Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 The Neiborhood Liaison Subcommittee of the Capital Revitalization ProjectTHE NEIGHBORHOOD LIAISON` SUBCOMMITTEE OR THE CAPITAL REVITALIZATION PROJECT PRELIMINARY REPORT SEPTEMBER 1986 repared by 'the Members of the eighborhood Liaison Subcommittee / owl Mel v i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................. .. 2 MISSION STATEMENT .............. .................................. NEIGHBORHOOD LIAISON SUBCOMMITTEE 3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION INSTRUMENT....... ............ ............. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................ 4 PROPOSAL #1 - PROPOSED STRATEGY TO IMPROVE NEIGHBORHOODS UNDERSTANDING OF REVITALIZATION EFFORTS ........................... 7 PROPOSAL #2 - CAPITAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD OPPORTUNITY FUND............ 8 PROPOSAL #3 - NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION PROGRAM FUND .............. 9 PROPOSAL #4 - CAPITAL CITY REVITALIZATION OF TARGETED AREA STUDY AND PLANNING GRANT .......................................... 10 APPENDIX A - IMPACT OF SHUTTLE BUS PROPOSAL ......................... 12 APPENDIX B - IMPACT OF SHUTTLE BUS CONCERNS ......................... 13 APPENDIX C - NEIGHBORHOOD LIAISON SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP........... 19 INTRODUCTION the Capital Revitalization Project Neighborhood Liaison Subcommittee is )leased to submit this preliminary report. Encompassed within this document is a Mission Statement, a neighborhood Impact Evaluation Questionnaire, several• proposaAs offered by individual members with the support of the total committee, and other pertinent papers. The Mission Statement provides for the philosophical base under which we generated the Impact Evaluation Questionnaire. This questionnaire is an instrument which will be used to assess other proposals and which was tested on the Shuttle Bus Proposal developed by the Transportation Subcommittee. The question, "What happens to housing once revitalization proposals are implemented?", has been of major interest to the members of the neighborhood liaison subcommittee. This is a concern which may not be addressed by the other subcommittees. The proposals we developed represent our attempt to respond to this concern. As already mentioned, in an effort to validate our Impact Evaluation Questionnaire, we analyzed the Shuttle Bus Proposal developed by the Transportation Subcommittee. The result of this analysis is in`Appendix A of this report. Finally, we have enjoyed being a part of the Lansing revitalization effort and look forward to continued participation. MISSION STATEMENT Liaison Subcommittee of the Capital l a Revitalization cross-sectionvitaza r J city The Neighborhoodeffort, inc which is a joint state and city from those neighborhoods which will kedbeasf pa affectedand other Revitalization rested people citizens. Our subcommittee has been aser ProJject, to evaluate the recommendations f the strengths and weaknesseseof and to provide feedback on what we believe opportunity and a challenge. those proposals. We view this task both as an We firmly believe that the overall revstWe�laasoto the citizen n of 's of the stated should be beneficial to our community should share equally in its rewards as Further, we believe that all persons well as its sacrifices. 'tted to In, roaching this task, we agree that w a the mneighborhoodre saffectedat anThe PP osals have a positive impact adopted prop benefit all persons living within the designated area; proposal shall equally those from heretore, it is our intention to examidneenvironmentale concerns. proposal those the perspective of social, economic, an ensuring that no segment of our proposals that achieve their stated goad by d to be acceptable. It is unit bears a disproportionate share of the burden and that are based on r community of fairness will be considers the basic Principles otal community. The committee has he committee's expectation that the Capital Revitalization Project will have t le and the positive impact on the people positive impact. performed its work in a spirit to contribute to that -2- NEIGHBORHOOD LIAISON SUBCOMMITTEE PROPOSAL EVALUATION INSTRUMENT Attached is a set of questions developed n to. evaluate al around the the Cap Capital impact Ciof subcommittee proposals on the neighborhoods these questions, several Revitalization Project area. In developing underlying goals and assumptions guided our work: 1, To have healthy neighborhoods, neighborhood support services, such as schools, churches, shopping, parks, etc., must be available ods within and adjacent to the strengthened Nwithbtheo development in and around downtown Lansing could and subsequent funding of neighborhood preservation .proposals. 2, There must be, within and adjacent to the downtown, healthy (both market and residential neigsborhoo s, ds with in ome levels mix of s in order to have an subsidized), ages, economically viable central business district. 3. Transportation systems (including roads and street) should not Transportation divide neighborhoods but should bring them together. systems should be provided in improve�ject he areal(residents,traffic workers� pedestrians for. all people P shoppers, students, visitors, and tourists). 4, Every step must be taken to ensure that all are treated in a just and fair manner should itbecome necessary ratnotrdisruptedelocate aor neighborhood residents so that people's re dislocated. to The Neighborhood Liaison Subcommittee will 1 I rev i eons 11 We proposals th t asubmitted the the tasK force utilizing the attached quest they will subcommittees continue to develop and refiine their proposals, evaluate the proposals with these criteria•We al theseso forcewillthat, as the be force members review the submitted proposals, considered. -3- NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT EVALUATION QUESTIONS A. Social Concerns 1. How will the project contribute to or detract from: -- police? -- fire protection? 2. How will the project affect the amount of garbage/trash/litter left in the neighborhood? (i.e., tourist litter - how many/where will trash cans be located? How frequently the pickup?) 3. How will this project affect demand on schools, day care, parks in the neighborhood? 4. Will this project affect existing use by the neighborhood of the schools, parks, day care facilities? 5. How will this project affect demand on existing health care facilities (i.e., emergency rooms at St. Lawrence, Sparrow, neighborhood physicians)? 6. How will this project affect use patterns of existing churches? 7. How will this project affect uses of recreational facilities? Cultural facilities? 8. How will this proposal affect adjoining: -- land uses? -- compatibility? -- taxes? -- property values? 9. Is this proposal consistent with existing master plans or other pertinent documents? 10. Is this project consistent with neighborhood expectations? 11. Does it create traffic patterns that increase/decrease the isolation of the central and surrounding neighborhoods? 11 12.. How does this proposal minimize automotive/pedestrian conflict? 13. How will this proposal affect public transportation? 14. How does this proposal affect demand on parking? 