TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 913 W.

September, 2005 Regional Growth Summary Report for the Lansing Metropolitan Area Including all of Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties, Michigan TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 913 West Holmes Road, Suite 201 Lansing, Michigan 48910 (517) 393-0342

Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Summary Report For the Lansing Metropolitan Area, Including all of Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties, Michigan Prepared by: TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 913 W. Holmes Rd., Suite 201 Lansing, Michigan 48910 Phone: (517) 393-0342 Fax: (517) 393-4424 www.mitcrpc.org FINAL September, 2005

DISCLAIMER This document was prepared by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Transportation, county road commissions, public transportation providers, and local jurisdictions. Preparation of this document was financed in part by funds from the United States Department of Transportation and the Michigan Department of Transportation. The opinions, findings and conclusions in this publication are the author s and not necessarily those of the United States or Michigan Departments of Transportation. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Hiring and service to program recipients is done without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or handicap.

Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Summary Report Project Mission The mission of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission s Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project was to actively engage the region s citizens to examine implications of regional land use and other growth trends on the region s future. The project formulated consensus on a shared vision of regional growth in order to assure an improved future regional quality of life. What Does the Project mean for the Region? The Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project provided the opportunity for the whole region to consider how best to maintain our quality of life while continuing to grow. The vision and policies will be implemented to encourage infill development in urban, suburban and rural centers. New growth in the region will be planned for mature corridors which connect regional centers where transit ridership potential is highest. The majority of new development is expected to be focused in areas where public water and sewer systems are available and it is anticipated there will be more investment in quality of life/livability factors, such as sidewalks, landscaping and preservation of the tree canopy. The project created consensus on a series of shared goals which the region s governments can now implement. If fully implemented, the preferred regional vision will: Reduce congested lane miles on regional roads by approximately 50 percent and save taxpayers between 1.6 and 4.8 billion dollars in road improvement costs which would otherwise be required if current trends are unchecked. Save the equivalent of three townships of agricultural land and open space. Reduce air pollutants by tens of thousands of kilograms per day, leading to public health benefits and lower long term public health costs. Improve the region s quality of life and economic competitiveness in an increasingly global economy greater than would occur under current public policies. 1

What does the Project Mean for You? Regardless of where you reside in the region, implementing the Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project s themes and principles will help maintain quality of life and reduce cost of public services which might otherwise be required if current trends are not reversed. If you are an urban resident, the project strengthens the urban core and recognizes that long-term stability of the region depends on strong cities and residential neighborhoods which remain quality places to live. If you live in suburban areas, the project suggests planned, clustered and focused growth with development of clear transitional edges to minimize strip development and sprawl. Clear transitions are planned when passing from residential clusters to agricultural land or open space. If you live in a small city or village, the project suggests phased, focused growth. In other words, your jurisdiction will determine the appropriate rate of growth to preserve your quality of life. New growth should not place undue hardships on the existing population and, where appropriate, be fully coordinated with adjoining jurisdictions (townships) in a sub-regional plan. If you live in a rural area, the project will maintain a healthy agricultural economy by focusing on appropriate locations for new growth and preserving agricultural areas and open space. What Does the Project mean for Local Government Officials? The project has important implications for local government officials who are concerned with the current growth trends in the Tri-County region. Results suggest each jurisdiction s individual actions affect other communities in the Tri-County region. In other words, no community should plan without considering impacts on other communities. Cooperation and coordination of local decisions and plans with surrounding jurisdictions allows the region to remain internally cooperative and externally competitive. Information from the growth project is being shared with local governments so that the vision, principles, action plan, data and maps can be used in developing coordinated local plans. Since the region includes 78 different local governmental units (50 with their own land use powers), coordination of planning efforts in the region will lower costs and result in greater benefits than if each unit develops independent local plans. Project Area The Tri-County region is located in Mid-Michigan and includes the Lansing metropolitan area and all of Ingham, Eaton and Clinton Counties. The region is home to the state capital, Michigan State University, automobile manufacturing plants and other industry and a diverse agricultural economy. 2

Figure 1: Map Showing the Tri-County Region 3

Why Was This Project Conducted? In 2000, the region s population was 447,734. However, if current trends continue, conversion of land to urban uses will continue to occur more rapidly than population growth. For each additional family in the region, more land is being converted to urban uses outside existing urban areas than is being redeveloped in existing cities. This situation creates land use planning and public policy issues. For example, new development outside of existing urban centers creates new costs by requiring new services, while services that already exist may become underused. Such development also results in loss of agricultural land and open space. The Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project provided information to residents of the region on the implications of growth trends on land use choices. Accepted regional population forecasting model results show trends which indicate continued slow population growth over the next 25 years, which amount to less than one percent per year on an annualized basis. Figure 2: Regional Population Trends 1950-2030 600,000 550,000 561,705 500,000 497,993 534,414 Number of Persons 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 244,159 298,949 378,423 416,667 432,674 447,734 200,000 150,000 100,000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 proj 2010 proj 2020 proj 2030 4

Population growth occurs in locations on the urban fringe, while city centers have little growth or population loss. Figure 3: Population Change, 1970-2000, by Percentage 5

Figure 4 shows that between 1938 and 1978, the spatial areas of the region which were considered urbanized increased from 28.3 square miles to 103.3 square miles. Between 1978 and 1999 the spatial area of land considered as urbanized expanded to 125.8 square miles. Figure 4: Urban Areas, 1938-1999, by square mile: 6

Figure 5 also shows regional residential growth between 1978 and 1999. During this period, approximately 100 square miles of additional residential land was converted from other uses, while 120 square miles in agricultural lands were developed, primarily into residential use. Since a Michigan township is typically 36 square miles, the conversion of agricultural land is the equivalent to about 3.3 townships, or greater than one township per county. Rural land is being converted to residential use at a rapid rate: five times greater than land at the edge of the urban area, using the equivalent of five acres per residence, where each residence in the urban area only uses one acre. Figure 5: Residential Change, 1978-1999: 7

