saginaw transit master plan - mlive.commedia.mlive.com/saginawnews_impact/other/transit master plan...

Saginaw Transit Master Plan March 2012

Saginaw Transit Master Plan

Saginaw Transit Authority Regional Services

March 2012

Prepared by

HDR Michigan, Inc.

In association with

LSL Planning, Inc. Crescent Consulting ETC Institute


STUDY PARTICIPANTS

STARS Board of Directors

Mr. Daniel LaPan - Chairperson Mr. Carl Ruth - Vice Chairperson Mrs. Jeanne Swank - Treasurer Mrs. Dorothy Allen - Secretary Ms. Karen Courneya Mr. Dennis Morrison Mrs. Wilnita Williams Ms. Blanche Clark Ms. Cheryl Hadsall

STARS Board of Directors Strategic Planning Committee

Mr. Carl Ruth, Chairperson

Mrs. Wilnita Williams Ms. Blanche Clark

Transit Master Plan Policy Advisory Committee

Bob VanDeventer Saginaw Valley Chamber of Commerce Bridget Smith Saginaw Charter Township

Carl E. Ruth Saginaw County Clareeta White Lutz Veteran’s Administration Hospital

Deb Snyder SVRC Dr. Richard Syrek Saginaw Intermediate School District

Karen Courneya Commission on Aging

Kelly Rucker Dow Corning Lester Heyboer Jr Healthsource Saginaw

Wilnita Williams STARS Board Sara Grivetti Disability Network Mid-Michigan

Steve Hocquard Saginaw Valley State University Terri Cady Disability Network Mid-Michigan

Tim Ninemire Saginaw County Mental Health Authority

Tom Miller Saginaw Future Inc.

Wilma Bilow Fresenius Medical Care


Transit Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee

Beth London City of Saginaw

Brian Wendling Saginaw County

Carl E. Ruth Saginaw County Carol Cottrell Covenant Healthcare

Cherie Sammis St. Mary’s Hospital

Doug Bell Saginaw County MPO Eric Sprague Bay Metro Transit

Jan Yuergens City of Midland/DART Karen Courneya Commission on Aging

Krystal Crosby Healthsource Saginaw Linda A. Petee Delta College

Lyn Knapp County Connection/Midland Mike Stoner Bay Metro Transit

Stephanie Harden City of Saginaw, Planning and Zoning

Tom Mayan Rural Task Force 7B Status Cities and Villages

STARS Management

Sylvester Payne, General Manager

Paul Kekel, Assistant General Manager/Controller

Linda Rivera, Planning Manager

Maurice Geromette, Assistant General Manager/ Transportation

Glenn Schlickler, Assistant General Manager/Maintenance

Mark Megoran, Information Technology Manager


ii

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ IV

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... X-1

TRANSIT NEEDS AND GOALS OF TMP ............................................................................................................ X-1 RECOMMENDED SERVICE PLAN ..................................................................................................................... X-2

Regional Services ................................................................................................................................ X-2 Urban Services .................................................................................................................................... X-2 Rural and Countywide Services .......................................................................................................... X-5

PHASED IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................................... X-6 COSTS AND FUNDING .................................................................................................................................. X-6

Recommended Local Funding Initiatives ............................................................................................ X-7 NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................................... X-8

Saginaw County Property Tax ............................................................................................................ X-8 Higher Education Student Fees .......................................................................................................... X-8

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1

1.1 STUDY AREA ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 TMP OVERSIGHT .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 STUDY TEAM .................................................................................................................................... 3

SECTION 2: ASSESSMENT OF TRANSIT NEEDS AND GOALS ...............................................................5

2.1 PURPOSE OF TRANSIT NEEDS ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 5 2.2 TRANSIT MARKET ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 5 2.3 COMMUNITY OUTREACH .................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.1 Key Stakeholder Interviews ................................................................................................... 6 2.3.2 Public Open Houses ............................................................................................................... 7 2.3.3 Market Research ................................................................................................................... 7 2.3.4 Summary of Observations ..................................................................................................... 8

2.4 EXISTING RESOURCES ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 TRANSIT NEEDS AND GOALS ................................................................................................................ 8

2.5.1 Summary of Transit Characteristics and Needs .................................................................... 8 2.5.2 Transit Master Plan Goals ..................................................................................................... 9

SECTION 3: ALTERNATIVE SERVICE SCENARIOS ............................................................................. 11

3.1 BUILDING BLOCKS OF SCENARIOS—TRANSIT MODES ............................................................................ 11 3.1.1 Transit Markets in the Saginaw Area .................................................................................. 11 3.1.2 Modal Families .................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 ALTERNATIVE SERVICE SCENARIOS ...................................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Service Scenario 1: User Community Based ........................................................................ 13 3.2.2 Service Scenario 2: Localized with Coordination ................................................................. 13 3.2.3 Service Scenario 3: Extended Fixed Route ........................................................................... 14 3.2.4 Service Scenario 4: Major Investment/Rail Modes ............................................................. 14 3.2.5 Service Scenario 5: Localized with General Public Demand Response ................................ 15


iii

3.3 EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS .............................................................................................................. 15 3.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................................. 18

SECTION 4: RECOMMENDED SERVICE PLAN .................................................................................. 20

4.1 COMPONENTS OF THE RECOMMENDED SERVICE PLAN ........................................................................... 20 4.1.1 Regional Services ................................................................................................................. 20 4.1.2 Urban Services ..................................................................................................................... 20 4.1.3 Rural and Countywide Services ........................................................................................... 23

4.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF TMP ............................................................................................................... 25 4.2.1 Phase 1 New Services .......................................................................................................... 25 4.2.2 Phase 2 New Services .......................................................................................................... 27 4.2.3 Phase 3 New Services .......................................................................................................... 27 4.2.4 Phase 4 New Services .......................................................................................................... 27

4.3 OPERATING AND CAPITAL PLAN ......................................................................................................... 31 4.3.1. Operating Costs ................................................................................................................... 31 4.3.2 Capital Costs ........................................................................................................................ 31

SECTION 5: FUNDING OF TRANSIT MASTER PLAN.......................................................................... 34

5.1 SOURCES OF FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING ......................................................................................... 34 5.1.1 Federal Sources ................................................................................................................... 34 5.1.2 State of Michigan Funding .................................................................................................. 40 5.1.3 Observations about Federal and State Funding .................................................................. 40

5.2 LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES ................................................................................................................ 41 5.2.1 Saginaw County Property Tax ............................................................................................. 41 5.2.2 Higher Education Student Fees ........................................................................................... 41 5.2.3 Dedicated Med Line Funding ............................................................................................... 42 5.2.4 Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Funding ............................................................ 42 5.2.5 Lease Financing of Capital Needs ........................................................................................ 42

5.3 TMP CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS......................................................................................................... 42 5.3.1 Assumptions Common to the Cash Flow Projections .......................................................... 46 5.3.2 Mill Levy Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 46

5.4 RECOMMENDED FUNDING STRATEGY .................................................................................................. 48 5.5 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TMP ............................................................................................................. 48

5.5.1 Transit Expands Mobility ..................................................................................................... 50 5.5.2 Transit Stimulates the Economy .......................................................................................... 50 5.5.3 Transit Alleviates Traffic Congestion ................................................................................... 50 5.5.4 Transit Saves Money ........................................................................................................... 50 5.5.5 Transit Protects the Environment ....................................................................................... 51 5.5.6 Transit Saves Lives ............................................................................................................... 51 5.5.7 Transit Brings the Community Together ............................................................................. 51

SECTION 6: NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................ 52

6.1 SAGINAW COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ..................................................................................................... 52 6.2 HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENT FEES .................................................................................................... 53 6.3 DEDICATED MED LINE FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 53 6.4 DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DDA) FUNDING .................................................................... 53 6.5 PERIODIC REVIEW OF TMP ............................................................................................................... 54

APPENDIX A: CONCEPTUAL SERVICE MAPS ............................................................................... A-1


iv

APPENDIX B: SUBSIDIZED TAXI SERVICE .................................................................................... B-1

APPENDIX C: COORDINATION OF HUMAN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES .................................... C-1

TRANSIT MASTER PLAN REPORTS UNDER SEPARATE COVER

COMMUNITY TRANSIT SURVEY (April 15, 2011)

TRANSIT NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR SAGINAW (June 2011)

PRELIMINARY SERVICE ALTERNATIVES (July 2011)

COMMUNITY OUTREACH REPORT (October 2011)

List of Tables

TABLE X- 1: INITIAL SERVICE YEAR OPERATING COSTS BY PHASE .............................................................................................. X-6 TABLE X- 2: DUAL MILL LEVY ............................................................................................................................................ X-7 TABLE 1: MEMBERS OF TECHNICAL AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEES ...................................................................................... 4 TABLE 2: TRANSIT MASTER PLAN GOALS ............................................................................................................................... 10 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SERVICE SCENARIOS ......................................................................................................... 16 TABLE 4: EVALUATION OF SERVICE SCENARIOS ....................................................................................................................... 17 TABLE 5: RECOMMENDED PLAN STATISTICS ........................................................................................................................... 22 TABLE 6: PHASE 1 NEW SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................ 25 TABLE 7: PHASE 2 NEW SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................ 27 TABLE 8: PHASE 3 NEW SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................ 27 TABLE 9: PHASE 4 NEW SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................ 27 TABLE 10: TMP OPERATING COSTS BY IMPLEMENTATION PHASE .............................................................................................. 32 TABLE 11: TMP CAPITAL COSTS BY IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ................................................................................................... 33 TABLE 12: OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL FUNDING PROGRAMS ......................................................................................................... 35 TABLE 13: 13 YEAR COUNTY-WIDE MILL LEVY ....................................................................................................................... 43 TABLE 14: DUAL MILL LEVY................................................................................................................................................ 44 TABLE 15: DUAL MILL LEVY WITH LEASE FINANCING ............................................................................................................... 45 TABLE 16: 13-YEAR SINGLE MILL LEVY OPTION RATES ............................................................................................................ 46 TABLE 17: DUAL MILL LEVY RATES ...................................................................................................................................... 47 TABLE 18: SUMMARY OF STARS ECONOMIC BENEFITS (2011) ................................................................................................ 51

List of Figures

FIGURE X- 1: RECOMMENDED SERVICE PLAN ....................................................................................................................... X-4 FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2: MODIFIED SERVICE SCENARIO 5 ............................................................................................................................ 19 FIGURE 3: RECOMMENDED SERVICE PLAN ............................................................................................................................. 21 FIGURE 4: PHASE 1 SYSTEM MAP ........................................................................................................................................ 26 FIGURE 5: PHASE 2 SYSTEM MAP ........................................................................................................................................ 28 FIGURE 6: PHASE 3 SYSTEM MAP ........................................................................................................................................ 29 FIGURE 7: PHASE 4 SYSTEM MAP ........................................................................................................................................ 30 FIGURE 8: 13-YEAR SINGLE MILL LEVY OPTION RATES ............................................................................................................ 47 FIGURE 9: DUAL MILL LEVY RATES ....................................................................................................................................... 48 FIGURE 10: OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT BENEFITS ........................................................................................................................ 49


X-1

Executive Summary

The Saginaw Transit Authority Regional Services (STARS) Transit Master Plan (TMP) was intended to provide a 25-year vision for public transportation in Saginaw County, including the 2011 service area, the county overall, and other places outside the county, namely Bay and Midland Counties. The study area encompassed Saginaw County, Michigan. According to the US Census Bureau, Saginaw County had a population of just over 200,000, which included the City of Saginaw with its population of approximately 55,000 people.

Transit Needs and Goals of TMP Saginaw County, including the City of Saginaw, had these basic characteristics which had an impact on the need for and design of transit:

Low density in terms of jobs and population throughout the county. Except in the City of Saginaw and areas just outside of the city in Saginaw Charter Township, regular fixed route transit would be difficult to support. However, targeted services including flexible and demand response service could work throughout the county.

Travel demand, population and employment increases were shown for 2035 in the north-central county area (Tittabawassee, Saginaw, and Kochville Townships) and scattering of stability elsewhere in the county. Strong travel demand connections among the Great Lakes Bay Region and the City of Saginaw, Tittabawassee, Saginaw Charter, and Kochville Townships, could warrant regional and localized services in these areas.

Wide spread elderly and households in poverty throughout the out-county area especially in southern parts of the county except the Birch Run-Frankenmuth Township areas where significant senior citizen populations will exist in 2035.

Students and faculty for Delta College (the main campus as well as the satellite campuses) come from throughout the Great Lakes Bay Region including the north-central area of the county as well as Buena Vista, Bridgeport, and Spaulding Townships. Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU) drew its students and faculty predominately from Bay County, Saginaw, and Kochville Townships.

Based on these characteristics, as well as extensive community input, the TMP sought to address these community goals:

Support Economic Development

Support Education

Support Community Social Service Needs

Transit Master Plan March 2012

X-2

To better define these goals, the following associated objectives were developed:

1. Provide access to jobs for county and city residents by connecting major employment areas as well as support corporate sustainability efforts.

2. Support area’s efforts to be a tourist destination for both local and out-of-town people. 3. Attract more choice riders. 4. Provide opportunities for job training/retraining at area universities and colleges. 5. Provide rural to urban services. 6. Provide transportation for seniors to allow “aging in place.” 7. Provide access to medical care.

Recommended Service Plan Figure X- 1 shows the fully implemented recommended service plan. It needs to be noted that the STARS service currently in effect was also assumed to be part of the recommended TMP. These services comprise the recommended plan:

Regional Services Regional services connect Saginaw County with other adjacent counties. For the recommended service plan, Bay and Midland Counties would be connected with commuter services. Bay County would also be connected with a new college oriented service called the “Ed Line.”

Commuter Service Two separate commuter bus routes, operating during weekday peak periods, would connect Saginaw Charter Township (perhaps originating at the Center Court area) with Bay City and Midland. The service would be limited stop express and allow for “park and ride” connections. See Appendix B for a map of the commuter line services.

