Summary Report for the Lansing Metropolitan Area - Tri-County ...

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