Project Process The Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project began in 1999 when community leaders began to consider how to maintain the region s quality of life into the 21 st century. After a series of local meetings, local officials designed a project to gather information on current land use and transportation trends and use that information to develop potential future scenarios for regional growth. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission then obtained funding from local, state and federal sources for the project. As grant funding was secured, the Commission organized and implemented a multi-year planning process to gather information on regional growth trends, consider the implications of those trends and to develop a shared future regional vision. Project Participants & the Preferred Vision The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission created local project stakeholder and steering committees and selected a consultant team to gather data which was then applied to develop future growth scenarios. Throughout the process, 13 town hall forums were held so that the public could participate in developing the emerging vision. Random public and leader opinion surveys, a toll free hotline, numerous special task forces and other techniques were also used to obtain input. As a result of extensive technical work, the committee process and numerous opportunities for public input, a preferred regional vision was selected. Completion of Project Planning As the preferred regional vision was determined, supporting principles and an action plan were developed and a policy map was prepared depicting a generalized regional map of the preferred future vision. These actions have been integrated into a poster plan, technical report, this summary and other supporting materials which represent the conclusions of the project s planning phase. Now the Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project is moving into an implementation phase. In project implementation, information from this effort will be considered and applied by local units of government and the region s residents. Elements of the project will now be integrated at the local land use decision making level to further mplement the preferred regional vision. Participation Overview Due to the scope of the Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project, a wide array of regional public involvement and participation opportunities were provided throughout the process. An integral factor contributing to the consensus and outcomes of the project planning phase was participation by both community leaders and the public. A mix of local decision makers, community leaders, technical staff and the general public all played important roles in developing the regional vision. In total, over 1,500 persons contributed 8

directly to development of the regional vision through attendance at town hall forums, participation on committees, task forces, surveys, focus groups or by submitting comments via toll free hotlines, internet or email access. Hundreds also attended leadership briefings or stayed abreast of activities through the project s newsletter or other information and outreach activities. Technical Staff Staff of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission guided the project, implemented the planning process and worked with a large team of planning and research consultants to complete a series of technical tasks to collect and analyze project data. Stakeholders & Steering Committees In order to provide ongoing guidance during the project, a Stakeholders Committee was assembled with members from over 90 different public and private organizations to provide input based on their unique knowledge of the region. A Steering Committee composed of 14 policy makers was formed to provide direction and to act as an advisory body to the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission on all aspects of project management. Both the Steering and Stakeholders Committees were active throughout the project. Public Participation In addition to the work of the planners, committees and task forces, this project also obtained a large amount of input from the general public. At key points in the process, town forums, leadership briefings, surveys, task forces, focus groups, a proactive media campaign and other techniques were implemented to provide project information to the general public and to obtain direct input on various project elements. A total of thirteen town forums were held throughout the region to ensure that public input guided each portion of the planning process. 9

Figure 6 shows particpants by zip code in the Tri-County region for the town forums. Public participation in the project was distributed throughout the region. Figure 6: Public Participation in Town Hall Forums by Zip Code 10

Two Potential Regional Growth Scenarios After data was gathered concerning regional growth trends, this information was applied to develop future options or scenarios for regional growth. These options were evaluated using travel forecasting models and other tools to assess their impacts on transportation, costs of public services, environmental and land use impacts and other criteria. Two future growth scenarios were considered: Business as Usual and Wise Growth. In the Business as Usual scenario, future regional growth was depicted assuming present trends will continue without changes to current zoning and land use policies that guide and shape development. Alternatively, a Wise Growth scenario was also presented. This scenario assumed policies would be implemented to encourage that new development be directed to already developed urban areas (infill development), clustering of new development in proximity to developed areas and limited development in rural agricultural and open space areas. These two scenarios were modeled in a way to compare their impacts in the year 2025 and at some future point when the entire region reached the maximum build out permissable under existing zoning for all jurisdictions in the three counties. Table 2 shows results of this analysis. Selection of the Wise Growth Scenario Both the Business as Usual and Wise Growth future development scenarios were presented at the town forums and potential impacts on the region s quality of life were described for both 2025 and at regional build out. After the information was presented, real-time computerized voting was conducted on both scenarios. In these votes, it was determined that the Wise Growth scenario was preferred by 79% of the town forum participants. With these overwhelming results, local officials on the advisory committee and the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission felt confident and adopted the Wise Growth scenario as the preferred alternative. Table 1 shows a summary of the impact analysis. Greater detail comparing performance measures for each scenario is shown in Table 2. Table 1: Summary of Impacts by Scenario Adopted Trend Forecast Wise Growth Build Out Wise Growth Build Out Measure Community Services Good Fair Poor Good Access to jobs, parks, housing Environmental 33,742 21,339 70,977 21,339 Acres of agricultural land and open space consumed Environmental Justice 44% 90% 21% 26% Percent of minorities with access to transit Average percent of households in existing water/sewer service areas Utilities 43.5% 68% 15.5% 68% Cost of Public Police, fire, emergency service Service $ 23,695,000 $ 31,597,000 $ 173,997,000 $ 271,388,000 costs Costs to improve capacity Transportation $ 45,800,000 $ 91,800,000 $ 1,690,700,000 $ 136,500,000 deficient roads Land Use 201,098 191,002 239,770 191,002 Acres total developed land area Parks, open space, agriculture lands, other intangibles Quality of Life Fair Good Poor Good 11

Table 2: Preliminary Comparative Analysis of Scenarios Used in Selecting the Preferred Alternative Impact category Trend Forecasts Wise Growth Build Out Wise Growth Build Out Agricultural land consumed (acres) 21,889 14,471 39,047 14,471 Open space (not ag) consumed (acres) 11,853 6,868 31,930 6,868 Environmental areas preserved (acres) 195,100 200,100 175,100 200,100 Total developed land area (acres) 201,098 191,002 239,770 191,002 Developed land per capita 0.37 0.35 0.16 0.13 Total non-retail area (acres) 8,106 8,052 15,081 8,052 Total retail area (acres) 19,573 9,519 11,002 9,519 Total residential area (acres) 150,196 145,208 190,464 145,208 Developed residential land per capita 0.27 0.26 0.13 0.10 End-year Population 550,166 550,166 1,462,666 1,462,666 End-Year Retail Employment 68,857 68,857 112,547 112,547 End-Year Non-retail Employment 270,923 270,923 377,378 377,378 Population change (#) 101,913 101,913 1,014,413 1,014,413 Population in developed areas (#) 324,598 352,106 453,426 1,082,373 Population in developed areas (%) 59% 64% 31% 74% Population in undeveloped areas (#) 225,568 198,060 1,009,240 380,293 Population in undeveloped areas (%) 41% 36% 69% 26% Percent of jobs within 1/4-mile radius of transit routes 61% 67% 48% 66% Percent of households within 1/4-mile radius of transit routes 42% 48% 23% 49% Percent of new households within 2-mile radius of community parks 90% 92% 73% 93% Percent of new households within 1/4-mile radius of neighborhood parks 40% 44% 23% 46% % of new households in sewer service area 42% 67% 16% 67% % of new households in water service area 45% 69% 15% 69% New students in excess of existing available capacity* 5,816 2,510 69,359 107,338 New police expenditures (current LOS per unit) $16,512,000 $20,182,000 $113,968,000 $189,401,000 New fire/ems expenditures (current LOS per unit) $7,183,000 $11,415,000 $60,299,000 $81,987,000 Minority population within 1/4-mile radius of transit routes 44% 90% 21% 26% * Where information on capacity and enrollment is available 12