Ed Line The “Ed Line” (“Ed” is short for “education”) service would connect the main campus of Delta College (in Bay County) with Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU), with the core of the City of Saginaw (the medical area), and Delta’s Ricker campus. This service would operate as a limited stop express and include a stop at STARS’s Downtown Transfer Center to facilitate transfers from other fixed routes.

Urban Services Urban services fall into two classes. There would be services within the City of Saginaw and the urbanized portion of Saginaw County but generally outside of the City, and finally services that connect the City and the Saginaw Charter Township.


X-3

City of Saginaw As indicated above, the currently in effect STARS fixed route and Lift service would continue to operate under this TMP. Services that would be introduced as part of the TMP include:

Subsidized taxi services to operate evenings and Sundays. The subsidized taxi public transportation model incorporates a taxi subscription program. The subsidy is provided directly to passengers to purchase taxi services. A subsidized taxi program would be offered to the general public instead of evening fixed route transit service, when demand for public transit service would be low.

“Med Line” (“Med” is short for medical) service. Connects major medical institutions in the core of Saginaw including the VA Hospital, Covenant and St. Mary’s facilities. This is done to also facilitate the development of regional medicine through the Central Michigan University (CMU)’s Medical Education Partners. While the service would be operated by STARS, it would have a distinctive vehicle and brand identity.


X-4

Figure X- 1: Recommended Service Plan


X-5

Urbanized Saginaw County Saginaw Charter Township would have “flex route” service generally connecting the Wal-Mart at Lawndale and State Roads to SVSU and the main campus of Delta College. If demand warrants, the southern terminus of the route could instead be the shopping areas at Gratiot and Center Roads. The flex route service would be branded with a distinctive vehicle and identity. The service would be operated by STARS.

City/Urbanized County Connections Two routes from the current (September 2011) STARS service would be extended from the City into Saginaw Charter Township. Route 1 and Route 6 would be extended. Route 1 would provide more regular service to the Wal-Mart (at Lawndale and State Roads). Route 1 in 2011 serviced that retail area but at infrequent headways. The improved Route 1 would provide service on a more regular basis. In addition, Route 6 would have a branch line that would operate in Saginaw Charter Township: west on Shattuck Road to North Center Road to McCarty to Mackinaw and Tittabawassee Roads.

Rural and Countywide Services Two types of services would be provided in the rural portions of Saginaw County. The first would be a network of Flex routes connecting the various villages. The second service, operating countywide would be coordination of human transportation services provided by various social service agencies.

Flex routes Similar to the flex route described above for Saginaw Charter Township above similar services would be provided linking the villages. The flex routes, though operated by STARS, would also be branded with distinctive vehicles and a unique identity. Flex routes would connect the rural and urban parts of the county including St. Charles, Chesaning, Birch Run, Bridgeport, and Frankenmuth.

Coordinated Human Transportation Following a negotiation process with affected agencies, STARS would lead the effort to coordinate the shared use of existing human service agency transportation services to:

Increase the productivity and lower the cost/client trip of agency existing services.

Reduce transportation service overlaps.

Provide a safety net for the client trips of agencies that do not have transportation services available for their clients.

Although the Coordinated Human Transportation services initiative would provide a countywide rural safety-net for the community’s transportation needs, the urban and regional trips of Saginaw human service agencies would also be accommodated.


X-6

Phased Implementation The TMP is a 25-year vision for transit in Saginaw County. As such it is not anticipated to be implemented all at once, but in stages or phases. Depending on the availability of funding, the plan could begin as early as 2013 and be completed by 2035. The plan consists of four phases with indicated dates for implementation.

Phase 1: 2013-2015

Phase 2: 2016-2020

Phase 3: 2021-2025

Phase 4: 2026-2035

The start and end dates for the phases are “soft.” This means that not all phase elements would necessarily be implemented during the years indicated. Elements could be staggered during the phase as funding and public demand warrant. Further, subsequent phases could be implemented later than what is indicated. Again, available funding and the level of public acceptance of services could push implementation back or move it forward.

Costs and Funding Table X- 1 summarizes costs and other data.

Table X- 1: Total Initial Service Year Operating Costs by Phase (Nominal dollars)

A combination of funding was proposed to finance the implementation of the TMP. First, federal and state governments have had transit funding programs. Though the Federal programs were uncertain, continuation of 2011 Federal funding levels was assumed for this plan. Similarly, the continuation of 2011 state funding levels was also assumed. Another funding challenge is with local funding. As of 2011, new local funding would be needed for implementation of the TMP.


X-7

Recommended Local Funding Initiatives Four potential sources of new local funding were analyzed or discussed in the TMP:

1. Saginaw County Property Tax—as seen in Table X- 2 below, a countywide mill levy would be needed in addition to continuation of 3.0 mills in the City of Saginaw. Under 2011 state law, a “tiered” property tax levy (i.e., two separate traits taxes within the same county) would need special approval by the state legislature.

2. Higher Education Student Fees—would be a transit fee charged students at the local colleges. Delta College and SVSU could be initial locations for such a fee though other colleges should also be given a similar opportunity.

3. Dedicated Med Line Funding—would need to be a special arrangement with the affected medical institutions.

4. Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Funding—would most likely be a long term funding opportunity.

Table X- 2: Dual Mill Levy

Dual Mill Levy Option

Year County Mill Levy

City Mill Levy

2013 1.00 3.00

2027 2.00 3.00


X-8

Next Steps Securing local funding for the TMP is top priority in its implementation. Of the local sources, a countywide property tax and “higher education student fee” were the sources likely to generate sufficient funds to implement either or both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the plan.

Saginaw County Property Tax There are two events that need to occur to secure funding through a countywide property tax. The first is to seek an exemption from the state of Michigan to allow for a two-tier transit property tax in Saginaw County. The second event is to initiate a public education effort to let people know about the TMP and its benefits. A key point to be made would be the benefits of the TMP to people who would never use the system but would accrue benefits nonetheless. The public education effort could consist of a number of activities such as:

Formation of a public education steering committee to guide and serve as a sounding board for STARS in developing this effort.

Market research focus groups consisting of a broad range of populations (e.g., urban and rural out-county as well as business owners) to test their perceptions of the TMP recommendations. The purpose would be to test Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 services and ascertain the community benefits to such services.

Develop educational materials based on the focus group research as well as the public feedback from this TMP.

Test educational materials through a market research survey.

Execute an educational program.

Approach the Saginaw County Commission to place tax initiative on countywide ballot.

Higher Education Student Fees The initiation of a “Higher Education Student Fee” for the local colleges should begin with discussions with area colleges perhaps in a joint meeting. This discussion might be coordinated with Bay Metro which also could be a partner in approaching for such a fee. These basic steps should be followed:

Determine financial needs of STARS and Bay Metro to promote a transit fee. It seems logical that such a fee would not only support the new Ed Line but also allow students and staff to ride the regular services at no additional cost. An appropriate fee level for this privilege has not been completed.

Approach the colleges with a “business proposal” for assessing the fee outlining its benefits and costs. This can be done in a joint meeting or “summit.”

Work with the interested institutions to secure approval of the fee.


1

Section 1: Introduction

The Saginaw Transit Authority Regional Services (STARS) Transit Master Plan (TMP) was intended to provide a 25-year vision for public transportation in Saginaw County, including the current service area, the county overall, and other places outside the county, namely Bay and Midland Counties. The overall TMP process evaluated a variety of both near- and long-term transit service options. The process involved the following general activities:

1. Community Input –a series of meetings, presentations, survey, and a webpage to help gather information, comments, ideas, and reactions;

2. Needs Assessment – analysis of demographic characteristics and forecasted population and employment changes;

3. Transit Service Options and Recommended Plan – alternatives to meet future needs; and, 4. Funding and Implementation – the recommended plan will include a viable funding strategy that

reflects the community’s goals and aspirations to ensure implementation.

An earlier Transit Needs Assessment for Saginaw (June 2011) report addressed items 1 and 2 above. Further, a Preliminary Service Alternatives (July 2011) report addressed most of item 3. This report summarized the findings of those initial documents as well as presented the recommended service plan including the plan’s funding and implementation.

1.1 Study Area The Study Area, shown in Figure 1, encompasses Saginaw County, Michigan. According to the US Census Bureau, Saginaw County had a population of just over 200,000, which included the City of Saginaw with its population of approximately 55,000 people.

1.2 Report Organization

Section 2: Summary of Transit Needs and Goals Summarizes the Transit Needs Assessment, which includes a review of demographic changes

occurring in the study area, input from the community regarding transit and its role, a review of existing transit resources, and, finally, goals for the TMP are presented.

Section 3: Alternative Service Scenarios This section reviews options to address the TMP goals. Also presented is an evaluation of

those options ending with a recommended scenario.

Section 4: Recommended Service Plan This section discusses the recommended plan in detail, its implementation, as well as its

operating and capital costs.

Section 5: Funding of Transit Master Plan This section reviews major funding options for the TMP as well as a recommended funding strategy.


2

Figure 1: Study Area


3

Section 6: Summary and Next Steps This section focuses on the initial actions STARS can take to begin the implementation of the TMP.

In addition, the following reports were prepared as part of the TMP. They were referenced and summarized in this document.

COMMUNITY TRANSIT SURVEY (April 15, 2011)

TRANSIT NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR SAGINAW (June 2011)

PRELIMINARY SERVICE ALTERNATIVES (July 2011)

1.3 TMP Oversight This TMP was guided through its development by two committees mostly composed of people outside the STARS organization. These committees met three times over the course of the TMP’s development. The first committee was a “Technical Advisory Committee” that was intended to review plan details and assumptions. The second committee was a “Policy Advisory Committee” (PAC) which reviewed stages of the plan in terms of political and community-wide compatibility. Members of the STARS Board of Directors were invited to attend the PAC meetings as well.

Table 1 contained a list of TAC and PAC Members. Some participants overlapped membership over the two committees. In addition, the STARS Board of Directors also provided oversight.

STARS Board of Directors Mr. Daniel LaPan - Chairperson Mr. Carl Ruth - Vice Chairperson Mrs. Jeanne Swank - Treasurer Mrs. Dorothy Allen - Secretary Ms. Karen Courneya Mr. Dennis Morrison Mrs. Wilnita Williams Ms. Blanche Clark Ms. Cheryl Hadsall

1.4 Study Team The study team consisted of key STARS staff as well as the HDR study team. STARS staff that participated in the TMP process included:

STARS TMP Project Team Sylvester Payne,

General Manager

Paul Kekel, Assistant General Manager/Controller

Maurice Geromette,

Assistant General Manager/Transportation

Linda Rivera, Planning Manager

Glenn Schlicker,

Assistant General Manager/Maintenance

Mark Megoran, Information Technology Manager


4

HDR TMP Study Team Ted Rieck, HDR

Project Manager Taiwo Jaiyeoba, HDR

Funding Brad Strader, LSL Planning

Douglas Langille, HDR Planner

Cindy Winland, Crescent Consulting

Kathleen Duffy, LSL Planning

Kim Pallari, HDR Public Involvement

Chris Tatham, ETC Institute

Eric Frederick, LSL Planning

Table 1: Members of Technical and Policy Advisory Committees

Name (alphabetic by first name) Committee Organization

Beth London TAC City of Saginaw

Bob VanDeventer PAC Saginaw Valley Chamber of Commerce

Brian Wendling TAC Saginaw County

Bridget Smith PAC Saginaw Charter Township

Carl E. Ruth TAC/PAC Saginaw County

Carol Cottrell TAC Covenant Healthcare

Cherie Sammis TAC St. Mary’s Hospital

Clareeta White PAC Lutz Veteran’s Administration Hospital

Deb Snyder PAC SVRC

Doug Bell TAC Saginaw County

Dr. Richard Syrek PAC Saginaw Intermediate School District

Eric Sprague TAC Bay Metro Transit

Jan Yuergens TAC City of Midland/DART

Lester Heyboer Jr PAC Healthsource Saginaw

Karen Courneya TAC/PAC Commission on Aging

Kelly Rucker PAC Dow Corning

Krystal Crosby TAC Healthsource Saginaw

Linda A. Petee TAC Delta College

Lyn Knapp TAC County Connection/Midland

Mike Stoner TAC Bay Metro Transit

Wilnita Williams PAC STARS Board

Sara Grivetti PAC Disability Network Mid-Michigan

Stephanie Harden TAC City of Saginaw, Planning and Zoning

Steve Hocquard PAC Saginaw Valley State University

Terri Cady PAC Disability Network Mid-Michigan

Tim Ninemire PAC Saginaw County Mental Health Authority

Tom Mayan TAC Rural Task Force 7B Status Cities and Villages

Tom Miller PAC Saginaw Future Inc.

Wilma Bilow PAC Fresenius Medical Care


5

Section 2: Assessment of Transit Needs and Goals

This section summarizes an analysis of transit needs in Saginaw County. The information presented here is a summary of more detailed data found in the Transit Needs Assessment for Saginaw (June 2011) which provides supporting documentation to this portion of the TMP. The needs assessment also included a community survey, which is separately documented in the Community Transit Survey (April 15, 2011).

2.1 Purpose of Transit Needs Assessment The purpose of the transit needs assessment for Saginaw was to determine how transit, in conjunction with the other mobility options provided to Saginaw County residents, could best serve the current and future needs of the Saginaw County area including the City of Saginaw. This assessment established current and future transportation, population, and economic conditions that would not only likely influence a future transit system but could also be influenced by such a system. The analysis examined transit needs within the County as well as the travel demand in the rest of the Great Lakes Bay region. The needs assessment consists of a transit market analysis, community outreach information, and a review of existing transit resources, which culminated in the development of TMP goals.

