Alternative Preserves Threatened Farmland

Proposal and Savings
Deny funding for the proposed Petoskey Bypass which would cost $70 million — 80 percent federally funded.

Background
The planned 9.5-mile, four-lane highway would bypass the resort city of Petoskey on the northwest coast of Lower Michigan. The Bypass would leave U.S. 131 south of Petoskey and proceed east, bisecting a thriving dairy and row crop farm community, and rejoin U.S. 131 north of the city.

Status
Congress authorized $28 million for the road as a "demonstration project" in 1987. The 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), granted the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) $1 million for the Petoskey Bypass. This money will be used for right-of-way purchasing and to study an alternative proposed by local townships. The alternative proposal mostly follows existing roads and goes along property lines, causing less damage to farmland.

Problems with the Project

Taxpayer Concerns
The need for the Bypass is unsupported. The stated intent of the road is to reduce congestion in Petoskey and give travelers a faster way to reach destinations farther north. However, the Bypass would loop in a lengthy route around Petoskey, potentially increasing travel times. Rising traffic counts on U.S. 131 are mostly attributed to peak tourist season traffic. It is unlikely that the Bypass would reduce traffic for local residents on U.S. 131.

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 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.

One township affected by the project is working with consultants to develop an alternative transportation plan. The township favors upgrading existing roads and investigating less expensive alternatives that 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. 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 in Petoskey.

Contacts
Debbie Rohe, former County Commissioner, (616) 347-8853; Jim Olson, attorney, (616) 946-0044; Kelly Thayer, Michigan Land Use Institute, (616) 882-4723, trans@mlui.org .