Measures of community support as shown by participants voting in town hall forums based on this impact analysis follow in figures 7 and 8. Figure 7: Public Preference for Alternatives By Impact Category 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 86% 87% 86% 87% 81% 82% 83% Wise Growth Business as Usual 30% 20% 10% 14% 19% 13% 14% 18% 13% 17% 0% Community Services Environmental Environmental Justice Utilities Transportation Land Use Quality of Life Figure 8: Public Selection of Preferred Alternative 79% Wise Growth Business as Usual Neither 6% 15% 13

The Preferred Alternative Once the preferred alternative was selected, it had to be further defined and articulated to the regional community. To describe the preferred alternative, both written and map-based descriptions were prepared. The written description took the form of 29 specific principles described by five broad theme areas, as follows: Government; Healthy Economy Healthy Environment; Transportation and Other Infrastructure; Open Space and Resource Protection; and Growth & Redevelopment. In addition to the themes and principles, the preferred alternative was depicted as a policy map. This map shows areas identified for: maintaining urban and village centers; urban fringe focused growth areas; transitional cluster development areas; agricultural preservation areas; and forested and environmental preservation areas. Together, the five themes, 29 principles and policy map were used to create the growth project poster plan. The poster plan, along with this summary, describe the initial results of the Regional Growth project. The Two Future Regional Growth Scenarios Business as Usual One of the scenarios considered was Business as Usual. This scenario projects what could happen by 2025 and at regional build out if there are no changes to current land use policies. Figure 9 depicts modeled representation of the distribution of development under the future Business as Usual scenario. In town forums, only 15% of participants preferred this scenario. 14

Figure 9: The Business as Usual Scenario Retail Residential Non-Retail 15

Wise Growth The other scenario considered was Wise Growth. In the wise growth scenario, new land use policies would direct development to existing urbanized areas. Figure 10 illustrates how a modeled representation of the wise growth scenario clusters new development around cities. In town forums, 79% of participants preferred this scenario, which was adopted as the preferred alternative. Figure 11 shows this preferred alternative depicted as the adopted regional land use policy map. The adopted regional land use policy map (Figure 11) shows areas where city/village centers are to be strengthened. Also shown are focused and clustered growth areas and locations where rural lands are to have minimal development in order to preserve agriculture and open space. Governments in the region will adopt this map and implement the following policies. 16

Figure 10: The Wise Growth Scenario Retail Residential Non-Retail 17

Figure 11: Adopted Regional Land Use Policy Map 18

Adopted Themes & Principles Government Principle #1 Intergovernmental Cooperation & Coordination Every jurisdiction s action affects other communities within the Tri-County region. All 75 cities, villages, townships and three counties should cooperate and coordinate their decisions and plans so the region is internally cooperative and externally competitive. Principle #2 Implementation Through Local Action The region includes 75 cities, villages, townships and three counties. It is through development of coordinated local plans, ordinances and policies that the Regional Vision will be implemented. Principle #3 Issues of Greater than Local Concern Through evaluation and communication, the region should identify issues of greater than local concern, and through consensus building among affected local governments and other stakeholders, promote change in state or federal laws, rules, regulations or other policy. Principle #4 Public Participation Local jurisdictions should expand and maintain practices, policies, behaviors and procedures that educate and promote continuous and meaningful opportunities for broad citizen and stakeholder participation. Principle #5 Customer Satisfaction The region should strive for an efficient, predictable and fair way to provide public services to achieve a consistently high level of customer and community satisfaction. Principle #6 Regional Role The region needs an advocate, facilitator and forum that has the support of local governments, stakeholders and citizens to promote, monitor, refine and assist with implementation of the preferred Regional Vision. This role includes education, coordination and collaboration, dispute prevention and resolution, providing technical assistance (including model ordinances and planning processes) and reporting on successes and failures. Principle #7 Equitable Growth and Redevelopment Costs and benefits associated with new growth and redevelopment should be proportional for existing residents, the host community and neighboring jurisdictions and shared by developers. Principle #8 Capital Improvements Strategies Public improvements should be planned in advance and publicly prioritized to maximize benefits of implementing the preferred vision. Healthy Economy & Healthy Environment Principle #9 Environmental Protection For long-term regional health and sustainability, the natural environment (land, air and water) should be protected. 19

Principle #10 Waste Management Local communities should cooperatively plan for changing regional waste management needs including reuse, reduction, recycling and disposal of solid waste. Principle #11 Energy Consumption Resource conservation and an appropriate mix of renewable and nonrenewable resources should guide future utility expansion. Principle #12 Housing for All Community Residents Housing needs (type, location, cost, the jobs/housing balance, etc.) of all regional residents should be continuously and fairly addressed balancing the needs of each jurisdiction. Principle #13 Jobs, Economic Development and Work Force Jobs, economic expansion and workforce development should be emphasized consistent with the preferred Regional Vision to keep the region competitive in a global economy, but not at the expense of environmental health. Transportation & Other Infrastructure Principle #14 Transportation Network The regional transportation priority will be to enhance and preserve the existing road network, public transit and non-motorized transportation modes rather than further expansion of the road network in rural areas. Principle #15 Public Facilities Public facilities (schools, police, fire stations, museums, etc.) should be planned with an emphasis on partnerships among jurisdiction s service delivery to promote the preferred Regional Vision. Principle #16 Hazard Mitigation Planning & Emergency Management Disaster preparedness and emergency management strategies should be developed locally and coordinated by regional hazard mitigation planning, which strives to reduce the impacts and cost of potential hazards of both natural or human origin. Principle #17 Infrastructure Expansion and Replacement Infrastructure expansion and replacement should follow the preferred Regional Vision with clear urban and rural service areas. Open Space & Resource Protection Principle #18 Farmland, Open Space & Other Natural Resources Protection Farmland and other natural resources should be protected in an equitable, fiscally responsible manner to preserve the heritage, environment, quality of life and long-term sustainability of the region. 20