2.2 Transit Market Analysis The transit market analysis was intended to help identify current and potential transit riders. Data on where people lived, worked, the household characteristics and where they traveled to and from gave insight into what type of transit service might meet their needs today and in the future. Predictions for changes to population and demographic characteristics, such as age and auto ownership helped identify what transit services may meet changing needs in the future. Much of that market information could best be described through a series of maps that indicate where the population has increased or decreased in the last few years, where jobs were added or lost, and the changes expected in the next 20 - 25 years. This section describes the data that was used and what it tells us about meeting mobility needs for residents, students, and employers. Detailed data and maps can be found in the above mentioned Transit Needs Assessment for Saginaw (June 2011). In summary, the following key observations emerged from the market analysis:

Areas northwest of the City of Saginaw, and near Birch Run and Frankenmuth, were projected to experience the greatest population and employment growth by 2035.

The City of Saginaw has, and was projected to maintain, the highest population and employment density in the county.


6

Trends indicated changes in the study area associated with populations that comprise of traditional transit riders, (e.g., senior citizens, youth, minorities, single-parent households, auto-less households, and those below the poverty line).

o The population of the county was aging, and most senior citizen residents lived in suburban, rural, and small village areas.

o The number of households in poverty increased significantly between 2000 and 2009, while households without vehicles declined during the same period.

o Youth and minority populations declined slightly between 2000 and 2009, while the number of single parent households rose. All three groups are primarily concentrated in the City of Saginaw.

Travel demand was seen as highest between the City of Saginaw urban area, including adjacent townships, and Bay County. By 2035, these trips, and those between Midland County and the Saginaw urban area, were projected to increase significantly.

2.3 Community Outreach An important feature in discerning the needs of Saginaw County residents for transit service was an extensive community outreach process. Three main efforts were undertaken in this regard. They were:

1. Interviews and meetings with community stakeholders: 2. General public meetings; and, 3. Statistically valid market research survey of county residents.

In addition to these proactive efforts, the TMP study team maintained a project website (www.starstmp.com) that provided information about the project and offered an opportunity for people to note comments as well.1

2.3.1 Key Stakeholder Interviews An important source of information in forming a vision for future transit was to engage key people in the community. Such people provided perspective on community challenges and offered initial impressions regarding how transit might address such challenges. For the TMP, key people were chosen from major employers, health care, education, municipal and quasi-public agencies, and social service agencies. In addition, some community groups were engaged to gain an even broader source of area information. Also, one-on-one key person interviews as well as community group meetings were facilitated. Community groups were chosen to primarily represent areas of the county and/or groups that might not otherwise have a voice to express their needs and desires, or a way to participate in the planning process through key person interviews, participation in a committee or general public input opportunities. These group visits were weighted toward more rural areas of the county, seniors and communities that historically have not offered transit service for various reasons. Overall themes from the interviews and community meetings included:

Receptiveness to expanding transit into rural areas where possible;

Services for a broad range of people, including senior citizens, for work and educational purposes was seen as a common need;

1 Only one comment has been received via the web site. That comment was supportive of the TMP process.

http://www.starstmp.com/


7

The need to coordinate STARS services with other providers; and,

Education about STARS current and potential services in the community would benefit future support of STARS funding.

2.3.2 Public Open Houses On Monday, May 16, 2011, the Saginaw Transit Authority Regional Services (STARS) hosted two public open houses in separate locations to get community input on current and future transit needs. The open houses were held from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the First Ward Community Center (in the City of Saginaw) and again from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Center Courts Recreational Center (in Saginaw Charter Township). These open houses were hosted to gather information from the public and are just one tool that STARS is utilizing to garner participation and valuable input from the public.

2.3.3 Market Research ETC Institute, in association with HDR study team, conducted a survey of residents in Saginaw County in early April of 2011. The purpose of the survey was to gather input from residents regarding issues and opportunities relating to transit operations in Saginaw, both the City and County. Some of the specific topics that were addressed in the survey included:

The quality of public transit in Saginaw;

Locations of stops, length of trip and cost tolerance,

Reasons why some don’t use public transit;

How likely residents were to re-consider public transit use;

The importance for Saginaw to provide public transit;

How best to fund public transit; and,

Where service might be expanded beyond the city.

The survey was administered by phone to a random sample of 401 residents during early April of 2011. The overall results for the 401 surveys that were administered have a precision of at least +/- 5% at the 95% level of confidence. Highlighted findings from the market research include:

Overall satisfaction with the availability of public transportation services in Saginaw. Those surveyed were asked about their level of satisfaction with transit services in Saginaw; 19% thought the service was excellent, 43% thought it was good, 23% thought it was average, and 15% thought it was poor.

Reasons that would encourage more use of public transit. The reasons most frequently cited were cost of gasoline at $6/gallon or more (63%), $5 (62%), or above $4 (54%).

Support for expanding service to other areas. Those surveyed are supportive of extending service to Bay City (62%), Midland (54%), Metro Detroit (50%), Flint (48%), and Lansing (47%).

Importance of Saginaw County to support and fund public transportation outside of the City of Saginaw. Those surveyed thought it was important (70%) to fund public transportation outside of the city but inside the county.

How best to fund public transit for Saginaw County. Those surveyed would have transit funded by sales tax (27%), property tax (17%), gasoline tax (14%), or vehicle registration fees (12%) in that priority.


8

2.3.4 Summary of Observations Based on the above public input there is, not surprising, a range of opinions about expanding transit in Saginaw County. Among some employers there was no perceived need for transit for their employees. However, Dow expressed interest in supporting services for other people in the community in connection with providing access to education. Thomas Township is non-supportive of transit service though Saginaw Charter Township would appear to be ready to embrace services for senior citizens. On the other end of the opinion spectrum, Delta College and SVSU have expressed support for transit as has the Kochville DDA. The survey of residents indicates some support for expansion of transit, but for certain circumstances, support is dependent on fuel prices. In summary, these observations show that there was support for transit in targeted areas for targeted populations.

2.4 Existing Resources In addition to STARS, there were seven major social service agencies in Saginaw County that provide transportation services as part of their missions. These agencies cover the spectrum of human services from services to senior citizens to persons with disabilities. Collectively, the human service agencies operate about 50 vehicles. In addition, there are three other transit providers outside the county. One is the Bay Metro Transit Authority that serves Bay County. The other two are in Midland County. The first is the City of Midland’s Dial-A-Ride Transportation service called DART. The other is a demand response service called the “County Connection”. Finally, the area has one major taxi company and is also served by two intercity bus lines (Greyhound and Indian Trails).

2.5 Transit Needs and Goals Saginaw County, including the City of Saginaw, had these basic characteristics which have an impact on the need for and design of transit:

2.5.1 Summary of Transit Characteristics and Needs

Low density in terms of jobs and population throughout the county. Except in the City of Saginaw and areas just outside of the city in Saginaw Township, regular fixed route transit would be difficult to support. However, targeted services including flexible and demand response service could work throughout the county. This holds for 2009 as well as 2035.

Travel demand, population and employment increases were shown for 2035 in the north-central county area (Tittabawassee, Saginaw, and Kochville Townships) and scattering of stability elsewhere in the county. Strong travel demand connections among the Tri-Cities and the City of Saginaw, Tittabawassee, Saginaw, and Kochville Townships. These areas may warrant regional and localized services.

Wide spread elderly and households in poverty throughout the out-county area especially in southern parts of the county except the Birch Run-Frankenmuth Township areas where significant senior citizen populations are projected to exist in 2035.

Students and faculty for Delta College (the main campus as well as the satellite campuses) come from throughout the Great Lakes Bay Region including the north-central area of the county as well as Buena Vista, Bridgeport, and Spaulding Townships. Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU) draws their students and faculty predominately from Bay County, Saginaw, and Kochville Townships.


9

These characteristics indicate these transit needs:

Demand response which included flexible fixed routes, general public demand response, as well as ridesharing (vanpooling/carpooling) are needed throughout the county but predominantly in the southern part of the county as well as in Saginaw and Kochville Townships.

Later evening service is needed for existing services and selected new services to operate as late as 11:00 pm to accommodate evening college classes as well as later evening job shifts.

Localized services targeting seniors and other populations (including college students) in Saginaw Township.

Great Lakes Bay connections need to be improved with a coordinated transfer policy and “one-seat” ride out of the City of Saginaw to Delta College and SVSU.

Additional passenger amenities such as shelters and benches throughout the service area.

2.5.2 Transit Master Plan Goals To successfully address the community’s public transportation needs, the TMP needs to target these

goals which are further illustrated in Table 2:


Support Education


Associated with each goal are objectives that are intended to better define the goals. Further, “key actions” were offered as additional explanation. Evaluation criteria used in assessing the service scenarios are presented in Section 3 of this report were directly derived from the objectives contained in Table 2. The objectives are:

1. Provide access to jobs for county and city residents by connecting major employment areas as well as support corporate sustainability efforts.

2. Support area’s efforts to be a tourist destination for both local and out-of-town people. 3. Attract more choice riders. 4. Provide opportunities for job training/retraining at area universities and colleges. 5. Provide rural to urban services. 6. Provide transportation for seniors to allow “aging in place”. 7. Provide access to medical care.


10

Table 2: Transit Master Plan Goals Goal

Objective(s)/Evaluation Criteria Key Actions


Provide access to jobs for county and city residents by connecting major employment areas as well as support corporate sustainability efforts

Later evening service and weekends

Better out-county access

Support area’s efforts to be a tourist destination for both local and out-of-town people

Shopping route to Birch Run and Frankenmuth

Offer delivery to out-county special events such as Showboat, Fair, Frankenmuth festivals, Birch Run specials

Attract more choice riders Offer commuter services for Great Lakes Bay connections

Support Education Provide opportunities for job training/retraining at area universities and colleges

Establish regular loop among Delta(s), SVSU and key high schools

Operate at least until 11pm to service night students

Connect with Bay Metro and Midland dial-a-ride location


Provide rural to urban services Establish rural to urban route services to schools, medical and

shopping areas

South county connections north along M-52 to universities, hospitals and shopping

Provide transportation for seniors to allow “aging in place”

Coordinate existing demand response services

Targeted senior services

Senior route – senior living, congregate meals to medical and shopping

Provide access to medical care Medical loop among hospitals and medical school in support of

CMU’s Medical Education Partners

Establish rural to urban route services to schools, medical and shopping areas


11

Section 3: Alternative Service Scenarios

The process used to arrive at the recommended service plan for the STARS TMP is summarized in this section. The information presented here is from a more detailed report entitled Preliminary Service Options (July 2011) which is a supporting document to the TMP. This section first discusses the building blocks for the scenarios, followed by a description of the scenarios, the recommended scenario, and finally the operating and capital costs of the recommended scenario.

3.1 Building Blocks of Scenarios—Transit Modes This section outlines the modes that comprised the various service scenarios presented later. The list of modes was derived from a long list of possible choices and reduced to feasible transit technologies based on the transit markets existing in the Saginaw service area. It is from this short list of technologies that the scenarios were created. As the number of potential transit modes is significant it is useful to classify the modes into categories defined by market and modal “family.”

3.1.1 Transit Markets in the Saginaw Area As the Saginaw service area is large and diverse, a wide range of service needs and ridership potential exist both now and in the future. As such, the overall area has been divided into three general markets: regional, urban and rural.

Regional markets generally include connections among the Great Lakes Bay Region for transportation needs to and from Saginaw County.

Urban include the City of Saginaw as well as the urbanized portions of the county such as Saginaw Charter Township and Kochville Township.

Rural is the balance of the county and includes smaller communities such as the Villages of St. Charles, Chesaning, Birch Run, and the City of Frankenmuth.

3.1.2 Modal Families The range of potential modes which could serve one or more of the above modal markets was further subdivided in how services could be delivered. There are basically four groups/families of potential delivery. Each family generally requires certain levels of population and/or employment concentrations or densities to be successful. The four basic delivery families with their general density characteristics are:

Rideshare/Carshare consists of services organized by the users with assistance from an agency such as STARS. Services within this group include carpools, vanpools and taxis. They could also include the coordination of rides with existing social service agency providers. Population and employment densities are generally not an issue, although taxi service is typically found in higher density areas.2

2 See Transit Needs Assessment for Saginaw, June 2011, Tables 1 and 2, respectively pages 11 and 15.


12

Demand Response consists of services that are provided at the request of users. The service could be directly provided by an agency such as STARS (as in the case of LIFT) or by human service agencies such as the Mental Health Authority or by local taxi companies. This type of service can work in all density levels but, as a standalone service, can operate effectively in areas with less than three households or about eight people per acre.3

Bus includes traditional transit service as currently provided in the City of Saginaw but can include long-distance services (commuter services outside of Saginaw County), shuttles, and “flexible” routes. Long-distance services require population densities of at least three to six households per acre with traditional services needing as much as twelve households per acre. Flex routes operate in a similar fashion to traditional fixed route services but have the option to “go off route” on demand within a specified service zone. Such services generally require population densities greater than eight people or three households per acre to be successful, although flex routes can operate in environments similar to those served by demand response modes.4

Rail or sometimes referred to as “fixed guideway” are modes that operate in a dedicated right-of-way. Examples are streetcars, light rail, and monorail. While the earlier modes defined can be adjusted to follow new ridership markets, rail modes are not as flexible and typically require patrons to go to them. Rail modes also include a form of bus service called “Bus Rapid Transit” or BRT. BRT has the characteristics of fixed guideway service but are less expensive than a true rail mode. Modes in this category require high population densities on the order of 50 to 100 people per acre (25 to 50 households per acre). No area in Saginaw approaches even the low end of this range.