15. How will the demographics in the neighborhood be affected by this project? -- racial composition n -4- family status income education ocation of 16. Will this p roject result in the disruptWhat are theIon and ldislocation existingneighborhood residents? (If so, plans - how, when, etc.?) tivities? How. does this interact 17. What are the times of proposed ac with neighborhood use? neighborhood's ability to 18. - What will this project do to increase the observe and protect itself? this proposal affect the cost, quality,_ availability lg. How does of housing? (single family, multi -family) is roposal affect community local control and 20. Will this P self-determination? B. Economic Concerns 1. - With what will this proposal be paid? private dollars public dollars other 2. Will there be tax abatements? 3. Will there be user fees? 4. What will be the indirect costs? increased property taxes special assss e,ntsvalues decreased property increased insurance costs increased rents etc. from this 5, Who is expected to benefit, financially and otherwise, project? directly and indirectly type of jobs will be created? Who will get these jobs? What 6• neighborhood 7. Will this proposal be in competition with existing enterprises? ST C. Environmental Concerns 1, How will this proposal aftect the environment? -- visual -- noise pollution -- air pollution introduction of toxics -- greenspace -- water quality 2. How will this proposal affect historic structures and landscapes? -- actual structures' integrity 3, Does this proposal help focus attention on downtown as downtown? D. Fairness irness must Once the questions above have eforcewbutd, the issue of also by reactionsasought from be measured not only by this task those affected. Thus, the following questions should be answered: Does this proposal create a solution that primarily benefits all In other words, oes attected persons as equally as pburden on any affected persons?his proposal place a disproportionate !M PROPOSAL #1 PROPOSTANDINGTOFYREVVITALIZZATIONTO IMPROVEI UNDERGHBORS EFFORTS UNDER Recommendation:. of Lansing The Neighborhood Liaison Subcomhborhood emeeettings for nds tresidentsthe y of the Lorea an convene a minimum of three neighborhood bounded by I-496/ g surrounding the proposed Capitol . Park Street/Pennsylvania/Oakland). The meetings would have several goals: Help neighbors understand Revitalization Project timetable, activities. Provide rumor control to residents of potentially affected neighborhoods. Get neighbors' views on issues of importance to them. Proposed Implementation Strategy: We recommend that the City of Lansing send a letter to all residents living ivi gfin the target area, describing the Revitalization nand membership of the neighborhood decision -making and explaining list liaison Comm' with home .addresses, not work ttee (attach membership lso invite neighbors to attend one of the ti tles). The letter should a neighborhood meetings (see below). tings We recommend that the City host at least three neighboreho tamezat on toenable residents to share me their views on proposed linked to neighborhood. Representativefrom the Subcommittees, most closely should be available to Representatives (e.g., Land Use, State Park, Transportation), format that will make presentations. Priority should be given to meetingas the encourage discussion and feedback. Nei ghboenlistedito publicize,the c meetings Downtown Neighborhood Association, can be and encourage participation. not replace, existing city practices These meetings are meant to supplement and/or legislative mandates for citizen input where relocation or redevelopment is planned. Timetable: We recommend that the City send letters out in late d meetings in early October after subcNeightees bor a Lifinished proposals. This will allow the neighbors' views in their evaluation of various proposals. September and hold drafts of to include -7- PROPOSAL #2 CAPITAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD OPPORTUNITY FUND Pur ose ici ants in the May Capital Revitalization Projectro osed hearingcap capital called' for Partparea neighborhood -level evel revitalization r proposal attempts ptsrt to capture r thi sp d dea vi toes haimed the improvements. - This P P ort a variety of neighborhoo establishment of a fund to supp at the stabilization and revitalization of Lansing's residential areas. Project Activities Make loans and grants organizations in the city to neighborhood and nonprofit community -based of Lansing that address the following areas: Housing for low and moderate income persons. Crime prevention. targeted for neighborhood Business development and employment programs s, y outh, seniors, residents with emphasis cobs for g women, mi blic istancenoritie handicappers, and persons re ei i.e., neighborhood clean-up, and Neighborhood beautification projects, g tix-up efforts. Spec ial neighborhood events designed to encourage a "sense of community." Program Support support from public and private sources. The fund should receive financial on Possible public sources could include: room receipts realizedinhotel/convention P mechanism to facilities; a percentage of state sales capital areas, or develop a Tax increased, Incremassessedent a value Authority i nthcapital li cited. capture a percentage of the Matching private lender contributions should also be encouraged and so Program Structure and the state. the community, city, Cooperatively managed project between Fund Board to implement and monitor the Establish a Neighborhood Opportunity effort. r- PROPOSAL #3 NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION PROGRAM FUND have been declining since 1978 and continue .to Federal funds for housingits of low have been decline. The result is that few fornnew potential home buyers, we hour built, ve less assistance is availablewithin had a severe reduction in home rehabilitation activity neighborhoods. - - _ .. - -- _ 's 1976 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation - Compared to Lansing sing received only $1.4 million from HUD in of Lan of $10.3 million, the City one percent of these funds are earmarked for 1986 for the CDBG program. Fifty- has received $260,000 from HUD housing rehabilitation. In addition, the city ntal rehabilitation in Lansing neighborhoods in 1985-8b and $63,000 in for re ' 1986-87. a'orit of CDBG funds is targeted into small adevelopment amount of money The m J Y repairs. Green Oaks,. Cherryhill, and NDA #4, leave g available citywide which is set aside for such things as emergency The rental rehablitation program funds are not nearly e enough to meet ther. r existing demand and will be expended before the end oft Y majority of the housing within and around the Capital Revitalization The maJ Y prior to the 1940's and is in need of repair, up District was built p rehabilitation. Downtown revitalization efforts must be mirrored and/or within our neighborhoods. request od We the creation of a residential Neighborhoif necessary�,taof zhomes withination Fund oa rehabilitation, tation, acquisition, and relocation, designated district. a public nonprofit citizens based dependingard and on the The fund would be administered loan fund with a sliding interest rate, would be a revolving people within and income of the applicant. Funds would be available to Should be given to surrounding the Capital Re i ram a must tion Dbetrcoordinated ltwith a strong code owner occupants. This program enforcement program. partnership between The tund would be established through the creation i nanci ala . institutions, and the City, MSHDA, private corporations, standards are met in our neighborhoods to ensure that established high housing city's neighborhoods. WE PROPOSAL #4 CAPITAL CISTUDYVANDLPLANN�NGOGRANTGETEO AREA Purpose 'To explore and develop new systems of cooperation between the City and state, and the targeted neighborh ho d improvements, ene new tstems landill acques tion,1eclearanto ceaite and - the completion of neighbor P relocation of displaced households. To develop a strategy that could be an investment in the revitalization effort while