Principle #19 Greenways & Walkability Pathways, sidewalks, trails and on-street bike facilities should be developed and enhanced to provide alternatives to motorized transportation, improve linkages to recreational opportunities for regional residents and provide public health benefits by offering opportunities for physical activity. Principle #20 Parks & Recreation Expansion and Linkage Parks & recreation development and expansions should emphasize linkage of facilities through greenways based on the regional vision and the adopted Regional Non-Motorized System Plan. Principle #21 Historic Preservation & Cultural Facilities The region s significant built and living heritage, historic sites, cultural facilities and neighborhoods should be protected, preserved and enhanced. Growth & Redevelopment Principle #22 Compact Settlement All existing cities, villages and townships in the region should establish urban and rural service areas in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions and consistent with the Preferred Vision. New development in the region should occur in urban service areas or in approved rural clusters at densities consistent with the natural capabilities of soils to absorb septic wastes and the community s ability to adequately meet public service needs. Principle #23 Transitional Edges and Clustered Development Areas A clear transition when passing from urban, cluster development and agricultural zones should be established to minimize future strip commercial development. Principle #24 Phased Growth Each jurisdiction should determine its appropriate rate of growth to preserve and enhance their community and infrastructure. Jurisdictions should phase and manage development at a pace that does not put undue hardship on existing populations, neighboring jurisdictions, municipal services or the actual environment. Principle #25 Agricultural Economy To enhance synergy between the regional economy and agricultural production, the entire region should emphasize regulation of development on rural lands. Principle #26 Strengthening the Urban Core The long-term economic sustainability of the region depends on strong urban cores. Therefore, our highest priority is for local units of government, stakeholders and citizens to take such measures as necessary to ensure that urban cores are viable and competitive, that urban residential neighborhoods remain quality places to live and that urban school districts remain on par with other area schools. Principle #27 Focused Growth Urban fringe areas should have the second priority to be enhanced, developed and redeveloped prior to similar development outside designated urban service areas. 21

Principle #28 Viable Neighborhoods Implement traditional neighborhood planning and design concepts (walkable elementary schools, mixed use zoning, village/community design, etc.) to: maintain or re-establish viable neighborhoods; attract new residents; and eliminate impetus for existing residents to migrate to new developments. Principle #29 High Density / Mixed Use Encourage development of higher density mixed use to take advantage of existing infrastructure and services and enhance urbanized areas as a priority over development in rural areas. A detailed action plan which identifies nearly 200 long term action items to be considered to further support implementation of the regional vision and which also describes regional goals and objectives to be considered for further long term implementation efforts by local governments and others is available under separate cover. Why is the Project Unique? Many local governments in the Tri-County region participated in planning activities. While local governments have the ability to both plan for their own future land use vision and enforce that vision through zoning, the Tri-County region does not have regional government and no regional land use enforcement authority exists. All land use decisions are made locally. Development of a shared regional land use vision through the Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project has created a unique focal point for cooperation by local governments to address issues which are greater than local concern. This effort has been selected as a national model of best practice in regional land use and transportation planning by federal officials and national professional organizations. Facing Issues Greater Than Local Concerns The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission acts in cooperation with local governments and can provide advice and planning assistance on issues of greater than local concern. Issues of greater than local concern include traffic congestion, groundwater protection, economic development, hazard mitigation and pollution prevention. These issues cross local government borders and cannot be effectively addressed alone by any one county, city or village. Rather, they require cooperation among many adjacent jurisdictions to effectively address each issue. Issues of regional growth and development impact cities, suburbs and rural areas in different ways. The Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project has taken into account viewpoints from all areas of the region and has developed a shared vision of future regional growth patterns. While this regional plan is only advisory in nature, the information is being presented to local governments for consideration to adopt portions of the Growth Project appropriate to their needs. The Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future 22

project is unique in that it attempts to develop a regional future land vision that takes into account the concerns of the entire region. Relationship to the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan The Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project is also unique in that it has been integrated in the Tri-County region s transportation planning process. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission is responsible for transportation planning throughout the entire region. It is clear that land use and transportation are connected. A typical representation of this connectivity is shown in Figure 12 depicting the land use transportation cycle. This typical representation of the land use-transportation cycle results in a near continuous need for costly roadway capacity expansion to accommodate new developments in suburban, fringe and rural areas of the region, while the existing built transportation system retains underutilized capacity. Figure 12: The Land Use Transportation Cycle Changing Land Use New Development Opportunity Congestion Increased Capacity and Access Demand for Bigger and Better Roads Transportation Improvement 23

By defining an agreed upon land use basis for regional transportation decision making which encourages new development in proximity to this underutilized capacity, the regional growth land use vision enhances the connection between land development and existing transportation system capacity, which reduces long term needs for future roadway expansion in rural areas throughout the region. By establishing land use policies which promote higher density, mixed use development in proximity to existing transportation infrastructure and services, future roadway capacity deficient lane miles are reduced to roughly half of what would otherwise occur under current public land use policy. The result is long term tax savings on roadway expansion costs of between 1.8 and 4.8 billion dollars which would otherwise be required if the current land use transportation cycle continues unabated. By better integrating the regional land use vision in transportation planning, investments in the existing system become better connected to future land development activity. This results in a more efficient transportation system and long term savings on road construction costs to local and state governments, taxpayers and the private sector. This connectivity has been reinforced by adopting the shared regional land use vision as an integral component of the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan as approved by the Commission in March, 2003. In adopting the regional land use vision, the Commission made a finding that implementing the principles and policy map is necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare and is in keeping with their fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers to use federal transportation dollars wisely and to establish priorities for use of federal transportation funds. In adopting the preferred vision through the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan, the Commission indicated its intent to consider whether future transportation project proposals are consistent with the policy map and principles (discussed above) as part of the process and criteria used to establish priorities for use of federal transportation funds. The Commission also indicated their intent to consider whether individual local governments and responsible transportation agencies have agreed to implement the policy map and principles as part of the criteria they will consider when establishing priorities for future federally funded transportation projects and funding. Regional transportation goals and objectives were also reviewed as part of the growth project town forums, to assure better linkage between land use and transportation goals. Transportation goals and objectives were modified to better reflect input received and the regional land use goals and objectives. Further, regional land use principles were integrated throughout transportation plan goals, objectives, short and long term investment strategies, project selection criteria and elsewhere, and the Commission has certified that all projects contained in the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan are consistent with the preferred regional land use vision. The Commission has also integrated results of this project as part of the federally required system to manage existing and future traffic congestion within the region. No federal 24

