Green Scissors Report

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Grand Rapids South Belt Freeway

IMAGE imgs/GSMI08.gif

Proposal & Savings
• Deny federal funding for the construction of a
new, four-lane, 20-mile long beltway south of the
city of Grand Rapids
Savings Estimate: At least $370 million
($296 million federal; $74 million state and local)

Map Source: Environmental Impact
Statement, U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway
Administration and Michigan
Department of Transportation

Background:
First conceived during the earliest days of interstate highway planning, the South Belt freeway was originally viewed by transportation engineers as a major east-west corridor bypassing Grand Rapids, Michigan's second largest city.
In 1979, the Michigan Department of Transportation began to look at the proposed highway as a component of the state trunkline system, in order to relieve congestion in rapidly growing suburbs south of the city.
In 1993, an Environmental Impact Statement was completed, and the Federal Highway Administration
signed a Record of Decision to build the highway. The original $100 million estimate for the South Belt has
been revised upwards several times, reflecting changes in design and scheduling.
Recent Action:
In November 1996, the state released $11 million for right-of-way acquisition. In January 1997, Governor
John Engler announced that $43 million from Michigan's general fund would be used to start construction of
the South Belt.
Taxpayer Concerns:
• A study by the Michigan Department of Transportation found that the South Belt Freeway's mission --
to connect Lake Michigan shore communities with Lansing and ease congestion on the downtown Grand
Rapids freeway -- was not justified.
• Cost effective alternatives to the South Belt have not received proper consideration.
• Even though money was specifically set aside to consider "all reasonable alternatives including, but not
limited to, transportation system management, improvements to existing roadways, and expansion of public
transportation," only two alternatives were thoroughly analyzed. Those were: A).Build the South Belt, or, B).
Do not build it.
• Improving existing east-west routes, or using alternative corridors, may prove less expensive and more
practical than building the South Belt.
Local Community Concerns:
• The majority of attendees at the initial public hearings expressed opposition to the South Belt, arguing
that alternatives -- including comprehensive planning, public transit, and improvements to existing roadways
-- would better serve community needs.
• The Grand Rapids Press has expressed some doubts about the project. For instance, in an editorial on
August 11, 1996, the paper said that the South Belt project design "reflects an indifference to this region's
transit needs -- either that, or a remarkable ignorance of them."
• Local groups also assert that the Michigan Department of Transportation replaced formal public hearings
on the South Belt with informal meetings to quiet critics.
Environmental Concerns:
• The West Michigan Environmental Action Council (WMEAC) has warned that the South Belt would
degrade wetlands, cause storm water runoff problems, consume hundreds of acres of prime farm land, and
promote sprawl.
• In addition, traffic on the South Belt would exacerbate air pollution problems in a region that already
falls below air quality levels set by the federal Clean Air Act. $

Green Scissors Contacts:
Thom Peterson, West Michigan Environmental Action Council, 616/771-3036; Julie Stoneman, Michigan
Environmental Council, 517/487-9539; Richard Crissman, South Beltline Citizens Committee, 616/534-4927.
Pro-Spending Contact:
Gary G. Naeyaert, Michigan Department of Transportation, 517/373-2160.



Grand Rapids South Belt Freeway

		Proposal & Savings • Deny federal funding for the construction of a new, four-lane, 20-mile long beltway south of the city of Grand Rapids *Savings Estimate: At least $370 million* ($296 million federal; $74 million state and local)
			Map Source: Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and Michigan Department of Transportation
	Background: First conceived during the earliest days of interstate highway planning, the South Belt freeway was originally viewed by transportation engineers as a major east-west corridor bypassing Grand Rapids, Michigan's second largest city. In 1979, the Michigan Department of Transportation began to look at the proposed highway as a component of the state trunkline system, in order to relieve congestion in rapidly growing suburbs south of the city. In 1993, an Environmental Impact Statement was completed, and the Federal Highway Administration signed a Record of Decision to build the highway. The original $100 million estimate for the South Belt has been revised upwards several times, reflecting changes in design and scheduling. Recent Action: In November 1996, the state released $11 million for right-of-way acquisition. In January 1997, Governor John Engler announced that $43 million from Michigan's general fund would be used to start construction of the South Belt. Taxpayer Concerns: • A study by the Michigan Department of Transportation found that the South Belt Freeway's mission -- to connect Lake Michigan shore communities with Lansing and ease congestion on the downtown Grand Rapids freeway -- was not justified. • Cost effective alternatives to the South Belt have not received proper consideration. • Even though money was specifically set aside to consider "all reasonable alternatives including, but not limited to, transportation system management, improvements to existing roadways, and expansion of public transportation," only two alternatives were thoroughly analyzed. Those were: A).Build the South Belt, or, B). Do not build it. • Improving existing east-west routes, or using alternative corridors, may prove less expensive and more practical than building the South Belt. Local Community Concerns: • The majority of attendees at the initial public hearings expressed opposition to the South Belt, arguing that alternatives -- including comprehensive planning, public transit, and improvements to existing roadways -- would better serve community needs. • The Grand Rapids Press has expressed some doubts about the project. For instance, in an editorial on August 11, 1996, the paper said that the South Belt project design "reflects an indifference to this region's transit needs -- either that, or a remarkable ignorance of them." • Local groups also assert that the Michigan Department of Transportation replaced formal public hearings on the South Belt with informal meetings to quiet critics. Environmental Concerns: • The West Michigan Environmental Action Council (WMEAC) has warned that the South Belt would degrade wetlands, cause storm water runoff problems, consume hundreds of acres of prime farm land, and promote sprawl. • In addition, traffic on the South Belt would exacerbate air pollution problems in a region that already falls below air quality levels set by the federal Clean Air Act. $
		*Green Scissors Contacts:* Thom Peterson, West Michigan Environmental Action Council, 616/771-3036; Julie Stoneman, Michigan Environmental Council, 517/487-9539; Richard Crissman, South Beltline Citizens Committee, 616/534-4927. *Pro-Spending Contact:* Gary G. Naeyaert, Michigan Department of Transportation, 517/373-2160.