expanding and upgrading the quality of life of those impacted by the revitalizational effort. To assist in locating available housing and qualifying eirsent homes. displaced for occupancy immediately after the acquisition o p To develop new approaches and.. ed raersons because ies to lof to lack the pofsablbuilt-an future homelessness for displac p safety net. To ensure that aoeanfract ons that areand renrs rplaced uponthem valuable consideration because theso To ensure that proper health and n safety negativelyres are affectedabynrats, hroachesareas and and around demolition sites a other vermin. nt t could state make the fut re bestpossible populations that a To ensure that the City and someday save them the burden of creating a will require a repeat hrevitalization ofsffort to creating as new population f sreas in which treet are relocated. To reduce t possibility dweller and shelter transits. To identify and document distressed areas and set priorities, to establish task forces to deal with each phase,s 1. Acquisition 2. Displacement 3. Relocation 4. Neighborhood Improvement - Whole Areas 5. Quality of Life Factors Short Range Objectives To use the pl eCapitalRevitalization other phasesas Project pi Iota as our main programs that areo updated ram. to Adapt principles to the meet today s needs. The targeted pilot programs scope of activities; information collection; analysis and synthesis of information, documentation. Research, study, and identify the conditions and needs of residents, neighborhoods, and community based organizations, etc., who will be impacted by the Capital City Revitalization infractions or improvements. -10- identify funding targeted to aid low and moderate income persons and Beholds. To access conditions and needs, cost of supplemental aid or sidies. work between targeted population and City, State, Government, Private and tic Sector. Network between Contractors, Realtors, Department of Social vices, Human Resources, Funding Agencies, Special Services, and other rgency services, acting as an ombudsman. getary Requirements of implementation of this study will be developed and sented upon acceptance of this concept. ghborhood residents must be involved in the study committee and development the program. A comprehensive neighborhood revitalization and development n should be submitted to the proper authority. -11- 0 Appendix A IMPACT OF THE -SHUTTLE BUS PROPOSAL Summary Overall, the group was favorroe10impressed wo ld providethe draft of significantthis beneprofitssato l. As presented to us, the p proposal tourists, some cultural institutions, businesses, and state tourist attractions. There are two primary areas of concern that should be addressed: 1. Locati ,,f rnmmiter Parkinq Lots/Bus Stops (Staging A No parking lots/bus stops (staging areas) locations indicated. Location of. parking lots/bus stops, etc., could have signiticant impact on neighborhood land use, quality of life, property values. If it becomes necessary to relocate residents, the housing supply and demographic mix in the neighborhoods could be negatively affected: In developing this proposal further, we hope that the planners will remember that to have an economically viable and healthy central business district, people must live in the downtown area. 2. Primary User Groups -- Many downtown/Capitol Complex workers are residents of the downtown area: **Consider extending the hours of operation to include their commuting to work. Including this group merely for lunch traffic does not seem worthwhile. **If the decision is to keep the hours of operation as proposed, bus routes/stops should cater primarily to tourists rather than state workers. -12- 0 APPENDIX B IMPACT OF SHUTTLE BUS CONCERNS A. Social Concerns 1, How will the project contribute to or detract from: -- police? -- fire protection? The group feels that the shuttle bus opera f on ,ouade accgtuipped as another set of eyes and ears for the community. with radio communications, the bus operators will be able to contact either the police or fire department when needed. The increase in shelters, which means larger crowds, will increase the need for additional protection. 2. How will the project affect thtourist amountofgarbage/trash/litter how ma y/where well in the neighborhood? (i.e., trash cans be located? How frequently the pickup?) The increase in people will result in an increase in litter. The group is concerned about who will be responsible for maintaining the shelters and removal of the litter. 3. How will this project affect demand on schools, day care, parks in the neighborhood? ing and service, the shuttle could have an Depending on the rout impact on the above services. rthe parks might increase. go parks, the lunch time crow 9 area locations on schools might be affected if parking/staging require the removal of existing housing. 4. Will this project detract from existing use by the neighborhood of the schools, parks, day care facilities? this is a matter of routing. Demand on these facilities Once again, determined could be affected by the route and service. The group that an increase in demand is a two-edged ebut wond the other hand, it one hand, it could bring additional people downtown could strain resources depending on demand. affect demand on existing facilities (i.e., health care 5. How will this project emergency rooms at St. Lawrence, Sparrow, neighborhood physicians)? The only identified demands may be a need to develop plans in case of emergencies such as natural disaster or a major accident involving one of the shuttles 6. How will this project affect use patterns of existing churches? -13- Because the shuttle is scheduled to operate seven days a week, it could have a positive impact on churches. Senior citizens and other local residents would be able to ride the shuttle to and from church. Care should be taken to avoid having staging areas at churches because of the potential conflict with funerals. 7. How will this project affect uses of recreational facilities? Cultural facilities?, Again, routing is the key. Depending.on the route and the schedule, it could increase the use of these tacilities, particularly by the 'lunch-time crowd. Routing should be designed to take in the major attractions. The proposal the group reviewed did not include all of the major downtown attractions. On the south, although Oldsmobile was mentioned, the Michigan Women's Historical Society facility, the ; Scott Sunken Gardens, and Cooley Gardens were excluded. Any routing should connect with downtown hotels and tourist attractions. Consideration should be given to connecting the airport with the central city. 8. How will this proposal affect adjoining: -- land uses? -- compatibility? -- taxes? -- property values? Location of staging areas and parking lots could have a negative impact on land use, compatibility with housing, and property values. 9. Is this proposal consistent with existing master plans or other pertinent documents? None of the known plans have ever mentioned shuttle services. 10. Is this project consistent with neighborhood expectations? This is a question that each neighborhood will have to answer. The shuttle could serve neighborhood needs by facilitating movement within the downtown area and by acting as a link with other public transportation. However, this will depend on the schedules, staging areas, and parking lots. 11. Does it create traffic patterns that increase/decrease the isolation of the central and surrounding neighborhoods? This will be a matter of routing and service, although it is felt that the service, if properly implemented, will decrease the isolation of the area. An important item here will be whether local citizens are encouraged to use the system. If the system is designed to serve only tourists,.the region will be isolated, but if the system is used to transport workers, residents, and tourists, the traffic pattern should decrease the isolation of, the area. -14- 12. 