transportation funds may be used to expand roadway capacity unless they are for projects developed through this federally mandated and locally approved congestion management system. An important function of the Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project was to provide a generalized future land use plan on which regional transportation planning decisions can be based. In essence, the growth project provides an adopted land use basis on which to plan for future road and transit needs. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission s Regional 2025 Transportation Plan is based on the land use vision created in the growth project. This process of forming a relationship between regional land use planning and regional transportation planning has been recognized as a national model of best practice by federal officials. The Planning Phase of the Project is Closing Work from the planning phase has resulted in information necessary for local units of government to take the next step and consider implementing portions of the project appropriate to their local planning goals through their comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and other actions. Products are now being submitted to local governments, citizens and others for implementation and the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission will be convening a new Implementation Steering Committee and task forces to focus on specific items contained in the action and implementation plan resulting from this project. Project implementation will continue over the next several decades. Current Local Examples of Growth Project Implementation The following examples show how results of the growth project are already being applied to local community efforts. Transportation Plan: As noted, the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan is based on the preferred land use alternative from the growth project and results are being applied as criteria in considering future priorities for federal transportation funds. Various Transportation Planning Best Practice Citations: Both the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and other national transportation planning professional organizations have recognized the Tri-County regional growth project as a national model for linking land use and transportation decisions. Implementation by Local Governments: Clinton County, the City of Mason, Delhi Township and other local governments have already used the project as a basis for, or to assist in developing, their own future comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances. Similar efforts are also in progress by several other local governments, including the City of Lansing. 25

Assisting Ingham County Planning Efforts: Since Ingham County does not have its own planning department, information from the growth project has been used to support implementing land use and environmental policies and programs of county government. Implementation by MSU Extension Citizen Planner Program: The MSU Extension land use education program has drawn information from the growth project to augment its basic training curriculum for planning and zoning officials. Implementation in Hazard Mitigation Planning: Regional growth project data has served as the land use basis for developing a regionwide plan to reduce harm from natural disasters should they occur in the Tri-County region. Relationship to the Governor s Land Use Leadership Council Report: Many recommendations from the regional growth project closely parallel suggestions for state land use strategies in Governor Granholm s 2003 Land Use Leadership Council Report. Materials from the project were made available to some members of the council as they were deliberating. The ten principles of smart growth the Governor s Council used as a basis for their recommendations (which also could become a basis for establishing state land use goals) are very consistent with the Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future themes and principles. The ten principles cited by the Governor s Council are: 1. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices. 2. Create walkable neighborhoods. 3. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration. 4. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. 5. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective. 6. Mix land uses. 7. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas. 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices. 9. Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities. 10. Take advantage of compact development design. Other State Initiatives: In addition, recent activities like the statewide Cool Communities conference, the Michigan Transporation Summit and the statewide Designing Healthy, Liveable Communities conferences are all focusing greater attention on land use issues in the region and throughout Michigan. As a result of the Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future effort, our region is well prepared to tap in to, and benefit from, these broader statewide efforts. The Tri-County region is now positioned as the right place at the right time to benefit from formulating a regional land use vision which ties directly to these other statewide activities. The Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future 26

process has demonstrated regional leadership in broad, consensus based land use decision making. Opportunities for Unique Interagency Cooperation: The project allowed many unique interagency partnerships to develop. For example: cooperative efforts by the MSU Extension and the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission were substantially enhanced through this project. The organizations are jointly funding a unique staff position as a regional land use agent to assist in the project planning and implemention process. This partnership brought extensive resources and support from the MSU Extension program to assist in public involvement efforts throughout the project. Land Use and Health Team: One of the local activities allied with the Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project has been the Land Use and Health Team. The purpose of the Land Use and Health Team is to educate and engage the community regarding impacts of the built environment on health. The team consists of representatives from local planning departments, Michigan State University, businesses and public health agencies as facilitated by the Ingham County Health Department. As there is a growing of body of evidence indicating that the design of the built environment impacts the physical and mental health of residents, the Land Use and Health Team cooperates with the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in order to highlight health-related issues relevant to the Growth Project s implementation. An example of this cooperation is highlighted in the Growth Project s Greenways and Walkability Principle which states that trails and walkways can provide public health benefits by offering opportunities for physical activity. Public health experts suggest that increased opportunity for physical activity can result in a decreased risk of obesity, diabetes and poor heart health. Land use and health activities also support other growth project principles. The Land Use and Health Team coordinates many activities such as development of a health impact assessment tool for planners and the team s work has been cited for model best-practice awards. More information about the land use and health team can be found at the internet world wide web site www.cacvoices.org/environment. Sub-Regional Cooperation Efforts: The growth project has provided numerous opportunities for city and township governments to plan together for their combined growth and has provided numerous maps and other products to facilitate these efforts throughout the region. In addition, TCRPC is using the adopted policy map and principles from the regional growth project as a foundation for commenting on local comprehensive plans and zoning changes under the Coordinated Planning Act and in other sub-regional planning efforts of the agency. Future Steps With the planning phase of the Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project complete, what are the future steps for this project? 27

Now that the planning team has completed their work, it is being presented in a regional leadership briefing and transmitted to each community so that local governments and organizations can consider how to best put the project into action consistent with local objectives. The project poster plan, this summary report, the final project report, transportation plan and other supporting materials will serve as primary vehicles for distributing growth project information to the community. The final technical report provides additional technical detail on many aspects of the project. Information about this project is being taken on the road to local governments in the region so that the messages from the project can be carried directly to local communities. A toolbox of implementation ideas is also being considered to provide practical details to assist local communities and the region in bringing results of the project to fruition. Now that the planning portion of this project is complete, the Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project can enter into the important steps where local communities consider adopting the vision and principles as their own. Examples of what local communities are being asked to consider include: Adopting a resolution of support from the legislative body for the themes, principles and policy map; Motion of support from planning commissions (where applicable); Commitment from administration to utilize Themes and Principles as a check list; Commitment of jurisdictions to participate in the implementation of the action plan; Annual updates of the poster plan and wall plaques to identify endorsing communities; and Hosting of training programs to educate citizens on the importance of the project. In addition, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission is creating an Implementation Steering Committee and various task forces (see Figure 13) to review, refine and finalize the detailed action plan prepared to further implement results of the project. This action plan lists seven vision statements (broad policy guidelines) for the region to achieve. These are: 1. Promote preservation of the natural, non-renewable resources in the region. 2. Utilize resources wisely and guide growth to achieve the regional vision. 3. Promote and maintain a high quality of life for residents of the region. 4. Encourage a regional approach to development and planning which includes interjurisdictional cooperation and coordination among the seventy-five jurisdictions and with Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties. 5. Establish a regional approach to parks and recreation services that emphasize the natural resources. 28