3.2 Alternative Service Scenarios In developing service scenarios that conformed to the characteristics of Saginaw County (as discussed earlier in Section 2) a wide range of transit and non-transit mobility alternatives or service scenarios were developed for review. A “short list” of the modes generally discussed above in section 3.1 modes was used to create the scenarios. In June 2011, the initial drafts of these scenarios were discussed in a workshop consisting of STARS staff, community stakeholders, as well as members of the HDR study team. The service scenarios derived from the workshop were:

Service Scenario 1: User Community Based

Service Scenario 2: Localized with Coordination

Service Scenario 3: Extended Fixed Route




13

Service Scenario 4: Major Investment/Rail Modes

Service Scenario 5: Localized with General Public Demand Response

3.2.1 Service Scenario 1: User Community Based Service Scenario 1 focused on non-transit rideshare, subscription service, volunteer driver and discounted taxi initiatives that do not generally require public subsidy. In some locations, volunteer drivers have been implemented without gas or mileage reimbursements; however, many were implemented and sustained with some level of incentive. In this scenario, passengers would be generally responsible for up to 100% of the operating costs. Vehicles would be provided by private sector or general public participants. This scenario would consist of:

Regional services using ridesharing modes such as vanpools.

Urban services using discounted taxis. The current STARS fixed route and Lift service would continue to operate.

Rural services using subscription services or volunteer driver modes.

3.2.2 Service Scenario 2: Localized with Coordination This scenario, unlike Scenario 1, involves a level of public subsidy for both capital and/or operating costs. However, the alternatives in this scenario would generally require less subsidization than many traditional transit alternatives. In some cases, the cost per passenger carried would be less because of lower frequency, fewer service days, or because fewer vehicles would be required to provide service area coverage. Characteristics of this scenario include:

Regional services 1. An “Ed Line” (“Ed” is short for “education”) service connecting the main campus of Delta

College (in Bay County) with SVSU, with the core of Saginaw (the medical area), and Delta’s Ricker campus. This would operate as a limited stop express (or perhaps a BRT mode in shared lanes) and include a stop at STARS’s Downtown Transfer Center to facilitate transfers from other fixed routes.

2. Peak only commuter bus service from Saginaw Charter Township to Bay City and Midland.

Urban services 1. “Med Line” (“Med” is short for medical) service connecting major medical institutions in

the core of Saginaw. This includes the VA Hospital, Covenant and St. Mary’s facilities. This is done to also facilitate the development of regional medicine through the Central Michigan University’s (CMU) Medical Education Partners.

2. A flex route for Saginaw Charter Township. This service could have a name and brand separate from the traditional STARS service.

3. The current STARS fixed route and Lift service would continue to operate as today.


14

Rural services 1. Flex route services for a number of the rural communities in Saginaw County including

Merrill, Frankenmuth, and Birch Run. 2. Flex route life line services—similar to flex route but these services only operate two or

three days during the week. Services connecting St. Charles to the City of Saginaw, St. Charles to Chesaning, and Chesaning to Birch Run would function as life line services.

3. Coordination—envisions using existing human service transportation providers to satisfy general public transportation needs that aren’t otherwise met by the flex routes. This model would have STARS work with local area human service transportation providers to arrange for trips for the general public.

3.2.3 Service Scenario 3: Extended Fixed Route Service Scenario 3 includes more traditional fixed route and demand response modes. Costs per passenger trip would be higher than the previous scenarios but could be more appropriate for the needs of the area. It was noted that the current STARS fixed route and Lift services would continue to operate as in 2011 but would be enhanced per the above changes noted under “urban services” in scenario 2. Highlighted services included:

Regional services o As seen in Scenario 2 above, this scenario would include the “Ed Line.” o As also with scenario 2, a regular bus would operate from Saginaw Charter Township to

Bay City and Midland. This service would operate all day which would be at a higher level of service than the peak period only service defined in scenario 2.

Urban services o Extend STARS routes 1 and 6. Route 1 would provide more regular service to Wal-Mart

(at Lawndale and State). Route 1 now services that retail area but at infrequent headways. Under this scenario, Route 1 service would be provided on a more regular basis. In addition, Route 6 would have a branch line that would operate west on Shattuck Road to North Center Road to McCarty to Mackinaw and Tittabawassee Roads.

o Increase service frequencies on STARS routes as well as extend services to 11:00pm on weekdays and 10:00pm on Saturday. Also, frequencies on existing routes would be adjusted 20 minutes from the current 40 minutes.

o “Med Line” (“Med” is short for medical) service connecting major medical institutions in the core of Saginaw as described in Scenario 2.

o A flex route for Saginaw Charter Township as described in Scenario 2.

Rural services o General public demand response service would be directly operated by STARS and

would serve areas not otherwise served by the rural flex routes.

3.2.4 Service Scenario 4: Major Investment/Rail Modes This scenario focuses on rail and bus (Bus Rapid Transit - BRT) alternatives that require high levels of ridership to justify. Consequently, both capital and operating costs are also high for this scenario. Service Scenario 4 alternatives are provided for comparative purposes, but deemed not appropriate or feasible for the Saginaw service area within the 2035 horizon. This scenario was dismissed without further evaluation.


15

3.2.5 Service Scenario 5: Localized with General Public Demand Response This scenario blended Scenarios 2 and 3. Scenario 5 combines the regional, urban, and rural flex route services found in Scenario 2 with the general public demand response rural services found in Scenario 3. As with scenario 2, a key feature of this scenario is the introduction of services which were localized and, perhaps, branded for a given community. The purpose was to tailor service to a given area thereby increased acceptance by the area’s population.

3.3 Evaluation of Scenarios The service scenarios were evaluated using service criteria developed from the goals set for the TMP. The goals were derived from work completed as part of the Transit Needs Assessment phase of the TMP. Public involvement was a critical component of the development of the Transit Needs Assessment. During this initial phase, the designated PAC and TAC members (a regional and representative group) were asked to assist with the development of the goals and evaluation criteria for the service scenarios. The goals were presented earlier in Table 2 on page 10. The objectives associated with the TMP goals (see, again, Table 2) formed the basis of criteria used to evaluate the service scenarios. These objectives were used as evaluation criteria and are listed below for convenience:

1. Provide access to jobs for county and city residents by connecting major employment areas as well as support corporate sustainability efforts;

2. Support area’s efforts to be a tourist destination for both local and out-of-town people; 3. Attract more choice riders; 4. Provide opportunities for job training/retraining at area universities and colleges; 5. Provide rural to urban services; 6. Provide transportation for seniors to allow “aging in place”; and, 7. Provide access to medical care.

Table 3 below summarizes the four scenarios that were evaluated. Service Scenario 5 scored highest. Following the evaluation of the draft service scenarios, STARS initiated a broad-based outreach campaign to promote the draft scenarios, discuss the evaluation, and highlight the highest scoring scenario. This communication with the public was an important step in providing key information and soliciting further feedback to understand if the scenarios would meet the community’s needs. Communication tactics employed at this stage in the planning process included mass distribution of a project newsletter and press release, updated information on the website, presentations to community groups and organizations including the TAC/PAC, and e-blasts. All communication provided information on the differences between the draft service scenarios, and encouraged the public to fill out an on-line survey so that STARS could further understand the public’s top priorities for service enhancements and ensure that the Service Scenario 5 was indeed the preferred plan to move forward.


16

The public comments received during this time were generally of support for Service Scenario 5 as well as a desire to maintain some additional elements from other scenarios. Comments received highlighted a validation of some specific needs for enhancements to the existing system in the areas of:

Connections to the Colleges (Ed Line)

Targeted senior population services (Medline and flex routes)

Community focused services (flex routes) and,

Regional connections to the established system (Bay and Midland)

Based on input from STARS staff, the TAC, the PAC, and the general public, Scenario 5 was adjusted to include elements of Scenarios 2 and 3 creating a Modified Service Scenario 5. The table also presented Modified Service Scenario 5.

Table 3: Summary of Evaluated Service Scenarios Scenario Annual Operating

Cost *(millions) Daily Riders* Cost/Rider

1—User Community Based $0.29 81 $12.48

2—Localized/Coordinated $6.1 972 $23.58

3—Extended Fixed Route $13.1 4,900 $12.56

5—Localized/Gen Public $8.1 1,008 $27.28

Modified Service Scenario 5 $15.9 5,187 $13.99

STARS Current Service $7.7 3,000 $7.62

*Note: Scenarios 1 through 5 as well as the draft recommended scenario assume that the current STARS operation continues. However, only the incremental cost of the proposed operations is shown in the table.


17

Table 4: Evaluation of Service Scenarios

Evaluation Criterion Service Scenario

1: User Community Based

2: Localized with Coordination

3: Extended Fixed Route

5: Localized with General Public

Demand Response

Provide access to jobs for county and city residents by connecting major employment areas as well as support corporate sustainability efforts.

Provide access to retail and entertainment areas.

Attract more choice riders

Provide opportunities for job training/retraining at area universities and colleges.

Provide rural to urban services.

Provide transportation for seniors to allow “aging in place.”

Provide access to medical care.

Overall

Rating Key Low Medium-High Low-Medium High

Medium


18

3.4 Preferred Alternative The highest scoring scenario was a modified version of service scenario 5. This modified service scenario is shown in Figure 2 and had these characteristics:

Regional services 1. An “Ed Line” (“Ed” was short for “education”) service connecting Delta College (main

campus) with Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU), with the core of Saginaw (the medical area), and Delta’s Ricker campus.

2. Peak only bus service from Saginaw Township to, respectively, Bay City and Midland.

Urban services o Extended STARS routes 1 and 6. Route 1 would provide more regular service to Wal-

Mart (at Lawndale and State). Route 1 now services that retail area but at infrequent headways. Under this scenario, Route 1 service would be provided on a more regular basis. In addition, Route 6 would have a branch line that would operate west on Shattuck Road to North Center Road to McCarty to Mackinaw and Tittabawassee Roads.

o Increase service frequencies on STARS routes as well as extend services to 11:00pm on weekdays and 10:00pm on Saturdays. In addition, frequencies on existing routes would be adjusted to 20 minutes from the current 40 minutes.

o “Med Line” (“Med” is short for medical) service connecting major medical institutions in the core of Saginaw.

o A flex route for Saginaw Charter Township. This service would have a name and brand separate from the traditional STARS service.

o The current STARS fixed route and Lift service would continue to operate as in 2011.

Rural services o Flex route services for a number of the rural communities in Saginaw County including

Merrill, St. Charles, Chesaning, Frankenmuth, and Birch Run.5 o Coordination—envisioned using existing human service transportation providers to

satisfy general public transportation needs that weren’t otherwise met by the flex routes. This model would have STARS work with these human service transportation providers to arrange for trips for the general public.

5 Unlike Service Scenario 2, none of the flex routes would be operated as “life line” services.


19

Figure 2: Modified Service Scenario 5


20

Section 4: Recommended Service Plan

The recommended service plan for the TMP is outlined in this section. As presented in Section 3, the preferred service scenario (“Modified Service Scenario 5”) was developed through a process that addresses TMP goals while tailoring to the conditions and trends occurring in Saginaw County. After public and financial reviews the preferred service scenario became the recommended service plan with only a few changes. The main changes include maintaining City of Saginaw service frequencies at 40 minutes, using taxis for weekday evening, Saturday evening, and Sunday daytime services, and making the Merrill, St. Charles/Chesaning, and Bridgeport Flex Routes life line services.

4.1 Components of the Recommended Service Plan Figure 3 shows the fully implemented recommended service plan. Table 5 summarizes key operating variables associated with the plan. It should be noted that the STARS service currently in effect is also assumed to be part of the recommended TMP. The basic operating statistics for the currently in effect service level is shown in Table 5 under the “current service” subheading. While the components of the recommended plan were presented earlier in Section 3 of this report, the components are repeated below for convenience. The descriptions below, therefore, are for new services in addition to the level. See, again, Table 5 for statistics related to each service.

4.1.1 Regional Services Regional services connect Saginaw County with other adjacent counties. For the recommended service plan, Bay and Midland Counties would be connected with commuter services. Bay County would also be connected with a new college oriented service called the “Ed Line.”

Commuter Express Service Two separate commuter express bus routes operating during weekday peak periods, would connect Saginaw Charter Township (perhaps originating at the Center Court area) with Bay City and Midland. The service would operate as a limited stop service and is intended to have “park and ride” connections. See Appendix B for a map of the commuter express services.

Ed Line The “Ed Line” (“Ed” was short for “education”) service would connect the main campus of Delta College (in Bay County) with Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU), with the core of the City of Saginaw (the medical area), and Delta’s Ricker campus. This service would operate as a limited stop express and include a stop at STARS’s Downtown Transfer Center to facilitate transfers from other fixed routes. See Appendix B for a map of the Ed Line service.

4.1.2 Urban Services Urban services fall into three classes. There would be services within the City of Saginaw, services within the urbanized portion of Saginaw County but generally outside of the City, and finally services that connect the City and the Saginaw Charter Township.

City of Saginaw As indicated above the currently in effect STARS fixed route and Lift service would continue to operate under this TMP. Services that would be introduced as part of the TMP include:


21

Figure 3: Recommended Service Plan


22

Table 5: Recommended Plan Statistics


23

Subsidized taxi services to operate weekday and Saturday evenings. The subsidized taxi public transportation model incorporated a taxi subscription (scrip) program. The subsidy would be provided directly to passengers to purchase taxi services. A subsidized taxi program would be offered to the general public instead of evening fixed route transit service, when demand for public transit service would be low. It is assumed that the subsidy cost per one way trip should be lower than the cost subsidy cost per one way trip served with fixed route coverage during low demand service hours. Implementing a subsidized taxi service could potentially build a future market for fixed route services. Appendix C discussed this option in more detail. In Table 5, these services are shown in combination with fixed route service. Once the market for evening and Sunday services are fully developed, then fixed route services could be implemented.

“Med Line” (“Med” is short for medical) service connecting major medical institutions in the core of Saginaw. This includes the VA Hospital, Covenant and St. Mary’s facilities. This is done to also facilitate the development of regional medicine through the Central Michigan University (CMU)’s Medical Education Partners. While it would be operated by STARS, it would have a distinctive vehicle and identity. See Appendix B for a map of this service.