13. 14. ka a with current public transportation systems will also be Lin g important. flow does this proposal minimize automotive/pedestrian conflict? envisioned, the amount of If stem is used as automoteve/pedestrian conflict should be decreased.• How will this Proposal affect public transportation? A shuttle but Linkage to current public the n current otransporati on important. system, l not system should complement concern was expressed that the total' transportation nee be properly addressed. 0 osal affect demand on parking? 15. . How does this pr P parking demand This proposal has the potential of alleviatingrineihborhoods and but individuals could opt to P in the residential downtown, overpacking in order to take the shuttle downtown, creating areas. This is an area that must be tudied carefully prevent congestion in the neighborhoods.this How wi ll the demographics in the neighborhood be affected by project? -- racial composition -- family status -- income -- education icable at this point. The location uter lots and Not aPPI affect the an to thi question staging areas may ill is project result in the f so, twhat are the on and ldislocation ocation of 16. existing neighborhood residents. (If so, plans - how, when, etc.?) Same as previous answer. 17. What ar e the times of proposed activities? How does this interact with neighborhood use. m„ seven days a The proposed time of operation is 10 a.m. to 7 puld be given to week. The group felt that consideration ticularly at night to the time of .operation , P restaurants increasing nighttime activities downtown. For example However, if accommodate nighttime shuttle. and theatres could benefit trom the group then the 10 a.m. to 7 residents are included in the target 9 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)• If the p.m. schedule should be extended then the shuttle routes should not primary target group is tourists, cater to downtown workers' lunch habits. -15- 18. What will this project do to increase the neighborhood's ability to observe and protect itself? The increase in the number of people makes it harder for the area to observe and protect itself. Sidewalk lighting will become very important. The benefit of having the`shuttle system act as eyes and ears in the community does help offset this negative impact. 19. - How does this proposal affect the cost, quality, availability (single family, multi -family) of housing? It may affect the quality on an individual basis. Some individuals may view the location of shelters near their property as a negative while others, in need of transportation, may consider the location as a positive. The availability and cost of housing should not be affected by this proposal. 20. Will this proposal affect community local control and self-determination? This will depend on who operates the system. As proposed, the system would be locally controlled and eventually locally -funded. B. Economic Concerns 1. With what will this proposal be paid? -- private dollars -- public dollars -- other The project will be paid for with public funds. 2. Will there be tax abatements? No. 3. Will there be user fees? This group suggests that there should be minimal fees. Perhaps lower fees during the 10 a.m. to 7 p,m. rush period should be used. Lower fees could encourage use. The group feels strongly that hours should be expanded for night use. Increased fees could 'be used to pay for this service. User fees could be used to maintain and/or expand the system. Fees would also discourage people from getting on the system and riding all day. 4. What will be the indirect costs? -- increased property taxes -- special assessments -- decreased property values -- increased insurance costs -16- C. 5. 6. -- increased rents -- etc. but could (1) Property taxes should not increase in the short-term, otaxes. (2) in the long-term if the system is funded by The plan should not Special assessments should not be used. ng areas could have a decrease property values, although staging ity of the negative impact _on individual properties. The e quaadecrease in shelters and their maintenance is important to p property values. (4) Increased insurance costs should not result or because with the shuttle representing additional eyes and eThisars fis the community, the enhanced protection is a powill want h live two-sided. Rents could go up because some people tle route. Other people may not want to live along along the shut the route, consequently in somenase�ouldegondown,on the shelters and the maintenance thereof, the re Who is expected to benefit, financially and otherwise, from this project? -- directly and indirectly system It is felt that virtually everyone could sbness/restaurantenefit from s owners, (e.g., tourists, residents, workers, Taxi cab drivers may lose cultura)/educational institutions, etc.). revenues. What type of jobs will be created? Who will get these jobs? rivers and maintenance personnel will be employed. There Shuttle d may also drive a need for administrative personnel, but this depends on who operates the system and how i Whi "efundssdble,e. tthese is l possibleso jobs should that tour guides may be needed. e p go to people residing within the impacted area. 7. Will this proposal be in competition with existing neighborhood enterprises? See #5. Environmental Concerns How will this proposal affect the environment? 1. -- visual -- noise pollution -- air pollution -- introduction of toxics -- greenspace -- water quality Visual - could be affected by the kinds of the shuttles, including paint jobs which shelters and the look of could reflect a theme; -17- J noise ollution - Should be less because of the'decrease in number o vehic es; air pollution - same answer; introduction of toxics - same answer; greenspace - not applicable; water ualit - not applicable. 2. How will this proposal affect historic structures and landscapes? -- actual structures -- integrity The proposal should have a unitorm theme. The shuttle system could be an informational service, calling attention to historical structures. 3. Does this proposal help focus attention on downtown as downtown? Overall, the group feels that this proposal will have a positive impact on the downtown area. Although some concerns, as expressed by responses to questions above indicate, do exist, none of the potential problems are insurmountable. Indeed, most of the concerns revolve around the implementation of the proposal. The group is basically concerned that theproposal of thbesystem implemented in a way to maximize the use and functionality IV. FAIRNESS Once the questions above have been answered, the issue of fairness must be measured not only bYthethis followingforce questionsalso shouldreactions answeredsought from those affected. Thus, Does this proposal create asolution other words, idoesbenefits proposalaffected place persons as equally as possible? a disproportionate burden on any affected persons? ODE APPENDIX C NEIGHBORHOOD LIAISON SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Mr. Dick Baker 1004 West Lapeer Lansing, MI 48915 Home (517) 487-9474 Work (517) 373-6227 Mr. 