6. Enhance the regional economic development engine to provide sustainable services and employment for current and future citizens. 7. Include formalized, facilitated and broad-based public involvement in planning. These vision statements are then further defined in the action plan through nearly 200 specific implementation goals and objectives to fully integrate the vision in the fabric of regional life. The new Implementation Steering Committee and task forces will be charged to identify priorities on these action steps, develop work plans, budgets, schedules and identify responsible agencies to accomplish each of these goals and objectives. Examples of goals and objectives from the action plan shown below are related to wise growth vision statement (item 2, above). 29

Figure 13: Transition from Planning to Action "Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future" Project Future Plans for Steering Committee Transition "Existing" Steering Committee turns into "New" Implementation Steering Committee Explanation of Plan 1. "Existing" Steering Committee turns into "New" Implementation Steering Committee 2. Proposed Functions of "New" Implementation Steering Committee. Organization of Implementation Task Forces Coordination of Implementation Activities/Agencies Accountability to Local Units of Government Finance and Resources 30 3. Implementation Coordinating Council Chairs and Vice Chairs of Task Forces and existing Transportation Committees - leaders recruited from Stakeholders 4. Task Forces Topics for Task Forces to be determined by "New" Implementation Steering Committee: -Funding -Public Involvement & Education -Natural Resources & Parks and Recreation -Wise Growth, Regional Approach, Economic Development & Quality of Life Coordinating Council Task force members recruited from existing growth project participants and new members (as appropriate by topic area), identify priorities on action steps, schedules, develop work plans and budgets, and identify responsible agencies to implement action steps developed by Regional Growth Project Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Version #4: March 10, 2005 Funding Public Involvement & Education Natural Resources & Parks and Recreation Wise Growth, Regional Approach, Economic Development & Quality of Life

Vision: Utilize resources wisely and guide growth to achieve the regional vision. Goal Site regional public facilities, services and major developments in population centers in or adjacent to existing infrastructure and service areas. Objectives: Cooperate on a regional basis in developing public facilities. Locate public facilities in proximity to public transit. Goal Discourage large lot, low density as a primary zoning category. Objectives: Provide incentives (density bonuses, special assessment districts, etc.) for cluster development and Planned Unit Developments (PUD). Change zoning ordinances to limit low-density, single family as a use by right. Implement state and local access management guidelines to preserve the transportation network and community character along collector and arterial roads. Goal Encourage high density development in areas served by public utilities. Objectives: Encourage urban service boundaries. Develop local design and community character guides to ensure quality in high density development. Revise ordinances and regulations to pass the true installation and long term maintenance costs on to property owners requesting utility expansion. Coordinate new development with transit. 31

Final Focus Group Results As part of finalizing the planning phase of the Regional Growth project, planners conducted a series of focus groups in May, 2004 which gathered opinions from a random sample of citizens from urban, suburban and rural areas of the region and leaders from throughout the region concerning their preferences for implementing results of the project. Some key results of these focus groups are listed below. Of participants, 92 percent voted yes to the question should the region implement the vision, the final question posed to each group. Citizens responding yes total 94 percent. Leaders totaled 88 percent yes votes. Figure 14 shows the final results of this vote. Figure 14: Focus Group Results: Tri-County Regional Growth Project: Choices For Our Future May 2004 Focus Group Results Should the Region Implement the Vision? Public & Leadership Response No 8% Yes 92% 32

The following bullets summarize key results to general feedback received on the project, as based on a zero to ten scale, with zero to one representing Not at All Important, four to six representing Moderately Important and nine to ten representing Crucial/Very Important. The scores shown below represent the average response to key questions posed to leaders and randomly selected citizens stratified based on geographic area types. On the question How important is it that neighboring governments and special districts work together to implement the regional vision? leaders averaged a 7.6 score and citizens averaged a 9.4. On the question How important is it that neighboring governments and special districts work together to coordinate planning efforts? citizens averaged a 9.6 and leaders averaged an 8.4. On the question How much priority do you place on implementation of the regional vision? leaders averaged a 7.1, while citizens averaged an 8.5. On the question How important is it that your community financially support the implementation of the regional vision? citizens averaged 8.3, leaders a 5.9. On the question To what degree do you support implementation of this vision? citizens averaged an 8.6 and leaders averaged a 7.4. A consistent pattern emerged on all of these questions among the three citizen groups, with the strongest support shown in urban residents, followed in order by suburban/fringe and rural residents. On average, on a zero to ten point scale, with 10 being highest, leaders average levels of understanding for all 29 principles was 9.08. For citizens, this level of average understanding was 8.79. Average levels of agreement with the 29 principles was 8.07 among leaders, 8.28 among citizens. Among leaders, the average level of agreement to the question To what level does the regional vision map correspond with your vision of how the region should grow? was 7.6 on a zero to ten point scale. Among citizens, this average was 7.1 These key findings in focus groups are also summarized in Figure 15, and are extremely supportive of consensus reached on the regional vision s policy map and principles among citizens and area leaders alike. 33

Figure 15: Comparing Leader & Citizen Focus Group: Implementing Regional Vision Comparing Leader and Citizen Focus Groups: Implementing Regional Vision 10 9 8 7 7.6 9.4 8.4 9.6 7.1 8.5 8.3 7.4 8.6 9.08 8.79 8.07 8.28 7.6 7.1 6 5.9 Average 5 4 3 2 1 0 Work together to implement Neighbors coordinate planning Priority to implement Financially support Degree of support Understanding principles Agree with principles Policy map = vision Leader Average Citizen Average 34