Urbanized Saginaw County Saginaw Charter Township would have “flex route” service generally connecting the Wal-Mart at Lawndale and State Roads to SVSU and the main campus of Delta College. If demand warrants, the southern terminus of the route could instead be the shopping areas at Gratiot and Center Roads. The flex route service would be branded with a distinctive vehicle and identity. The service would be operated by STARS. See Appendix B for the map of this service.

City/Urbanized County Connections Two routes from the current STARS service would be extended from the City into Saginaw Charter Township. Route 1 and Route 6 would be extended. Route 1 would provide more regular service to the Wal-Mart (at Lawndale and State Roads). Route 1 in 2011 serviced that retail area but at long (infrequent) headways. Route 1 service would provide that service on a more regular basis. In addition, Route 6 would have a branch line that would operate in Saginaw Charter Township: west on Shattuck Road to North Center Road to McCarty to Mackinaw and Tittabawassee Roads. See Appendix B for a map of showing these extensions.

4.1.3 Rural and Countywide Services Two types of services would be provided in the route portions of Saginaw County. The first would be a network of flex routes connecting the various villages. The second service, operating countywide would be coordination of human transportation services provided by various social service agencies.


24

Flex routes Similar to the flex route described above for Saginaw Charter Township above similar services would be provided linking the villages. The flex routes, though operated by STARS, would also be branded with distinctive vehicles and identity.

St. Charles/Saginaw would connect Village of St. Charles with City of Saginaw and its medical areas.

St. Charles/Chesaning would connect Villages of St. Charles and Chesaning.

Merrill/SVSU/Delta would connect Merrill and western Saginaw County with SVSU and Delta College.

Chesaning/Birch Run would connect Villages of Birch Run and Chesaning.

Bridgeport would connect Village of Bridgeport and the general area.

Birch Run/Frankenmuth would connect Villages of Birch Run and Frankenmuth.

See Appendix B for maps of these services.

Coordinated Human Transportation Following a negotiation process with affected agencies, STARS would lead the effort to coordinate the shared use of existing human service agency transportation services to:

Increase the productivity and lower the cost/client trip of agency existing services;

Reduce transportation service overlaps; and,


Although the Coordinated Human Transportation services initiative would include providing countywide rural safety-net transportation needs, the urban and regional trips of Saginaw human service agencies would also be accommodated. Trip needs could range from medical, agency program-related travel, to the need of individual agency clients to access the goods and services that affect quality of life. Central human service agency trip coordination would operate at the county-wide level, for rural and urban based trips, as well as potential trips beyond the County for specialized medical treatment or consultation.

STARS would provide County leadership through the establishment of a Mobility Management office to ultimately serve as a “one-stop” broker for trip assignments and information on existing available public transportation alternatives. Within a public transit agency structure, the Mobility Management Coordinator could effectively ensure a “transit first” coordination policy. Where available and appropriate, STARS fixed route or paratransit services could be referred to the agency requesting client transportation services. This would increase productivity on existing STARS services, reduce service overlaps, and offer a lower cost transportation alternative for human service agency clients. If existing STARS fixed route or LIFT services were not available or appropriate for the service level required, STARS Mobility Management Coordinator would then determine capacity availability amongst the pool of participating human service agency transportation providers for the assignment of the trip request.

Appendix D contains further description of how a coordinated service could be organized.


25

4.2 Implementation of TMP The TMP is a 25-year vision for transit in Saginaw County. As such it was not anticipated to be implemented all at once but in stages or phases. Depending on the availability of funding (to be discussed in Section 5), the plan could begin as early as 2013 and be completed by 2035. The plan consists of four phases with indicated dates for implementation.

Phase 1: 2013-2015

Phase 2: 2016-2020

Phase 3: 2021-2025

Phase 4: 2026-2035 The start and end dates for the phases are “soft.” This means that not all phase elements would necessarily be implemented during the years indicated. Elements could be staggered during the phase as funding and public demand warrant. Further, subsequent phases could be implemented later than what is indicated. Again, available funding and the level of public acceptance of services could push back or move forward implementation. Below is a brief description of the services recommended to be implemented for each phase. In all phases, currently in effect STARS service levels are assumed. The description below indicates the new services implemented in the given phase. Subsequent phases, unless otherwise noted, assume the continued operation of the prior phase services.

4.2.1 Phase 1 New Services Table 6 shows which services are recommended to be implemented in Phase 1. Figure 4 shows the services associated with Phase 1.

Table 6: Phase 1 New Services

Market Service Type Days/Hours of Operation

Regional Ed Line Express Mon-Fri, 7AM to 11PM

Urban Saginaw TWP/SVSU/Delta Flex Route Mon-Sat, 7AM to 11PM Urban M-F Late Night (to 12mid) Subsidized Taxi Mon-Fri, 8PM to 12PM Urban Sat Late Night (to 12mid) Subsidized Taxi Saturday, 8PM to 12PM Urban Sunday Daytime Subsidized Taxi Sunday, 8AM to 7PM

Rural St. Charles/Saginaw Flex Route Mon-Sat, 7AM to 11PM Rural Birch Run/Frankenmuth Flex Route Mon-Sat, 7AM to 11PM Rural Chesaning/Birch Run Flex Route (life line) Mon-Wed-Fri, 7AM to 11PM Rural HHS Coordination Demand Response Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM Note: Depending on demand and funding, services can be implemented partially during the phase.


26

Figure 4: Phase 1 System Map


27

4.2.2 Phase 2 New Services Table 7 shows which services are recommended to be implemented in Phase 2. Figure 5 shows the services associated with Phase 2 as well as the services previously implemented. Note that the Chesaning/Birch Run service becomes a six-day/week service.


Geography Service Type Days/Hours of Operation

Regional Midland Commuter Fixed Route Mon-Fri, Peak Periods Regional Bay City Commuter Fixed Route Mon-Fri, Peak Periods Rural Chesaning/Birch Run Flex Route Mon-Sat, 7AM to 11PM Note: Depending on demand and funding, services can be implemented partially during the phase.

4.2.3 Phase 3 New Services Table 8 shows which services are recommended to be implemented in Phase 3. Figure 6 shows the services associated with Phase 3 as well as the services previously implemented.



Urban Med Line Fixed Route Mon-Sat, 7AM to 7PM Rural Bridgeport Area Flex Route (life line) Mon-Wed-Fri, 7AM to 11PM Rural St. Charles/Chesaning Flex Route (life line) Tues-Thu, 7AM to 11PM Note: Depending on demand and funding, services can be implemented partially during the phase.

4.2.4 Phase 4 New Services Table 9 shows which services are recommended to be implemented in Phase 4. Figure 7 shows the services associated with Phase 4 as well as the services previously implemented.



Urban Extend Routes 1 and 6 Fixed Route Mon-Sat, 6AM to 12PM Rural Merrill/Saginaw Twp/Delta Flex Route (life line) Mon-Wed-Fri, 7AM to 11PM Note: Depending on demand and funding, services can be implemented partially during the phase.

Note that only one of the routes (route 1 or 6) would be extended initially in 2026 with the

other route implemented in 2030. Which route is implemented first will be decided at the time.

The Merrill route would be implemented in 2031.


28



29



30



31

4.3 Operating and Capital Plan Operating and capital costs of the TMP are summarized in this section. Section 5 will discuss the potential funding options to support the identified costs.

4.3.1. Operating Costs Operating costs includes bus operator wages and benefits, fuel, repair parts and tires, management and maintenance personnel wages and benefits, insurance and routine facility expenses such as utility costs. The operating costs for the TMP services, assuming that they are implemented according to the schedule in section 4.2 above, are shown in nominal dollars (i.e., taking into account inflation) in Table 10. The operating costs in the table are the total costs for the indicated phase. The table also shows the cost of operating the currently in effect service levels. For Phase 1, for example, the cost of operating Phase 1 new service (from Table 6) as well as the current service would be about $35.25 million over the three years of 2013 to 2015. To operate current service from 2013 to 2035 is estimated to be $248.16 million. The new services, once totally implemented, are projected to cost through 2035 $262.0 million. A total TMP operating cost would be, therefore, $510.2 million. The main assumptions for the operating costs are:

General annual inflation rate of 3%

Fuel annual inflation assumed to be 5%

4.3.2 Capital Costs Table 11 shows the capital costs that support the TMP. The capital items include:

Revenue vehicles which are used to actually provide service on the street. o “Current” represents costs to continually replace vehicles used in STARS service

as of September 2011. o “New Service” includes vehicles used to operate the expanded services as well

as the replacement of these vehicles over time.

Facilities include o Operating which assumes that current facility on Johnson Street in Saginaw is

expanded (in Phase 4) to accommodate a larger fleet as well as a new facility located in the southern part of the county (in Phase 2). As services expand in southern Saginaw County it may be advantageous to have a vehicle operations center to avoid deadheading of service back to the city.

o Passenger facilities include two transit centers, a number of passenger shelters, and sidewalk improvements. A transit center is a facility where two or more bus routes can meet and facilitate multi-route passenger transfers

Other includes the periodic acquisition of data processing equipment, office furniture and a contingency.

Total capital costs over the life of the TMP would be about $77.5 million.


32

Table 10: TMP Operating Costs by Implementation Phase

Amounts are in inflated dollars.


33

Table 11: TMP Capital Costs by Implementation Phase



34

Section 5: Funding of Transit Master Plan

The development of financial options for STARS requires an understanding of the existing funding sources and the history and future projections of those sources. Once the existing sources have been identified, an analysis of the total revenue potential will be developed. In order to implement transit options beyond existing services, additional revenue sources will need to be identified. There are many funding options that are used in other communities but not all options will currently work in Saginaw. Key to the successful development of any financial plan is the support of the stakeholders. As stated in the project scope, several options for funding are documented in this plan. After the options are narrowed down, a more detailed analysis of the range of funding available will be conducted. This will give STARS an idea of what could be available to add transit options for the community.

5.1 Sources of Federal and State Funding Federal and state sources that can potentially provide funding for the TMP are identified in this section.

5.1.1 Federal Sources Federal revenues are generally provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through Sections 5303, 5307, 5308, 5309, 5310, 5311, 5316 and 5317 among others. These federal aid programs for transportation are authorized and defined by multi-year authorization acts including the most recent, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) which was enacted into law in 2005. SAFETEA-LU authorizes federal aid for both highway and public transportation programs. A portion of the Annual Allocation of Section 5307 is used to offset some of the operating costs of the service. For FY2011 Section 5307 funding is estimated in the amount of $1,860,000 for operating purposes. Federal Revenues are projected to be $2,102,754 or 31% of the total revenues in fiscal year 2011. Various federal funding sources are described below while Table 12 further describes eligible recipients and activities for these grant opportunities. Some of these funding sources are available to STARS and the agency has been utilizing some of them in one form or another for its capital and operating expenses. Sections 5303, 5304 & 5305 (Metropolitan and Statewide Planning) provides funding to support comprehensive planning for making transportation investment decisions in metropolitan areas and statewide. It helps the transit agency to preserve its ability to continually provide transit services in its service area.


35

Table 12: Overview of Federal Funding Programs

Program Eligible Recipient Eligible Activities

Section 5303 State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Federal planning funds are first apportioned to State DOTs. State DOTs then allocate planning funding to MPOs.

(A) to support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; (B) to increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; (C) to increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; (D) to increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; (E) to protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; (F) to enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; (G) to promote efficient system management and operation; and (H) to emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

Major new fixed guideway projects, or extension to existing systems financed with New Starts funds, typically receive these funds through a full funding grant agreement that defines the scope of the project and specifies the total multi-year Federal commitment to the project.


36

Section 5307 Funding is made available to designated recipients that must be public bodies with the legal authority to receive and dispense Federal funds. Governors, responsible local officials and publicly owned operators of transit services are to designate a recipient to apply for, receive, and dispense funds for transportation management areas. Generally, a transportation management area is an urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or over. The Governor or Governor’s designee is the designated recipient for urbanized areas between 50,000 and 200,000.

Eligible activities include planning, engineering design and evaluation of transit projects and other technical transportation-related studies; capital investments in bus and bus-related activities such as replacement of buses, overhaul of buses, rebuilding of buses, crime prevention and security equipment and construction of maintenance and passenger facilities; and capital investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems including rolling stock, overhaul and rebuilding of vehicles, track, signals, communications, and computer hardware and software. All preventive maintenance and some Americans with Disabilities Act complementary paratransit service costs are considered capital costs.

For urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000, operating assistance is an eligible expense. In these areas, at least one percent of the funding apportioned to each area must be used for transit enhancement activities such as historic preservation, landscaping, public art, pedestrian access, bicycle access, and enhanced access for persons with disabilities.

For urbanized areas with 200,000 in population and over, funds are apportioned and flow directly to a designated recipient selected locally to apply for and receive Federal funds. For urbanized areas under 200,000 in population, the funds are apportioned to the Governor of each state for distribution. A few areas under 200,000 in population have been designated as transportation management areas and receive apportionments directly.

Section 5308 Eligible applicants under this program are designated recipients, which are entities designated to receive Federal urbanized formula funds under 49 U.S.C. 5307. Applicants must be in areas that are maintenance or non-attainment for ozone or CO.

SAFETEA–LU grants authority to the Secretary to make grants under this section to assist recipients to finance eligible projects such as the following; (1) Purchasing or leasing clean fuel buses, including buses that employ a lightweight composite primary structure and vans for use in revenue service. The purchase or lease of non-revenue vehicles is not an eligible project. (2) Constructing or leasing clean fuel bus facilities or electrical recharging facilities and related equipment. Facilities and related equipment for clean diesel buses are not eligible. (3) Projects relating to clean fuel, biodiesel, hybrid electric, or zero emissions technology buses that exhibit equivalent or superior emissions reductions to existing clean fuel or hybrid electric technologies.