'Cleophus Boyd Executive Assistant Office of the Mayor City of Lansing Ninth Floor, City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 Work (517) 483-4141 Mr. Ron Callen 501 McPherson Lansing, MI 48915 Home (517) 372-6088 Work (517) 334-6431 Ms. Patricia Collins Bureau of Administration Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 Work (517) 373-8330 Councilman Charles Creamer Lansing City Council Tenth Floor, City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 Home (517) 371-1544 Work (517) 377-8306 Ms. Georgia Curry President's Office Lansing Community College 419 North Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48901-7210 Work (517) 483-1850 Ms. Sue Eby 130 Island Lansing, MI 48910 Home (517) 372-9675 Work (517) 484-7408 Ms. Judy Gardi Lansing Neighborhood 1801 West Main Lansing, MI 48915 (517) 372-6290 Ms. Ladora Gary 422 South Butler Lansing, MI 48915 Home (517) 882-0021 Council Mr. Garry Goolsby Downtown Neighborhood 914 West Ionia Street Lansing, MI 48933 Home (517) 372-2490 Work (517) 373-3013 Ms. Winnie Griffieth Downtown Neighborhood 912 West Ionia Street Lansing, MI 48915 Home (517) 485-0832 Work (517) 373-4600 Association Association Ms. Ginney Haas 705 Washington Square 109 West Michigan Boulevard Lansing, MI 48933 Work (517) 377-1713 Ms. Mary James 303 North Jenison Street Lansing, MI 48915 Home (517) 371-2166 Work (517) 373-8563 Mr. Jim Jones 705 Washington Square Building 109 West Michigan Lansing, MI 48933 Work (517) 377-1713 Reverend Melvin Jones Union Missionary Baptist Church 1020 West Hillsdale Street Lansing, MI 48915 Work (517) 485-7705 -19- Mr. Rick Kibbey 300 Shepard Lansing, MI 48912 (Rep. the Eastside Neighborhood Organization) Home (517) 45-1154 Work (517) 373-4075 Mr. Rex Lamore, Director Community Development Component Office of Urban Affairs, MSU 1801 West Main Street Lansing, MI 48915 Work (517) 353-9555 Mr. Larry L. Leatherwood, Chairman Neighborhood Liaison Subcommittee Bureau of Administration Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 Work (517) 373-8330 Mr. Bill Letts Letts Fashions Bridal & Tuxedo Shop 119 North Butler Street Lansing, MI 48915 Work (517) 484-5359 Mr. Richard Letts Director for Human Relations Human Relations Department Seventh Floor, City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 Work (517) 483-4088 Mr. Kevin McKinney Downtown Neighborhood Association 806 Seymour Street Lansing, MI 48906 Home (517) 372-2982 Work (517) 482-2896 Mr. Douglas McKinstry Physical Plant Lansing Community College 419 North Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48901-7210 Work (517) 483-1808 Ms. Mira McKissic 1789 Nemoke Trails #12 Haslett, MI 48840 Work (517) 335-2621 Ms. Ernestine McMullen 3411 Viola Lansing, MI 48910 Home (517) 882-7277 Ms. Merritta Hunt -Proctor 4620 River Ridge Drive Lansing, MI 48917 Home (517) 321-3021 Work (517) 373-1834 Ext. 317 Mr. Partap Rajadhyaksha Snell Environmental Group 1120 May Street Lansing, MI 48906 Work (517) 374-6800 Dr. Philip Smith Department of Social Services 202 South Kedzie Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 (Rep. Senator Don Riegle) Home (517) 349-5307 Work (517) 355-0225 Mr. James R. Spackman, Deputy Director Department of Plgnn. Municipal Development City of Lansing 119 North Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 Home (517) 882-8201 Work (517) 483-4066 Reverend Lester D. Stone Friendship Baptist Church 925 West Main Street Lansing, MI 48915 Work (517) 372-9462 Mr. Gerome Toler 912 West Ionia Lansing, MI 48915 Work (517) 373-3851 -20- r s. Mary Kay Scullion 25 Bartlett Street ansing, MI 48915 ome (517) 487-3412 ork (517) 373-6504 s. Geneva Smith 69 West Lenawee Street ansing, MI 48915 ome (517) 484-4108 s. Beth Shapiro 10 McPherson Street ansing, MI 48915 'ome (517) 374-6085 'ork (517) 355-2343 'C:2237-6/wpc -21- EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT OF THE GOVERNOR'S CAPITAL CITY REVITALIZATION TASK FORCE . FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 Roberta E. Stanley, Chair EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT . GOVERNOR'S CAPITAL CITY REVITALIZATION TASK FORCE Michigan's Capital City has a rich history which all of her citizens should know and experience. Through educational tours and programs, school children, college and university students, adult education program participants and senior citizen groups can share in the pride and experience of the government process and the unfolding of policy that has made the Great Lakes State a progressive leader in such areas as consumerism, the environment,, transportation, regula- tion and education. What better route to involve Michigan's diverse citizenry in the government process than with its exemplary education system? As its primary goal, the Education Subcommittee has sought to find ways to breakdown barriers of accessibility to the daily workings of government. CENTRAL GOALS 1. Coordination and improvement of educational activities in the Capitol Complex and Greater Lansing Metropolitan Area. 2. Showcase of exemplary Michigan education programs and efforts. 3. Classroom of the Future/examples of high technology. 4. Improved physical facility for receiving students, conducting classes complementing Capitol visits, and for other multi- purpose activities. 5. Sponsorship by state of academic contests, citizenship education programs and display of fine arts projects. 1 6. Facilitating transportation between buildings/activities with shuttle bus, tunnel, sheltered walkway, and/or expanded bus area. 7. Emphasize educational relationships with the Japanese "Sister State" of Shiga, and sister cities throughout the state, and other international programs, as well as the multi -cultural, multi -ethnic nature of the state and her citizens. 8. Set up,a formal teacher preparation and Administrative leadership center and central pickup location to obtain educational publica- tions on government, history and culture for students. 9. Establish identifiable projects in the Capitol Complex completed by students, i.e. tree plantings, flower gardens (tulips speci- fically representing Holland, a lilac hedge from Mackinac Island, and/or a large garden with different flowers representing four-year colleges and universities, junior and community colleges, and intermediate and local school districts). IMPLEMENTATION OF PRIORITIES 1. Perhaps the most critical factor the Subcommittee discovered in its discussions was that many, many high quality activities are not as coordinated as they could be. There are also many resources available which have not been publicized and/or utilized by students visiting the,Lansing area. The Subcommittee unanimously agreed that more coordination should take place for tours, publications and facility availability. An ad hoc group should meet periodically to coordinate these activities. Among those participating should be the coordinator of the Capitol Tour Guide Program, the Director of the Legisla- 2 tive Service Bureau (or his designee), representatives of the House and Senate, appropriate Department of Education staff in government relations and student outreach, and others whose programs are made available for student_ access. While the Capitol Tour has been greatly improved, as other services and buildings are added (such as the State Library/Museum), provisions should be made for suggestions on further improvements, changes and additions. 2. In the plans for a Yes Michigan Center, space should be provided to display examples of outstanding Michigan education programs in the arts and humanities, and contest winners among schools and individuals. For example, pictures and profiles of Michigan's exemplary elementray, middle and high schools submitted annually to the U.S. Secretary of Education could be on display, or the best examples of ceramics by Michigan State University's Kresge Art Center students. In addition to the Yes Michigan Center, the coordination committee mentioned above could act as a scheduling center for all of state government for the displays of winning student art projects, and other examples of successful educational projects from the elementary -secondary and postsecondary institutions in the state. 