How will the Region Look Different If We Implement the Regional Vision? A portion of time spent by these focus groups offered visual depictions which portrayed ranges of design choices or options for how the region will grow if current trends continue, in contrast to how the region will look if we implement the policy map, themes and principles summarized in this report. Participants were asked to actually vote for which images of these design choices they preferred. Results from the visual choice voting in these focus groups generally showed that the majority of all leaders and citizens were on the upper end of a one to four scale (where one is the lowest) for moderate to aggressive urban design options associated with implementing the regional land use vision and principles. Put another way, gauging leaders or citizens support for moderate to aggressive implementation of design choices consistent with the regional land use principles would typically fall in the 65-70 percentile range, with citizens having a slightly greater likelihood of being near the top of this range and leaders nearer to the lower end of this range. These results are broadly consistent with consensus shown on other elements of the regional vision using other measures provided in the focus gorups and other public involvement efforts throughout the project. The images shown below depict some of these Choices for different parts of the region, as examples of how things will look differently if we implement the Wise Growth recommendations of the Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future project. If pictures are worth a thousand words, the following images have been selected to give citizens and leaders a chance to visualize how areas of the region will look differently if we develop design options based on the land use policy map and themes and principles discussed in this summary, in contrast to how we will look if current trends continue. The images below are intended to illustrate examples of key concepts associated with these alternative future choices and design options. Which images do you prefer for the region s future and for your children and grandchildren? 35

Figure 16 shows the existing rural land use pattern which is typically developed as rural strip residential. Figures 17 and 18 show environmental preservation and agriculture land preservation. These alternatives can be enhanced using clustered development patterns on the urban fringe, as proposed on the adopted policy map, and as shown in Figure 19. Figure 16: Rural Strip Residential Figure 17: Environmental Preservation Figure 18: Agriculture Preservation Figure 19: Cluster Development 36

Figure 20 shows typical large lot single family residential as it is developing today. Figure 21 depicts how higher density single family residential might look in focused growth areas under the preferred regional land use vision. Figure 20: Large Lot Residential Figure 21: Higher Density Residential in Focused Growth Areas 37

These figures show development in the urban core if current trends (like strip commercial) continue in contrast to higher density commercial infill and mixed use redevelopment. High density mixed use and infill development provide choices which strengthen the urban core under the adopted land use alternative. Figure 22: Strip Commercial Figure 23: High Density Infill Figure 24: Strip Commercial Figure 25: High Density Mixed Use Redevelopment 38

Figures 26 and 27 contrast single family residential development in smaller communities as they are developing today with similar housing in higher density traditional village developments, which help to preserve agriculture land and open spaces. Redeveloping smaller communities with higher density traditional village developments will support smaller communities long term economic viability, as well as providing more affordable housing, employment and transportation options. Figure 26: Small Urban/Village Single Family Residential Figure 27: Higher Density Traditional Village Residential Development 39

Figures 28 and 29 contrast a typical traditional suburban residential design with a clustered development site plan, which might occur on the suburban fringe under the Wise Growth option, which also preserves open space and agriculture lands. Figure 28: Traditional Suburban Development Figure 29: Higher Density Clustered Development 40

Figures 30 and 31 contrast traditional suburban development on the fringe to a mixed use site plan. Mixed use provides close to home shopping, work and recreational opportunities at higher densities with lower transportation costs. Figure 30: Traditional Suburban Development Figure 31: Mixed Use 41

PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Persons listed below served on the Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Steering and Stakeholder Committees between 2000 and 2005 and include both delegates and alternates. An asterisk indicates current delegates and alternates. Steering Committee Harold Leeman, Jr.*, Chair Larry Martin* Phil Chisholm* Mark Meadows* J. William Hawes* David Wilson* Andy Schor Dianne Holman* William Rieske* John Pearson* John Czarnecki Stakeholders Committee Ingham County Gerald Ambrose,* Chair Aurelius Township Craig Iansiti* Larry Silsby* Bath Community Schools Susan Bolton* Rick Oberle Paul Roney Summer Hallwood Renee Farnum Marsha Small* Andrew Such* Earl Barks* Larry Horstman Ben Munger Jerry Ambrose* (ex officio), Stakeholders Chair Jeff Oesterle* (ex officio), Stakeholders Vice Chair Michigan Works! Michael Quinn Doug Stites* Steven Leiby Capital Area United Way Paul McConaughy Capitol Excavating & Paving Company George Hayhoe* Bingham Township Harold Rappuhn* Steve Schafer* Clinton Area Planning for Intergovernmental Teamwork (CAPIT) Barry Dean* Capital Region Airport Authority Daniel Otto* Thomas Schmidt Mike Lynn* Capitol Transport L.L.C. (Spartan & Yellow Cab) Ronald Salmon* 42

Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) Mark Fedorowicz Tim Rosenboom Bradley Funkhouser Debbie Alexander* Frank Davis* City of Charlotte Chamber of Commerce Ann Garvey* Ken Wirt* City of DeWitt Clifford Flood Gregory Kolankowski City of East Lansing Robert Owen, Jr.* James van Ravensway* City of East Lansing Central Neighborhood Jim Ludwig* City of East Lansing Recreation & Arts James Crisp* Dana Meyer Nicole Fisher Mary Jo Pangborn* City of Grand Ledge Susan Stachowiak David Rich Larry LaHaie* Jon Bayless* City of Lansing William Rieske* Donna Wynant* City of Lansing Eastside Neighborhood Organization Richard Kibbey* City of Lansing Economic Development Corporation Tracy Carney-Miller* Karl Dorshimer* City of Lansing Parks & Recreation Phil Dorland* Eric Reickel Murdock Jemerson* Tanya Moore* City of Mason Downtown Development Authority Mark Howe Phil Birdsall* Tim Gaylord* Mark Howe City of St. Johns Cindy Warda* Jon Mills Dan Vreibel* City of St. Johns Parks & Recreation Joseph Yurek Paul McNamara Robert Wood* City of Mason Martin Colburn* Bill Potter* Jim Lyon James Howard* 43

City of Williamston Thomas Coleman Kathy Steenbrenner Lynn Wilson* Clinton Conservation District Bill Lasher* Virginia Zeeb* Clinton County Central Dispatch James Fyvie* Ellen Luttig* Clinton County Drain Commission Tom O Bryant* Phil Hanses* Clinton County Farm Bureau Virginia Zeeb* Clinton County Planning & Zoning Peter Preston* Clinton County Road Commission Michael Nobach* Daniel Vreibel Coldwell Banker Valerie Ferrero Lafferty* CB Richard Ellis Valerie Ferrero Lafferty Ron Haas* Consumers Energy Ernest Sakraska Don Anderson* Chris Thelen* Dart Bank Ronald Rhoades* Rollin Dart* Mark Howe* Delhi Charter Township Rick Royston John Elsinga Darrell Fecho Al McFadyen* Delta Charter Township Gary Bozek* DeWitt Charter Township John Hodges Jeffrey Gray* Seth Weldon* Eaton County Janice Tower Rich Trent Susan Pigg Claudine Hannold* Jon Pfiester* Eaton County 911 Central Dispatch Paul Rodgers* Deb Martin Eaton County Farm Bureau Duane Tirrell Jon Pfiester Gary Pruden* Jim Orr* Thomas M. Cooley Law School Cherie Beck* 44