Funds made available under this program cannot be used to fund operating expenses or preventive maintenance. Funds made available under this program cannot be used to reimburse projects that have incurred prior eligible expenses without a Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) issued by FTA for the project before the costs are incurred.


37

Section 5309 Eligible applicants under the New Starts program are public bodies and agencies (transit authorities and other state and local public bodies and agencies thereof) including states, municipalities, other political subdivisions of states; public agencies and instrumentalities of one or more states; and certain public corporations, boards, and commissions established under state law.

Eligible activities are light rail, rapid rail (heavy rail), commuter rail, monorail, automated fixed guideway system (such as a “people mover”), or a busway/high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facility, or an extension of any of these. Projects become candidates for funding under this program by successfully completing the appropriate steps in the major capital investment planning and project development process.

Major new fixed guideway projects, or extension to existing systems financed with New Starts funds, typically receive these funds through Full Funding Grant Agreement (New Starts) or a Project Construction Grant Agreement (Small Starts) that defines the scope of the project and specifies the total multi-year Federal commitment to the project.

Section 5310 States are direct recipients. Eligible subrecipients are private non-profit organizations, governmental authorities where no non-profit organizations are available to provide service and governmental authorities approve to coordinate services.

Capital expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and persons with disabilities.

Section 5311 A subrecipient of the program includes a State or local governmental authority, a nonprofit organization, or an operator of public transportation or intercity bus service that receives federal transit program grant funds indirectly through a recipient.

An eligible recipient may use the funding for capital, operating, and administrative expenses for public transportation projects that meet the needs of rural communities. Examples of eligible activities include: capital projects; operating costs of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation; and the acquisition of public transportation services, including service agreements with private providers of public transportation services. The state must use 15 percent of its annual apportionment to support intercity bus service, unless the Governor certifies, after consultation with affected intercity bus providers that the needs of the state are adequately met.

Section 5316 States and public bodies are eligible designated recipients. Eligible subrecipients are private non-profit organizations, State or local governments, and operators of public transportation services including private operators of public transportation services.

Capital, planning and operating expenses for projects that transport low income individuals to and from jobs and activities related to employment, and for reverse commute projects.


38

Section 5317 States and public bodies are eligible designated recipients. Eligible subrecipients are private non-profit organizations, State or local governments, and operators of public transportation services including private operators of public transportation services.

Capital and operating expenses for new public transportation services and new public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), that are designed to assist individuals with disabilities.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program

Flexible funding source for State and local governments to support transportation projects and programs that help improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion in non-attainment areas.

Could be used for capital projects and some operating expenses

TIGGER Public transportation agencies, federally recognized Tribes or State Departments of Transportation

Two types of projects or eligible activities involving capital investments are eligible under the TIGGER Program: (a) Capital investments that assist in reducing the energy consumption of a transit agency; and (b) Capital investments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions of a transit agency.

TIGER Public transportation agencies, federally recognized Tribes or State Departments of Transportation

Transit capital and planning projects.

Veterans Transportation and Community Living Initiative Capital Grants Program

Direct Recipients under FTA’s Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula program, local governments, States, and Indian Tribes.

Available to local governmental agencies to finance capital costs of implementing, expanding, or increasing access to local One-Call/One-Click Transportation Resource Centers. These Centers simplify access to transportation for the public by connecting customers in one place to rides and transportation options provided in their locality by a variety of transportation providers and programs.


39

Section 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Program) makes federal financial resources available to urbanized areas such as Saginaw for both capital and operating purposes. Currently, STARS utilizes all its Section 5307 dollars for operating purposes. Section 5308 (Clean Fuel Grants Program) is a discretionary grant program for clean buses in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas. Up to 25% of the funds nationwide can be used for “Clean Diesel” buses. Saginaw is not currently in a nonattainment and maintenance area and thus STARS is not eligible for this grant program. Section 5309 (Capital Program) funding is available in three categories: Fixed Guideway Modernization, New Starts/Small Starts, and Bus and Bus Facilities. Congress earmarks these funds through the FTA. STARS does not currently have a fixed guideway system or New Starts/Small Starts program but has used these funds in the past for vehicle purchases, equipment upgrades, and facility improvements. Section 5310 (Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program) funds could be used to purchase buses and associated equipment used for the provision of services to seniors and persons with disabilities. STARS currently utilizes this program to fund its paratransit services. Section 5311 (Formula Grants for Other than Urbanized Areas) is a rural program that is formula based and supports public transportation in rural areas of less than 50,000 population. It may be used for funding capital, operating and administrative expenses related to meeting public transportation needs for rural communities. STARS currently utilizes this grant program. Section 5316 (Job Access and Reverse Program, JARC) covers funding for capital, operating expenses to implement projects that transport low income individuals to and from employment related activities. STARS currently utilizes this grant program. Section 5317 (New Freedom Program) is a relatively new formula grant program for capital and operating costs of services and facility improvements in excess of those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Funds are allocated based on a formula related to the population of persons with disabilities. STARS currently uses this grant program. Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds are available to metropolitan areas that are not in compliance with federal air quality standards regarding ozone or carbon monoxide. Saginaw is currently not in a nonattainment and maintenance area and thus STARS is not eligible to take advantage of this funding program. In addition to these are new sources of federal funding, for which STARS is eligible, such as:

TIGGER (Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction) Program to implement new strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and/or reduce energy use within transit operations. Energy consumption is defined as energy purchased directly by the public transportation agency such as diesel fuel, compressed natural gas, and electricity purchased from power plants. Emissions are defined as those emitted directly by the assets of the public transportation agency, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents. The TIGGER Program focuses on the total energy savings, and/or emissions reductions of a project over its expected useful life. This program was initiated within the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.


40

TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) Program to foster innovative, multi-modal and multi-jurisdictional transportation projects that promise significant economic and environmental benefits to an entire metropolitan area, a region, or the nation. This program was also initiated within the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. STARS has unsuccessfully applied for this fund in the past.

Veterans Transportation and Community Living Initiative Capital Grants (VTCLI) Program to improve transportation options and mobility for America's veterans, service members, and their families. This recent funding opportunity can be used to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities, including programs of bus and bus-related projects for assistance to subrecipients that are public agencies. The grant fund can also be used to acquire and construct equipment or facilities for use in public transportation (including design and engineering), transit related intelligent transportation systems and introduction of new technology into public transportation. STARS is eligible for this funding opportunity and can utilize it to expand its system (through fleet expansion), for equipping its system with ITS facilities and/or to expand its maintenance facility to be able to accommodate future fleet expansion.

5.1.2 State of Michigan Funding Public transportation is funded at the state level by the Comprehensive Transportation Fund (CTF). State revenue for public transportation goes to the CTF and is derived from the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) and the state sales tax received on auto-related products. The MTF was created under Act 51 which delineates the distribution of state funds for transportation revenues. The overall funding of transportation from the State comes from two primary sources:

Gasoline tax. Motor fuel taxes, which include the state’s 19-cent per gallon gasoline excise tax as well as diesel fuel taxes, account for about half of all state generated transportation revenue.

Vehicle registration taxes. The CTF receives up to 10% of the MTF, except that an amount equal to a 4 cent gasoline tax revenue plus $46,000,000 is distributed before calculating the 10 percent. This reduces the effective CTF share to about 8.8 percent of the MTF. Roughly, $160 million/year is available statewide for public transportation and intercity passenger and freight programs.6

State Revenues are projected to be $2,159,277 or 33% of the total revenues in fiscal year 2011. Local bus funding is projected at 29.74% and 35% of the eligible dollar for Urban and Non-Urban expenditures, deriving from Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)’s instructions for application. State revenues consist of funding through the Local Bus Operating Program for Urban and Non-Urban transit systems and funding for Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program.

5.1.3 Observations about Federal and State Funding At the time of the development of this TMP, there was a high degree of uncertainty with respect to the future of Federal and state funding. With ongoing national economic challenges, substantial changes in the Federal programs were under consideration. This TMP was written under the assumption that the basic programs would remain stable, although increases in funding would be unlikely in the near term.

6 Source: Michigan Department of Transportation, Section 394 Report, Analysis of Transportation Funding Distribution

Formula, March 1, 2010.


41

In a similar fashion, state funding was also constrained. The assumptions for state funding would also be tempered in this TMP.

5.2 Local Funding Sources Currently STARS was locally funded through a property tax levied only in the City of Saginaw. The tax is levied at 3.0 mills and generates about $1.5 million annually. The property tax is currently the only taxing mechanism available to STARS. Sales and other taxes were not an option under current state law. With population and employment declines in the city, property valuations have also been declining. Growth in this revenue source was not anticipated in the near term. The main options to fund the TMP include:

Saginaw County Property Tax

Higher Education Student Fees

Dedicated Med Line Funding

Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Funding

Lease financing of capital needs

5.2.1 Saginaw County Property Tax As significant parts of the TMP extend service into Saginaw County outside of the City of Saginaw, assessing those areas through a property tax would be both necessary and logical. One challenge in assessing the out-county area is the status of the city property tax. Under current state law a countywide tax would replace the city tax. It is not permitted to have two separate taxes, i.e., one for the city and one for the county. Thus, out-county residents would potentially be subsidizing city transit services which could potentially raise issues of fairness. However, there was precedent in the state in seeking an exemption to this arrangement through an act of the legislature. The Kalamazoo area had such an exemption. To allow for this possibility, two countywide property tax options were analyzed. They were:

• 13-Year Single Mill Levy where a countywide levy would fund the plan for the first 13 years. After that time the countywide levy would be supplemented by a city levy. State approval will be necessary to have an additional levy in the city. However, that would not be need for 13 years.

• Dual Mill Levy where the city levy is maintained with a countywide levy enacted. State approval will be necessary to have an additional levy in the city. This would be needed to begin implementation of the TMP.

The fiscal impacts of these options are explored below.

5.2.2 Higher Education Student Fees It is common in the US for transit systems to negotiate a form of “universal” college student transit fee that would allow students of a given college to be assessed a mandatory fee and in turn be permitted to ride the transit system without additional charge. TCRP Report 94—Fare Policies, Structures and Technologies: Update noted that 74 transit systems in the US had some form of this kind of relationship.7 Ames, Iowa (Iowa State University) and Chapel Hill, North Carolina (University of North

7 TCRP Report 94—Fare Policies, Structures and Technologies: Update, MultiSystems, Inc., et. al., Transportation Research Board

(2003), page 53.


42

Carolina) were two examples. The implementation of the Ed Line and other services would elevate transit for both Delta College and SVSU and, potentially, either or both institutions might be willing to enact such a fee.

5.2.3 Dedicated Med Line Funding The Med Line could be funded through a partnership with the participating medical facilities including the Lutz Veteran’s Hospital, St. Mary’s, and Covenant. While these institutions have not indicated a desire to fund this service its implementation, nonetheless, could be contingent on such an arrangement.

5.2.4 Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Funding A number of Saginaw County’s communities have special assessment districts called Downtown Development Authorities or DDAs. Some of the proposed TMP services operate in some of the more prominent of these DDAs. Birch Run, Frankenmuth, and Kochville each have proposed TMP services which could benefit the development goals of their DDAs. Understanding the respective DDA objectives might allow for STARS to successfully obtain funding to partially offset the cost of services in those areas.

5.2.5 Lease Financing of Capital Needs For the TMP to be successfully implemented, capital funding will be needed to acquire vehicles and construct passenger amenities such as shelters and park-and-ride lots. Given the scarcity of federal and state capital dollars, lease financing of some or all of the capital items presented in Section 4 could be an option. While the interest costs from leasing would be an expense not associated with grant or “pay as you go” financing, the operating costs could be reduced by allowing the faster replacement of aging capital assets which cost more to maintain than newer assets. The reduced operating cost could possibly offset the interest costs. At this time STARS keeps its rolling stock beyond the minimum replacement period required under Federal grant programs.

5.3 TMP Cash Flow Projections The operating and capital costs found earlier in Table 10 and Table 11, respectively, were analyzed to determine their long term cash flow needs and the probable funding required to ensure a financially solvent TMP. Three basic cash flow scenarios were reviewed:

1. 13-Year Single Mill Levy—assuming a countywide only property tax would be levied for 13 years (through 2028) before restoring the city of Saginaw levy in 2026.

2. Dual Mill Levy—assuming a countywide and city property tax through the course of the TMP. 3. Dual Mill Levy with Lease Financing of Phase 1 Vehicles—similar to the Dual Mill Levy but using

lease financing for initial capital requirements.


43

Table 13: 13-Year Single County-wide Mill Levy



44

Table 14: Dual Mill Levy



45

Table 15: Dual Mill Levy with Lease Financing



46

5.3.1 Assumptions Common to the Cash Flow Projections The following primary assumptions were made through the three cash flow projections.

Operating revenue is primarily passenger fares. Fares charged to patrons were projected to increase on average, about 1.5% annually.

State operating assistance for urban and rural services were projected to be about 31% of operating expenses.

Higher Education Student Fee would increase at 2% annually. The fee would be initially set at $50 per student per semester.

Med Line funding would be approximately equal to the operating cost of the service plus capital expenses.

Federal 5307 funding would remain at 2011 levels until 2017. Starting in 2017 the funding was assumed to increase 1% annually.

Federal 5311 funding would be 15.5% of eligible expenses.

Capital federal funding was assumed to come from discretionary sources.

State capital assistance was assumed to provide 20% match to federal sources.

The operating reserve was assumed to be 17% of operating expenses. The operating reserve is a “working capital” fund for STARS to cover routine cash flow needs. STARS internal standard for the operating reserve fund is 17%.

5.3.2 Mill Levy Assumptions For both mill levy options, assumptions regarding the mill rates were made that change over time, with a goal of minimizing the mill levy rate.

13-Year Single Mill Levy Option Figure 8 shows local mill levy for the City and County under this option.