3. The State Capitol through the Yes Michigan Center could serve as an excellent central site for a "classroom of the future", with the most up-to-date facilities, materials and technology tied into the executive RM offices of state government (now in.the planning'stages). A tie-in could also be made with hotels, local businesses, schools and the higher education interests, using the technology of optic fiber, microwave,'compact disk, etc. This classroom,_or auditorium, another phase of the Yes Michigan Center, could also be connected to a theatre/auditorium featuring films on state government, history, culture, tourism and the arts. 4. In addition to a showcase classroom,.the Subcommittee agreed that the current logistical setup of the Capitol is cramped and often difficult for student groups, particularly when the groups are large or when there is inclement,weather. A central "meet and greet" area should be designated for students, where space is provided for coats, a cafeteria and/or lunch concessions, and perhaps a youth hostel for overnight stays for students coming from long distances. 5. Many contests are already conducted in various subject areas for students, but often they are not well publicized and students do not receive the proper recognition they deserve. Contests should be better coordinated and the State should play a more significant role in acknowledging its outstanding schools and students. Citizenship education should also be encouraged through the national Citizen Bee project, sponsored by the Close Up Foundation, as well as student forums conducted at the State Capitol on state and. federal issues. Members of the state House and Senate and various Department executives could participate with students in discussions. 4 6. Transportation in the Capitol Complex raises a special problem for groups of all age's visiting the Lansing area. Currently there is limited parking space and public transportation. While it is another M Subcommittee's responsibility to ,focus on this issue, --the Education Subcommittee supports the notion of a shuttle bus connecting various buildings in State Government, Lansing Community College, Michigan State University, and the Impresssion 5 Museum, the R.E. Olds Museum, Riverwalk Theatre, Center for the Arts, and other sites of interest. 7. Michigan's ties with other nations exist in formal and informal ways. The Education Subcommittee strongly believes that the state's multi -cultural, multi -ethnic nature should be exemplified in any additional physical facilities built or renovated, and that programs and displays should also reflect that theme. More tours should be conducted by bilingual guides, and tours targeted on various culture should be organized. 8. Tied in to the "Classroom of the Future" and Yes Michigan Center should be an area set aside for formal teacher preparation and professional development. Here teachers and administrators could receive independent briefings and obtain classroom materials, or have access to demonstrations and/or experimental educational programs. Further, in some fashion, there should be a central location where student visitors may obtain or order informational materials and official state publications. `9. One of the first recommendations brought to the Education Subcommittee was the project of plantings in the Capitol Complex. On a 5 I start-up basis, the Department of Education plans to work in conjunction with vocational -technical education programs throughout the state which have horticulture classes to establish plantings . These could be reflective of an ethnic heritage.or representative. of a geographic area of the state, with special plaques recognizing the school of origin. SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP This report is respectfully submitted by the Education Subcommittee, composed of a broad representation of the Michigan education community. 0 EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE GOVERNOR'S LANSING REVITALIZATION TASK FORCE Roberta E. Stanley, Chair Subcommittee on Education Executive Assistant Superintendent for State and Federal Relations Michigan Department of Education Mr. Tom Baldini Executive Office Dr. Charles Blackman R.E. Olds Museum Dr. Marylee Davis Assistant to the President Michigan State University Mr —Michael Hannon Impression 5 Dr. William Heater President, Board of Education - Lansing School District Dr. Dale Herder Vice President Lansing Community College Ms. Maureen Herstek Republican Legislative Research Analyst House of Representatives Ms. Virginia Hutcheson Coordinator Capitol Tour Guide and Information Services Department of Management and Budget Mr. Fred Johnson Adult Education Services Michigan Department of Education Ms. Mary Ann Mansour Lansing Adult Education Lansing School District Ms. Joett Marger Democratic Business Coordinator House of Representatives Mr. Joe Mariage Legislative Intern Program Lansing School District Mr. Bob Muller Michigan Department of Transportation Dr. Vern Oxender Superintendent Traverse City Public Schools Dr. Frank Philip Arts Consultant Michigan Department of Education Mr. Jim Platte Dean of Telecommunications and Art Lansing Community College Ms. Bertha C. Poe Assistant to the President Michigan Federation of Teachers Mr. Larry Princinsky Harry Hill Vocational Center Lansing Public Schools Ms. Jane Rhodes Director of Property Management Department of Management and Budget Ms. Andrea Rodriguez Citizen Volunteer Dr. Susan Ruotsala•Storm Citizen Volunteer ry Ms. Teasther W. Smith Agency -Liaison Michigan Education Association Ms. Rossi Ray Taylor Director of Legislative and Community Relations Lansing School District Ms —Debra Townsend Republican Director of Public Information State Senate Dr. William L. Webb Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Lansing School District Mr. Dan Welburn , Legislative Committee Michigan Parent-Teacher Association Ms. Kathy Wilbur Administrative Assistant to Senator William Sederburg Dr. Jackie Taylor Vice President for College and Community Relations Mr. Paul Howland Special Assistant to the Director Department of Commerce Economic Development Hon. Robert Mitchell, Chair Governor's Task Force on Capital.City Revitalization The following is a report to you on recommendations assembled by the committee on Downtown Business Development. Five sub -committees operated within the framework of Downtown Business Development and reports from each of those• subcommittees are submitted verbatim.. lhe. contents are as follows: . (1.) . Mtssron Statement- (2) Executive Summary (3) Observations (4) Tax & Financial Incentives Committee Mission Statement and Report (5) Inventory Committee Mission Statement and Report Combined With (6) Community Attitude Committee - Mission Statement and -Report (1) Competition & Access Committee Mission Statement.and Report (8) City and State.Master Plan Committee Mission Statement and Report (9) Initial Charge to.The Committee m Jordan, CCE/CID,, Chair Executive Vice President 09-17-86 Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce P.O. BOX 14030 0510 W. WASHTENAW ST.* CMC CENTER • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48901 • (517) 487-6340 ,.