10 feet from the through lanes and there are less than 20 2 poles per mile the expected crash frequency would likely be reduced to between 0.4 3 to 0.9 vehicles per year. 4

5 Considering that over 50% of crashes involving poles result in injury and over 2% 6 result in death, this reduction in pole spacing would be expected to substantially 7 reduce death and injury. 8 9

Q. Does this conclude your Testimony? 10 11 A. Yes. 12

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-14 (SG-1)

February 29, 2008

Case U-15234

EXHIBIT TA-15 (SG-2)

February 29, 2008

STATE OF MICHIGAN


***************************** IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION ) OF CITY OF TAYLOR, MICHIGAN FOR ) ALLOCATION OF COST AS TO THE ) CASE NO. U-15234 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY ) ______________________________________ )

Proof of Service Monica Robinson, duly sworn, deposes and says that on this 29th day of February, 2008 she served a copy of the Testimony of Rodney L. Arroyo, Richard K. Carlisle and Steven S. Gravlin on Behalf of the City Of Taylor by e-mail and regular mail at their last known addresses to those listed on the attached service list.

___________________________________ Monica Robinson Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day February of 2008. _________________________________ Eric J. Schneidewind, Notary Public Eaton County, Michigan Acting in Ingham County, Michigan My Commission Expires: April 24, 2012

SERVICE LIST U-15234

Bruce Maters Detroit Edison Company 2000 2nd Avenue WCB 688 Detroit, MI 48826 [email protected] [email protected] William K. Fahey Stephen J. Rhodes Mark Burzych Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes, PLC 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Kristin Smith MPSC Staff 6545 Mercantile Way, Suite 15 Lansing, MI 48911 [email protected] Michael Holmes Dickinson Wright, PLLC 301 E. Liberty St., Suite 500 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 [email protected]

arnum riddering schmidt howlettllp

Documents