|
|
|
Background:
The planned 9.5-mile, four-lane highway would bypass the city of Petoskey, a resort destination along the
coast of northern Lake Michigan in Emmet County. The bypass would leave U.S.-31 south of Petoskey, proceed east, and bisect a thriving dairy and row crop farm community. The bypass would connect back to U.S.-31 north of the city.
Recent Action:
In 1987, Congress approved a $28 million appropriation for the road as a "demonstration project." The
state has pledged an additional $7 million in matching funds. Public hearings have been held, and an Environmental Impact Statement is due to be completed in 1997.
The Michigan Department of Transportation has interpreted the 1987 Congressional approval as prohibiting the study of alternative options, and spent at least $2 million strictly on bypass planning. In 1996, U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), at the request of the local community, passed legislation to require MDOT to review transportation alternatives to the bypass project.
Taxpayer Concerns:
The need for the bypass is unsupported:
• The stated intent of the road is to reduce congestion on U.S.-31, and give vacationing travelers a faster
way to reach destinations farther north. However, the bypass would loop in a lengthy route around Petoskey,
potentially increasing travel times.
• Although traffic counts on U.S.-31 are rising, the road is not crowded except for a few hours during the
peak tourist season in August.
• The bypass is unlikely to reduce traffic on U.S.-31 during most of the year, since most of the traffic outside of peak tourist season is local.
Local Community Concerns:
• In a countywide survey, the vast majority of residents said the preservation of rural valleys, farms, and
scenic views was "extremely important." Critics fear the proposed bypass would destroy these very attributes,
and accelerate sprawl.
• Residents have been particularly opposed to the bypass because it would devastate a historic agriculture
district that produces $10 million in farm products every year.
• Two townships through which the road would pass have hired lawyers and consultants to organize a
legal and political response to the bypass proposal.
The townships favor upgrading existing roads, and investigating other less destructive and less expensive
alternatives. Such alternatives would minimize damage to prime farmland, and sharply reduce the number of
homes that would have to be moved.
Environmental Concerns:
• The primary environmental concerns include loss of prime farmland and open space, and degradation of
wetlands and two world-class trout streams.
Michigan is losing 10 acres of farmland an hour, according to a recent assessment by the state Department
of Agriculture. Emmet County has one of the highest rates of farmland loss in the state.
• Erosion from road construction and runoff would endanger freshwater marshes in the Bear River and
Tannery Creek watersheds, largely undeveloped rivers that empty into Lake Michigan. $ |
|
|
|
|
|
Green Scissors Contacts:
Debbie Rohe, former County Commissioner, 616/347-7327; Jim Olson, Olson, Noonan, Ursu & Ringsmuth,
616/946-0044.
Pro-Spending Contacts:
Gary G. Naeyaert, Michigan Department of Transportation, 517/373-2160; Herb Carlson, Petoskey Chamber
of Commerce, 616/347-7468. |
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 