- .. if MISSION STATEMENT Downtown Business Development Committee To develop a revitalization package for downtown Lansing that will result in an improved business mix, increased investor confidence and a strong, stable role for the downtown as a major component of the region's economic health. SUMMARY Thirty seven people participated in the Live subcommittees which worked on the assigned topics. Those topics are defined in detail by the Mission Statements which precede each subcommittees report contained herein.. Summarized, the subcommittee assignments were to: ... Develop New Tax & Financial Incentives ... Inventory Existing Business Mix and Deficiencies ... Analyze Community Attitude Toward Downtown ... Review Downtown's Accessibility & Competitiveness ... Compare The City and State Master Plans Over thirty various meetings were necessary to achieve the reports submitted. As noted herein a major portion of this committee's task remains unfinished but work to achieve the end result is in progress. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY tax & Financial Incentives Committee Report. Recommends a variety of incentive programs and urges that the incentives be extended to all commercial or residential users within a designated or target area. Inventory Committee Report, Combined With Community Attitude Committee Report. Recommends an in-depth inventory of all business within the defined area bounded by I496, Oakland, Logan and Larch and the interpretation of that inventory by outside professionals who can be objective in their work and give guidance to creation of a dynamic marketing plan. This will be coupled with a "consumers attitude survey" within the total region. Competition & Access Committee Report. Strongly urges upward development since outward growth may be detrimental and limited. Recommends an all -season walkway system linking parking structures to the retail district and using the second floor level of many buildings for new retail and residential space. Suggests a pilot project. Recommends a design review board to coordinate a "theme" downtown consistent with historic and natural appeal of existing structures. Calls for expanded parking. Suggests satellite parking lots outside of downtown served by CATA. Urges trolley system. City and State Master Plan Committee Report. Urges further downtown residential development with specific attention to security and accessibility. Recommends close liaison with Lansing Community College in all planning. Suggests added parking. Concurs in need for complete market analysis. Agrees with with rubber tire trolley concept. Recommendations of the Chair Make permanent this working relationship between City Government, the local business community and State Government. This is too precious to abandon. Allow portions of this committee to extend its "work plan" for an additional b months to complete the market and community attitude analysis and begin development of a marketing plan. OBSERVATIONS Similar Pathways it is remarkable that so many of the various City and State committees involved and meeting independently have arrived at somewhat similar conclusions. Similarities include questions or suggestions which involve: ... appearance of downtown. ... cleanliness of the city. ... need to visibly assure visitors and shoppers on their personal security in downtown. ... parking and its many ramifications including location, availability, quantity with emphasis on its cost. ... the need to encourage/improve/stimulate pedestrian use of downtown and desirability of trolley transport to link the downtown business and office complexes. ... the desirability of an improved/expanded system of streets to give motorists a well -marked and identifiable access to the capital complex and the central business. ... the desirability of projects and/or programs which will make Lansing unique and its business district more competitive with the newer, convenient, weatherproofed shopping malls. ... the desire to encourage residential development in the central business district by possibly offering tax and/or financial incentives and temporary or short-term relaxation of barrier -free restrictions. ... whether it be desirable or not to establish a "central theme" for the downtown business district. ... the desirability of connecting the major shopping and office buildings by weather proot access such as the pedways which integrate the North Grand Ramp, the Radisson Hotel, the Exhibition Hall and Embassy Suites, they becoming virtually a single, self-contained unit. Continued ... Observations Continued A variety of questions expressed concern that: (1) . if the State of Michigan continues to build westward from the Capitol Building, toward the Logan corridor this will create a central city "sprawl" which may: (a) Shift the center of downtown population to the west. (b) Create a "distance factor" discouraging state employees who walk downtown during noontime hours. (c) Create another business district to serve the western end of such construction further diluting the present business district. (2) ... A second concern relates to a "traffic loop" running from Logan eastward, possibly along Allegan, to Grand then returning to Logan, perhaps along Ottawa. The questions raised include: (a) Should it be that narrow and short ? establishing the loop from Logan eastward along Kalamazoo, crossing the river to Cedar/Larch and returning westward via the Shiawassee bridge will tie the main north -south arteries, Logan and Cedar/ Larch, into downtown and into the Capital complex. (b) If this be designed as a "high speed corridor" then it may become a pedestrian barrier or hazard. (c) State acquisition of all land east of Logan between Washtenaw and Ottawa and its inclusion in the State Park concept will then assure that the western "approach to the Capital" is equally as attractive as the approach from the East. (d) While the authority of the State of Michigan supersedes that of the City of Lansing, it would be good public relations and good business practice to seek approval of the City Planning Commission or the City Council and/or the Mayor when planning construction in the City if such is not already the policy. Mission Statement TAX & FINANCIAL INCENTIVES COMMITTEE Mission: Assemble a single listing of all financial and tax incentives presently available in the demonstration area from state and local sources, and create an innovative approach to funding of new capital investment for incoming and existing private investors. TAX AND FINANCIAL INCENTIVES SUB -COMMITTEE COMMITTEE PREAMBLE The committee had extensive debate on "what or who" would constitute a "recipient" of an "incentive" since we all think in terms of business development. We concluded that the "recipient" should be whoever/whatever is desirable to be located in the target area. This could be a business, office, single-family residence, multi -family residence, parking facility, or whatever else good minds might develop. We believe it is'important that eligibility for whatever "incentive" is ultimately developed be broadly defined. Recommendations for "Incentives" (Not in Order of Priority) 1. Tax Abatement - Property Taxes 2. Property Rehabilitation Incentives - Owner or Tenant a. Tax Credits b. Lowered (Subsidized) Interst Rate c. Subsidized Loans - Guarantees d. Handicapped Customer Relief - Construction 3.