Eaton County Parks & Recreation Commission Steve Tuma Pat Witte Dan Patton* Jackie Blanc* Eaton County Road Commission Blair Ballou* John Moore Fred Marquardt* Eaton County Sheriff Department Richard Whitacre* Joseph Jager Brian Peacock* Federal Highway Administration Cindy Durrenberger* City of Grand Ledge Area Chamber of Commerce Steve Krumm* Ron Nichols Jon Bayless* Greater Lansing Association of Realtors Gilbert M. White* Greater Lansing Convention & Visitor s Bureau Tom Galyon Lee Hladki* Greater Lansing Home Builders Association Tim Ellis* Greater Lansing Urban League Deanna Edwards Cleophus Boyd, Jr. Groundwater Management Board (GMB) Richard Kranz Bob Godbold Ingham County Jerry Ambrose,* Chair Darnell Early Jared Cypher* Teri Younger* Ingham Conservation District Susan Tangora Becky Henne Alicia Schmidt Chris Corgan* Ingham County EDC Tom Jarosch Tom Coleman John Pierson Ingham County Farm Bureau Loretta Benjamin Janet Lyon* Jeff Oesterle,* Vice Chair Ingham County Health Department Robert Godbold Robert Glandon* Jim Wilson* Ingham County Parks Department Robert Moore* Ronald Eggleston Julie Pelletier Ingham County Road Commission June Pallottini Robert D Alcorn Larry Smith* John Midgley* 45

Ingham County Sheriff s Office Allan Spyke* James Reed Keystone Design Group James Aubuchon* Russell Hinkle* Lansing Board of Water & Light Sue McCormick Randall Roost* Calven Jones* Lansing Community College Baldemero (Bo) Garcia* Lansing Neighborhood Council Carol Wood* Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce Gretchen Courand Summer Hallwood Rich Trent John Pearson* Carolyn Towsley* League of Michigan Bicyclists Lucinda Means LINC Vance Kincaid II Patricia Hagen John Anderson* Joyce Grover* Mason Area Chamber of Commerce Bill Potter* Wayne Flood* George Hayhoe Meridian Township Parks Wendy Wilmers Longpre LuAnn Maisner* Meridian Charter Township Mark Kieselbach* Michigan Department of Transportation Geralyn Ayers* Pamela Boyd Sandra Cornell-Howe* Raymond Lenze* Michigan Energy Resources Division John Sarver* Michigan Environmental Council Holly Madill Julie Stoneman Dusty Fancher Conan Smith* Michigan State University Rex LaMore* John Melcher* Leroy Harvey Jose Gomez* Michigan State University Division of Campus Parks and Planning Steven Hadersbeck* Jeff Kacos* Mid-Michigan District Health Department Gary LaPorte Christine Nelson George Roux* Dale Ladouceur Michael Patterson* 46

Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council Donald Vanacker Gloria Miller* Kerrin O Brien* Mid-Michigan Water Authority Clyde Dugan Susan McCormick Michigan State University Extension/Ingham County Joseph Lessard Mark Hansen* Betsy Dierberger* NAACP Evin Fobbs Jenna Smith* Fifth Third Bank William Coultas* Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Nancy Krupiarz* Barry Culham* Red Team Inc. Rob Lewis Bob Trezise Riley Township Land Use Planning Committee Roger Thelen* Donald Potts Mike Martin* Tri-County Aging Consortium Roxanna Peterson Donna Hobart* Marion Owen* Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Jon Coleman* Paul Hamilton* U.S. Geological Survey Steve Aichele* Vevay Township Jeff Oesterle, Vice Chair John Cady* Ronald Weesies* George Hayhoe Watertown Township Jennifer Tubbs Sims* Webberville Community Schools Dr. Therese Peterson* Windsor Charter Township Kern Slucter John Hall Inge Kyler Rick Borucki* 47

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (Consultant Team Members) HNTB of Michigan (Prime Contractor) The Planning and Zoning Center (Subconsultants) Rossman-Martin Associates (Subconsultants) EPIC-MRA, Inc. (Subconsultants) Parsons Transportation Group (Travel Demand Modeling Consultants) KJS Associates (Subconsultants) Gove & Associates (Evaluation Consultants) TEA, Inc. (Subconsultants) Advanced Data Associates (Subconsultants) 48

COMMISSION MEMBERS TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION CLINTON COUNTY Russel Bauerle Larry Martin, Treasurer David Pohl John Arehart, Ex-Officio EATON COUNTY Philip Chisholm, Secretary J. William Hawes Alvin Kempf Fred Marquardt Mark Smuts Leonard Peters, Ex Officio INGHAM COUNTY Dianne Holman Susan McGillicuddy, Vice Chair Bill Sharp Larry Smith Marc Thomas Mark Grebner, Ex-Officio CITY OF LANSING Harold Leeman Larry Meyer Ralph Monsma Shirley M. Rodgers, Chair Carol Wood Tony Benavides, Ex Officio MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Marsha Small REGULAR STAFF Jon W. Coleman, Executive Director Paul T. Hamilton, Chief Transportation Planner Stephen Skinker, Transportation Planner Naresh Kotari, Senior Travel Demand Modeler Laura Tschirhart, GIS Transportation Specialist Dan Dillinger, Information Systems Planner Carrie Clinkscales, Executive Assistant Maria Habba, Secretary/Receptionist Greg Hoffman, Financial Coordinator Christine Hnatiw, Economic Development Planner Christine Spitzley, Environmental Programs Planner Jack Rozdilsky, MSUE Land Use Agent David Murray, Planning Technician Stephanie Geiger, Water Festival Coordinator* * Part-time Steering Committee Harold Leeman, Chair Earl Barks Philip Chisholm J. William Hawes Larry Martin Mark Meadows Marsha Small John Pearson William Rieske Dianne Holman Andrew Such David Wilson Gerald Ambrose*, Stakeholders Committee Chair Jeff Oesterle*, Stakeholders Committee Vice-Chair * Ex officio Report prepared by: Jon Coleman, Executive Director Paul Hamilton, Chief Transportation Planner Jack Rozdilsky, MSUE Land Use Agent Laura Tschirhart, GIS Transportation Specialist 49