The County levy would be the only transit levy from 2013 through 2026.

The City levy (assuming state approval) would be added in 2026.

The table below shows assumed mill levies in this option. The initial levy would be 1.25 mills and rising to 2.0 mills in 2028. The City levy would be 3.0 mills starting in 2026.

Table 16: 13-Year Single Mill Levy Option Rates

12-Year Single Mill Levy Option


City Mill Levy

2013 1.25 0

2026 1.25 3.00

2028 2.00 3.00


47

Figure 8: 13-Year Single Mill Levy Option Rates

Dual Mill Levy Figure 9 shows local mill levels for the City and County. These rates would apply under the “capital leasing option” as well.

The County levy would be instituted in 2013 and rise once before 2035.

The current City levy (assuming State approval) would remain in effect starting in 2013 through the life of the plan.

The table below shows assumed mill levies in this option. The City levy would be maintained at the 2011 rate of 3.0 mills. The countywide rate would begin at 1.0, rise to 2.0 in 2027.

Table 17: Dual Mill Levy Rates

Dual Mill Levy Option


City Mill Levy

2013 1.00 3.00

2027 2.00 3.00


48

Figure 9: Dual Mill Levy Rates

Dual Mill Levy with Capital Leasing of Phase 1 Vehicles The assumptions made for the dual mill levy option above were generally held for this option. As seen earlier in Table 15 (page 45), there were minor differences in the overall cash flow, the main results were consistent with the prior options. The advantage of this option is that it reduces the amount of up-front capital funding needed for the TMP. However, capital funding for Phases 2 and 3 were higher as vehicle lease payments from Phase 1 would be carried into those later phases.

5.4 Recommended Funding Strategy To advance the TMP, the dual mill levy with lease financing of Phase 1 vehicles is recommended. This option attempts to balance local funding with services provided in the given jurisdictions. In addition, it is recommended that these funding sources also be pursued:



Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Funding While DDA funding is not shown in the cash flow projections, it is a funding source that can be explored.

5.5 Economic Impact of TMP Public transit has many economic and community benefits including both direct benefits that are derived primarily by transit riders and workers, and secondary benefits that are accrued by non-users and the community in general. These benefits include increased productivity resulting from travel time


49

savings; reduced travel costs; access to jobs, shopping, community and medical facilities for riders; reduced congestion and greenhouse gases; energy conservation; ability to influence land use and growth; and creation of new jobs. The benefits of public transportation fall into the following three main categories:

Transportation Cost Savings – These are the savings in vehicle ownership and operating cost (purchase/lease, insurance, fuel consumption, etc.), travel time, accidents and environmental emissions (such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds) due to less congestion and fewer miles traveled by personal vehicles in the presence of transit. These savings in resources imply greater disposable household income for other purposes. The two main benefits are the reduction in travel for personal vehicles, and travel in less congested conditions for vehicles remaining on the roadway network.

Low-cost Mobility Benefits – These are the benefits from providing low-cost mobility to transit-dependent households. The benefits include: the economic value to access services such as healthcare, education, retail, and attractions (affordable mobility benefits), and budget savings for welfare and social services, such as unemployment and homecare, due to the presence of transit (cross-sector benefits).

Economic Development Benefits – Proximity to transit can have a positive effect on residential property values and commercial activities due to the increased availability of travel opportunities, and the ability of others to access the residence and commercial centers by transit. Economic development benefits are mainly found in corridors with fixed guideway projects (i.e., BRT and streetcar).

Figure 10 illustrates the benefits of public transportation described above.

Figure 10: Overview of Transit Benefits

Source: Michigan Department of Transportation, “Economic and Community Benefits of Local Bus Transit Service (Phase One)”, Final Report, May 4, 2010, prepared by HDR │Decision Economics

Public

transportation

benefits

Transportation

cost savings

Low-cost mobility

benefits

Economic

development

benefits

Commercial

development

benefits

Residential

development

benefits

Cross-sector

benefits

Economic value of

public

transportation

Safety cost

savings

Travel time

savings

Environmental

cost savings

Vehicle ownership

and operating cost

savings


50

Over 1 million trips are made on STARS annually. It is generally accepted that the overall benefits of these trips extend beyond just transit riders. Through improved mobility, safety, air quality and economic development, public transit also benefits users of the roadway network and the community at large. HDR │Decision Economics has developed an economic model to estimate transportation cost savings, low-cost mobility benefits and economic development benefits for Michigan DOT. HDR applied this model to STARS to estimate its existing (2011) transit benefits. The analysis employs methods developed for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) with data compiled in the Public Transportation Management System (PTMS). The findings are listed below.

5.5.1 Transit Expands Mobility Facilitates access to jobs and medical care – A majority of trips made by STARS patrons are for work

or medical purposes. A number of those patrons (especially those with low income, no access to a car, or with disabilities) rely entirely on STARS for their mobility needs. If public transit was no longer available they would require homecare or they would no longer be able to go to work. An estimated $0.31 million in cross-sector benefits (i.e., homecare cost savings and welfare cost savings) in 2011 are attributable to STARS.

Provides greater access to education – STARS operates service to Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU), and Delta College’s Ricker Center. Through a transfer connection with Bay Metro, access to Delta College’s main campus is also provided. In the absence of STARS, many of these students may have to postpone or change their plans to attend college unless other transportation becomes available to them.

5.5.2 Transit Stimulates the Economy

Creates jobs in Michigan – For every 10 jobs created in the public transit sector, 6 additional jobs are created in the rest of the economy as a result of the multiplier effect. It is estimated that STARS’ operations sustained a total of nearly 120 jobs and contributed $16.44 million in economic output in Michigan in 2011.

Encourages economic development – Public transportation facilities and corridors act like a catalyst to economic development – in the form of more job opportunities, higher income, increased tax base, increased productivity and property value appreciation – thereby helping build strong, stable, livable neighborhoods.

5.5.3 Transit Alleviates Traffic Congestion Shortens commutes – Investing in public transit is an effective congestion management strategy. A

full bus can take more than 30 cars off the road. The choice of transportation mode for commute helps reduce congestion delays during rush hours. While traffic congestion does not appear to be an issue STARS does provide an alternative for people who prefer not to drive.

Frees up time for other activities – Thanks to STARS, travelers saved more than 6 thousand person hours of travel in 2011. This means more time spent with families, at work and on other activities (such as shopping and recreation) that can also generate revenue.

5.5.4 Transit Saves Money Reduces the cost of transportation – When people use public transit instead of a more costly

alternative (personal car or taxi) they save money, which in turn can be spent on food, healthcare, housing and other staples. In 2011, out-of-pocket cost savings totaled $3.08 million for STARS riders.

Increases tax savings for commuters – The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) raised the monthly limit commuters can deduct from their paychecks on a pre-tax basis from $120 to $230 to pay for their commute. Employers who enroll in the program also save money since this transit benefit cap is not subject to payroll taxes.


51

5.5.5 Transit Protects the Environment

Improves air quality – By taking cars off the road, public transit can decrease vehicular emissions of air pollutants such as volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, the principal contributors to smog, as well as carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide.

Reduces carbon emissions – New technologies (hybrid engines) and cleaner energy sources (compressed natural gas and electricity) help reduce vehicular emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), one of the main greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

5.5.6 Transit Saves Lives

Lowers the risk of accidents – In general, transit riders are less likely to be involved in a crash than those who use personal vehicles. Thus transit use reduces the number of injuries and deaths on the road and their related costs (medical treatment, police services, property damage, etc.). In 2011, accident cost reduction attributed to STARS amounted to about $98,000.

Reduces respiratory and other air pollution-related illnesses – By reducing emissions of air pollutants, public transit reduces air pollution-related illnesses such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer.

5.5.7 Transit Brings the Community Together

Provides a vital transportation link for senior citizens and persons with disabilities – Public transit ensures that persons with disabilities and the growing number of senior citizens remain actively involved in their communities and have access to the full range of facilities and services. STARS offers discounted fares to senior citizens and provides ADA paratransit service to persons with disabilities.

Expands social and recreational opportunities in rural areas – More than two thirds of public transit agencies in Michigan are located in rural areas. STARS not only serves the urban area of City of Saginaw but also rural portions of Saginaw County. Under the TMP service to rural portions will increase substantially.

Table 18, below, summarizes STARS’ economic benefits for its 2011 service levels. As seen in the table, STARS in 2011 generated annual benefits of $3.08 million in transportation cost savings, $680,000 in low-cost mobility benefits, $16.44 million in economic impacts and nearly 120 jobs.

Table 18: Summary of STARS Economic Benefits (2011)

The TMP, which nearly triples annual operating costs (in 2011 dollars), would generate annual benefits more than approximately three times the 2011 benefits, or about $57.5 million in total economic impacts, and about 400 jobs.


52

Section 6: Next Steps

The Saginaw Transit Authority Regional Services (STARS) Transit Master Plan (TMP) is intended to provide a 25-year vision for public transportation in Saginaw County, including the current service area, the county overall, and other places outside the county, namely Bay and Midland Counties. While a phased implementation plan is presented in Section 4, there are a number of actions that would be needed to initiate the plan. The main actions revolve around securing important local funding sources discussed earlier in Section 5.2. Specifically:

Saginaw County Property Tax



Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Funding Of these, the county property tax and higher education student fees are seen as higher in priority than the other two strategies.

6.1 Saginaw County Property Tax There are two events that need to occur to secure funding through a countywide property tax. The first is to seek an exemption from the state of Michigan to allow for a two-tier transit property tax in Saginaw County. The second event is to initiate a public education effort to let people know about the TMP and its benefits. A key point to be made would be the benefits of the TMP to people who would never use the system but would accrue benefits nonetheless. The public education effort could consist of a number of activities such as:

Formation of a public education steering committee to guide and serve as a sounding board for STARS in developing this effort. This could be a continuation of the TAC/PAC that was formed during the development of the TMP.

Market research focus groups consisting of a broad range of populations (e.g., urban and rural out-county as well as business owners) to test their perceptions of the TMP recommendations. The purpose would be to test Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 services and ascertain the community benefits to such services.

Develop educational materials based on the focus group research as well as the public feedback from this TMP.

Test educational materials through a market research survey and mobilize.

Develop and Implement a TMP Branding Campaign that will build on the momentum and public awareness that was established during the TMP process.

Identify Partnership Opportunities to establish supporters and work closely to promote the key community needs and benefits of transit (Work with Colleges and Business Community)

Develop and Implement a Media Campaign as part of the education program to continue presence within the regional and local market.

Approach the Saginaw County Commission to place a tax initiative on the countywide ballot.


53

6.2 Higher Education Student Fees The initiation of a “Higher Education Student Fee” for the local colleges should begin with discussions with local colleges. This discussion might be coordinated with Bay Metro which also could be a partner in approaching area colleges for such a fee. These basic steps should be followed:

Determine financial needs of STARS and Bay Metro to promote a transit fee. It seems logical that such a fee would not only support the new Ed Line but also allow students and staff to ride the regular services at no additional cost. Determining a fee level for this privilege needs to be undertaken.

Approach local colleges with a “business proposal” for the fee outlining its benefits and costs.

Work with the interested institutions to secure approval of the fee. During the development of a potential “Higher Education Student Fee”, STARS should continue to have a “presence” within the educational community through sponsoring or participating at college events. Identification of opportunities to get in front of future and current riders would be a very top priority for STARS in garnering understanding of transit benefits, establishing “riders for life” and building support for the future fee. By working closely with the colleges, STARS can also tap into their existing communication lines to distribute information to the staff, administration and student body on a regular basis. Once a fee has been established at one institution, STARS would be in a position to offer a similar fee to other local colleges.

6.3 Dedicated Med Line Funding The Med Line would connect the VA Hospital, St. Mary’s Hospital, and Covenant in the central portion of the City of Saginaw. The TMP calls for implementation of the Med Line as part of Phase 3. However, initial discussions with these institutions could be beneficial in determining their level of interest in the service. Through the TMP STARS established contact with a wide number of medical institutions and should continue communicating with this target audience on a regular basis to understand their needs and top priorities. Potential benefits of the service could include providing for remote parking should those institutions have constrained parking as well as providing for movement between the institutions to support health care professional training as well as sharing of medical services. It is not clear from the TMP whether any of these issues would be a priority.

6.4 Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Funding During the development of the TMP, three DDAs were contacted for comment regarding the planning process: Kochville DDA, Birch Run DDA, and Frankenmuth DDA. Kochville was contacted early in the process and did not have an opportunity to comment on the TMP service proposals. Birch Run and Frankenmuth were contacted toward the conclusion of the TMP when service proposals were vetted in the community. While the TMP can potentially benefit these entities neither Birch Run nor Frankenmuth indicated support for the plan. It is recommended that Kochville be given an opportunity to review the TMP service proposal for their part of Saginaw County. Further, STARS might partner with Birch Run (and perhaps Frankenmuth) in reviewing economic development planning for the area. At the time of the TMP development, Birch Run did not have a formal economic development plan. It is not certain whether Frankenmuth has such a plan. It would be useful for STARS to determine the business aspirations for these communities and to


54

better tailor discussion points regarding the TMP to those aspirations. For example, if Frankenmuth was seeking to expand its visitors and there is a limitation to traffic and parking, STARS might work with Birch Run and Frankenmuth to create a “park-and-ride” shuttle proposal based on the TMP flex routes. The shuttle could be positioned as a benefit to the DDAs. Concurrent to these discussions with the community leaders, STARS might consider getting more involved within each community to further understand their specific needs and events or identity that set them apart from the others. Again, STARS can capitalize on existing opportunities to proactively reach out the communities through established lines of communication (Township Newsletters or email blasts), participation in special events, or master planning. This effort can be as simple as providing information to the entity for further dissemination, passing out educational material at an event, having an informational booth, or surveying the public at key gathering places. If STARS focuses on building a “face” within these communities that are not currently served, they can begin to educate the public about transit benefits which will drive further support from the community and push the elected officials and community leaders to respond to the growing need and desire for targeted services.

6.5 Periodic Review of TMP Finally it is recommended that this TMP be reviewed every few years to determine the need to adjust services as well as the phasing of such services. This review will make the TMP a “living document” able to respond to changing conditions.


A-1

Appendix A: Conceptual Service Maps


A-2

Appendix A: Conceptual Service Maps Table of Contents

FIGURE A- 1: BAY CITY REGIONAL COMMUTER SERVICE ......................................................................................................... A-3 FIGURE A- 2: MIDLAND REGIONAL COMMUTER SERVICE........................................................................................................ A-4 FIGURE A- 3: ED LINE SHUTTLE ......................................................................................................................................... A-5 FIGURE A- 4: URBAN SERVICE—EXISTING STARS SERVICE WITH ROUTE EXTENSIONS.................................................................. A-6 FIGURE A- 5: MED LINE SHUTTLE ...................................................................................................................................... A-7 FIGURE A- 6: BIRCH RUN/FRANKENMUTH FLEX ROUTE ......................................................................................................... A-8 FIGURE A- 7: CHESANING/BIRCH RUN FLEX ROUTE .............................................................................................................. A-9 FIGURE A- 8: FRANKENMUTH/BRIDGEPORT FLEX ROUTE ..................................................................................................... A-10 FIGURE A- 9: MERRILL/SAGINAW CHARTER TOWNSHIP FLEX ROUTE ...................................................................................... A-11 FIGURE A- 10: SAGINAW CHARTER TOWNSHIP FLEX ROUTE ................................................................................................. A-12 FIGURE A- 11: ST. CHARLES/CHESANING FLEX ROUTE ......................................................................................................... A-13 FIGURE A- 12: ST. CHARLES/SAGINAW FLEX ROUTE ........................................................................................................... A-14


A-3

Figure A- 1: Bay City Regional Commuter Service


A-4

Figure A- 2: Midland Regional Commuter Service


A-5

Figure A- 3: Ed Line Shuttle


A-6

Figure A- 4: Urban Service—Existing STARS service with Route Extensions


A-7

Figure A- 5: Med Line Shuttle


A-8

Figure A- 6: Birch Run/Frankenmuth Flex Route


A-9

Figure A- 7: Chesaning/Birch Run Flex Route


A-10

Figure A- 8: Bridgeport Flex Route


A-11

Figure A- 9: Merrill/Saginaw Charter Township Flex Route


A-12

Figure A- 10: Saginaw Charter Township Flex Route


A-13

Figure A- 11: St. Charles/Chesaning Flex Route


A-14

Figure A- 12: St. Charles/Saginaw Flex Route


B-1

Appendix B: Subsidized Taxi Service


B-2

The subsidized taxi public transportation model incorporates a taxi scrip program. The subsidy is provided directly to passengers to purchase taxi services. Subsidized taxi programs are generally used to complement paratransit programs for seniors and disabled persons, usually offered to seniors who do not qualify for ADA complementary paratransit service. Applied to STARS TMP, a subsidized taxi program could be offered to the general public instead of evening fixed route transit service, when demand for public transit service is low. In theory, the subsidy cost per one-way trip should be lower than the cost subsidy per one-way trip served with fixed route coverage during low demand service hours. The service concept would be limited to the current STARS evening fixed route service area and effective between 6:00 PM and 2:00 AM. The later service coverage would accommodate late work shifts and late entertainment trips. To be available to the general public, there would be eligibility restrictions. Books of taxi scrips (trip vouchers) would be available for public purchase at a discounted rate. These could then be used by members of the public to offset the cost of taxi trips during hours that STARS fixed route is not provided. Because there are no accessible taxis available within the City of Saginaw transit service area, LIFT service would have to be provided to accommodate trips by ADA eligible passengers during the subsidized taxi hours. Taxi scrips would be packaged in booklets of ten trip vouchers. Individual voucher value would be set at $5.00. Participating passengers would be charged $1.25 per voucher (current transit one way adult cash fare) or $12.50 per voucher booklet. To control program costs individual participants would be limited to four voucher booklets per calendar month (allowing for up to five subsidized round trips per week). Vouchers would be used to offset taxi fares. Participating passengers would be responsible for the fare charges above the value of the vouchers. Participating taxi companies would submit used vouchers to STARS for a $5.00 reimbursement per voucher. Taxi scrip programs are open to potential fraud and should be initially implemented with a funding budget ceiling, on a maximum two year demonstration project basis. Examples of potential fraud could include:

Members of taxi companies purchase vouchers and submit to STARS without providing a trip. Controls need to be in place to restrict voucher sales to non taxi employees.

Vouchers being used outside the taxi scrip program service hours when fixed route service is provided. Basically it is not possible to fully ensure against this form of miss-use.


B-3

Organizational Structure

STARS implements and administers the Subsidized Taxi program as a two year demonstration project.

If successful, STARS continues to administer the program beyond the demonstration period.

Interested taxi companies interested would participate through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that specifies voucher use policies and procedures, service expectations, voucher record keeping procedures, and reimbursement policies and procedures.

STARS staff would include: a Mobility Management Coordinator on a ¼ time basis responsible for program oversight and evaluation; and an accounting clerk on a ¼ time basis to distribute vouchers, process taxi company voucher reimbursement claims, verify authenticity signed vouchers, and prepare monthly budget reports. Both positions have been identified for the proposed Coordinated Human Transportation program. The Mobility Management Coordinator could split their time between both programs.

Two LIFT operators and dispatch coverage between 6:00 PM and 10:00 PM. One LIFT operator required for service coverage after 10:00 PM.

Procedures

Vouchers would include an area for trip verification including: time and date of trip; origin and destination; as well as the signatures of both passenger and taxi driver verifying trip details.

Voucher booklet sales limited to four per calendar month.

Participants pay in advance prior to receipt of voucher booklets.

Further passenger discounts are possible if rides are shared.

Participants request on demand trip from participating taxi companies based on participant preference and complete trip information on vouchers to be used for trip.

Taxi driver signs voucher completed by passenger.

Participant is responsible to pay taxi driver for fare charges above the value of the voucher(s) presented for a trip.

Taxi companies submit collected vouchers on a bi-weekly basis for reimbursement.

STARS staff verify that voucher information is completed correctly and that trip was eligible for reimbursement (trip made during program service coverage hours). STARS processes payment for eligible vouchers submitted by taxi companies.

LIFT registrants requiring service during posted Subsidized Taxi Program hours would have to book at least one day in advance in order to determine capacity requirements. No same day or on demand bookings for LIFT service.


B-4

Implementation Implementation of a STARS initiated Subsidized Taxi Program should initially be as a two year demonstration project to facilitate an assessment of performance and fine tuning. Success would be based on cost savings per one-way passenger trip with the Subsidized Taxi Program relative to the cost per one-way passenger trip if served during the evening service hours with fixed route transit (based on historical productivity trends during recent evening service hours). Figure B- 1 provides a critical path implementation plan for a STARS Coordinated Transportation Service demonstration process.

Service Vehicles

Vehicles for general public service provided by participating taxi companies.

STARS LIFT to provide 1 to 2 vehicles for ADA complementary paratransit service during Subsidized Taxi Program service hours.


B-5

Figure B- 1: Subsidized Taxi Program Implementation Plan

Figure continued


B-6

Figure continued

Saginaw Transit Master Plan December 2011

C-1

Appendix C: Coordination of Human Transportation Services


C-2

Assuming interest amongst human service agencies in Saginaw County, STARS can lead the effort to coordinate the shared use of existing human service agency transportation services to:

Increase the productivity and lower the cost/client trip of agency existing services.

Reduce transportation service overlaps.


Although the objective of the Coordinated Human Transportation services initiative would be to provide County-wide rural safety-net transportation needs, the urban and regional trips of Saginaw human service agencies could also be accommodated. Trip needs could range from medical, agency program-related travel, to the need of individual agency clients to access the goods and services that affect quality of life. Central human service agency trip coordination would operate at the county-wide level, for rural and urban based trips, as well as potential trips beyond the county for specialized medical treatment or consultation. STARS can provide county leadership through the establishment of a Mobility Management office to ultimately serve as a “one-stop” broker for trip assignments and information on existing available public transportation alternatives. It would be advantageous to establish a centralized Mobility Management office within STARS LIFT paratransit division. Within a public transit agency structure, the Mobility Management Coordinator could effectively ensure a “transit first” coordination policy. Where available and appropriate, STARS fixed route or paratransit services could be referred to the agency requesting client transportation services. This would increase productivity on existing STARS services, reduce service overlaps, and offer a lower cost transportation alternative for human service agency clients. If existing STARS fixed route or LIFT services were not available or appropriate for the service level required, STARS Mobility Management Coordinator would then determine capacity availability amongst the pool of participating human service agency transportation providers for the assignment of the trip request. A “transit first” trip assignment principle is an important element of coordinated human agency transportation. It encourages a maximum use of existing public transit services. However, STARS fixed route and paratransit may not work for all trip requests based on:

Service area coverage – origin or destination outside coverage area.

Service hour span – service needed outside STARS service hours.

The agency client may require a higher level of service than provided by STARS – door-through-door assistance or a short onboard travel time due to medical conditions.

The following provides a structural overview and the key elements of a STARS coordinated transportation effort for Saginaw County.


C-3

Organizational Structure:

STARS implements and administers the Coordinated Human Transportation program as a 2-year demonstration project.

If successful, STARS continues to administer the program beyond the demonstration period.

Human services agencies participate through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that specifies: roles and responsibilities; the willingness to provide shared-ride transportation services with other member agencies; a schedule of charges per one-way passenger trips, the willingness to pay for transportation services provided by other agencies; and payment of a brokerage fee per passenger trip to STARS for trip coordination services.

Program trip eligibility for clients of participant agencies.

STARS staff would include: a full time Mobility Management Coordinator responsible for trip coordination and the recruitment of member agencies; and an accounting clerk on a ¼ time basis to process invoices for trip fees and the transfer of payment to the service provider agencies.

Trip Coordination:

Mobility Management Coordinator would: o Maintain an electronic database of standing (regularly scheduled)

vehicle trips operated by participating agencies by day, time of day, origin and destination, and available surplus capacity.

o Update vehicle trip database as participating agencies register additional planned vehicle trips.

o Process agency trip requests and match with 1) available STARS fixed route or LIFT services, or 2) agency vehicle trips recorded on the vehicle trip database.

STARS would contact agency operating service for their client with the agency requesting a client trip and confirm the trip arrangement.

STARS would confirm completion of a trip, invoice agency requesting a client trip, collect the trip fee and transfer funds to trip provider agency.

Volunteer driver programs can be implemented to provide a fallback alternative if trip requests cannot be referred to existing STARS services or available agency vehicle trips.

Service Vehicles:

Service vehicles would be provided by participating human service vehicles for those trips that cannot be served by STARS fixed route or LIFT services.


C-4

Operating and Capital Plan Annual operating costs would be reflected in the two STARS staff positions assigned to the central Mobility Management Office including the full time Mobility Management Coordinator and the part time Accounting Clerk required to process program receivables and payables. Space related costs to house the two Mobility Management office staff, as well as materials and office supplies are also reflected in the annual operating costs. The Mobility Management Office would be accommodated in or close to the LIFT dispatch center to facilitate potential coordination with and trip assignment to LIFT. LIFT dispatchers could provide trip coordination background when the Mobility Management Coordinator is attending program meetings or out recruiting new participant agencies. Capital costs would be limited to the initial office set up including a desk, filing cabinets, a desktop computer with standard Microsoft office packages and STARS accounting software. Capital costs beyond the 2-year demonstration period could be associated computer hardware and software upgrade costs. These costs are included in Section 5 of this report. Implementation Implementation of a STARS initiated Coordinated Human Transportation Services Program should initially be as a 2-year demonstration project to facilitate an assessment of performance and fine tuning. Success would be based on cost savings to participating agencies, the number of trips successfully matched and completed, and the avoidance of service overlaps. Figure 5.x provides a critical path implementation plan for a STARS Coordinated Transportation Service demonstration process. Prior to the 2-year demonstration project implementation and evaluation period, six months have been allocated for approvals and set up. This initial period facilitates:

The establishment of an annual budget.

STARS Board review and approval.

Hiring of the Mobility Management Coordinator, appointment of the Accounting Clerk support position, and office set up. The Mobility Management Coordinator should be hired under contract for the program development and demonstration project timeframe.

Confirm human service agencies willing to participate. The project can start with a small number of agency participants. Agency participation will increase through time if the coordinated human transportation services demonstration project proves to reduce agency travel costs.

Establish project goals and performance expectations. Cost savings, cost per passenger trip and minimum trip volumes should be established for evaluation of the demonstration project.

Establish a policy base including trip eligibility, a cost per trip schedule (based on travel distance), a brokerage fee per trip for coordination, and billing and payment procedures. The policy and procedural base should be established with the input of participating agencies.

Draft and execute the MOU formalizing agency participation, expectations, roles and responsibilities.


C-5

Following the implementation and beginning of actual trip coordination (including the establishment of a vehicle trip database and the computer-aided ride matching using an Excel spreadsheet):

Program evaluation should take place at six month increments with a review of what is working and what is not. Enhancements to improve performance can be made after each evaluation. Participant human service agencies should be involved in the evaluation and development of enhancements.

The preparation of a Board report and recommendation to end or continue the Coordinated Human Transportation Services Program at the end of the 2-year demonstration project will be prepared.

If continued, the coordination role to the Mobility Management Coordinator could be expanded to other county-wide transportation programs offered by STARS. If program is not continued, the Mobility Management Coordinator’s contract could be terminated.

saginaw transit master plan - mlive.commedia.mlive.com/saginawnews_impact/other/transit master plan...

Documents