- Collective Group Lender/Participation Loans•with State - Direct Participation and/or Guaranteed Loans - State to Consider a Secondary Collateral Position or Subsidized Rates 4. Barrier Free Regulation Changes (Handicapped Regulation Relief) 5. Rehabilitation Development - State/City to Maintain the Stimulus for Tax Exempt Bonds, Etc. through Support Via City/State Tax Credits AMES E . TRUMBELL Chairman r ./ Mission Statement INVENTORY SUB COMMITTEE Mission: Within the demonstration area, list the mix of business and attractions in downtown. By concensus, determine obvivous ommissions from that mix, providing the committee with information on: (1) Retail establishsments. (2) Food and beverage establishments. (3) Professional offices. (4) Residential space above the ground floor. (5) Business space above the ground level except in buildings of more than two stories. (6) Vacant store -fronts, ground floor. (7) Annual festivals and holiday observances which attract crowds of people. (8) Gaps in the business -mix necessary for the further success of downtown as a shopping center. STATE OF MICHIGAN LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUREAU JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Governor P.O. BOX 30225 Lansing, Michigan 48909 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DOUG ROSS, Director DATE: September 2, 1986 TO: Jim Jordan 8 All Subcommittee Chairs Downtown Business Development Committee Governor's Task Force FROM: Bob Terry, Inventory Subcommittee Chair 006 SUBJECT: Progress Report Within the demonstration area, list the- mix of business and attractions in downtown. By consensus, determine obvious omissions from that mix, providing the committee with information on: (1) Number of businesses by type (2) Upper story utilization by type (3) Vacancy square footage; ground floor and upper story (4) Gaps in the business/residential mix necessary for economic vitality in downtown area As of this point, the inventory committee has n.Qt put together an inventory of Lansing's businesses. We have started toward this end product with the following activities: Meeting with Alan Tubbs and Jim Foulds of Lansing Planning Department Commitment was made by the city for immediate steps to achieve a totally comprehensive market study of the entire Lansing downtown area. Bob Terry will provide city with a list of market experts, an example of market studies, cost of expert involvement in studies, and base data required. i 3 J Meeting with " Carolyn Bennett (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission) and Jim Foulds to establish data gathering strategy. - Carolyn committed to: 1. Traffic count data 2. Sales & Marketing data 3. Compilation and interpretation of data - Jim committed to: 1. Existing business inventory including business type, market segment, square footage of usable and vacant floor space, and code and infrastructure information. 2. Other market studies i.e. embassy 3.. Compilation and interpretation of data - Bob committed to: 1. Providing Carolyn & Jim with ACORN data and business compatability data. 2. Acquiring Market study format, indicators and process. 3. Acquiri.ng from Jim Jordan' retail historic trends for downtown and other computer programs on marketing. 4. Work with Sharon Kellogg on community survey. RECOMMENDATIONS LEE FUNDING within six months: * Collect Appropriate City/TCRPC/ market data state * Collect community Sharon/City/ survey data state RFP for expert City to interpret and package data Final package completed Expert/City City/State * .Establish downtown City/State organization (x) C of C/Lansing implement packages 2000 * Package downtown Lansing x/City/C of C/ City/State promotional package State * Training workshop on State downtown revitalization for X CstabIIsh 12 to 18 month City/State •action plan for X * Downtown facade study City/*SHPO application * Parking inventory: City Analysis and promo Within twelve months: * Business improvement X/City/State using market study * Business recruitment X/City/State * Downtown Design guide- X/City/State lines * Facade improvement program X * Major Sesquicentienniai X/City/State promotion State City/State City/ SHPO C i ty Public/Private City/State *SHPO - State historic preservation officer, Bureau of History, Department of State. Mission Statement COMMUNITY ATTITUDE SUB COMMITTEE Mission: Review prevalent attitudes and present a report which will allow the committee and/or state and local government to assess the following: (1) The attitude of shoppers toward coming downtown. (2) The attitude of investors toward downtown. (3) Reaction of shoppers and investors toward the appearance of downtown. (positive or negative) (4) Any problems which have been encountered by shoppers or investors in working with sales personnel, business owners or local government. (5) Steps which can be taken to make those attitudes totally positive and productive. Community Attitude Committee and the Inventory Committee The Keys To Success These two committees have not yet achieved their goal. They are still in process. The end result of their work will be a marketing program for downtown Lansing. Except for physical improvement projects and programs which can be carried out by the City and State to enhance the City's appearance, to create specific "tourist attractions" or to improve the movement of traffic, the true key to downtown Lansing's future success will be rooted in "MARKETING". The Inventory Committee will indeed "inventory" the City's business mix. The Communitx Attitude Committee will be a part of that inventory and market analysis process. They -will conduct a survey to determine the shoppers attitude toward coming downtown and toward shopping downtown. Then, both the inventory and the survey will be analyzed and interpreted by unbiased, outside professionals who will help us understand what we have, what our deficiencies may be and then guide us toward creation of a marketing program for downtown which will attract and service more new investors. In moving toward accomplishment, we applaud the work now being done by the Inventory Committee, the State Department of Commerce, the City Planning Department, and the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Mission Statement COMPETITION SUB COMMITTEE Mission: Analyze the potential for making downtown's assets more competitive with the convenience, comfort and attraction offered by the area's covered malls with particular attention given to the opening of space above the ground level for residential and business utilization: MISSION REPORT OF THE COMPETITION SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE To analyze the potential for making Downtown Lansing's assets more competitive with•the convenience, comfort and attraction offered by the area's covered malls with particular attention given to better utilization of second floor space. GOALS To develop a unique Downtown character designed to attract tourists and residents to the retail business district. To -make Downtown more "user-friendly" through improved vehicular and all season pedestrian accessibility. To encourage a unification of private sector effort through an ongoing organization of downtown business interests. To encourage a coordination between the private, city and state sectors in planning and development activities within the Downtown/Capital area. PROBLEM -OVERVIEW After a long hibernation, development in Downtown Lansing has exploded. However, the community and business perceptions about Downtown,, to a certain extent, have been slower to change. Many merchantslare reluctant to expend money for remodeling, expansion, or beautification, without evidence that the expenditure is cost -justified in terms of the current market. Since some improvements may be necessary to create a market appeal, a "cart and horse" problem is presented. Furthermore, the"battle-lines" among Downtown businessmen drawn in connection with the Lansing Transportation Center initiative remain to a certain extent. Some people in City Government are therefore reluctant to undertake major new initiatives for fear of repeating history. Other merchants have heard of or been personally involved in regulatory barriers to development and are skeptical of time commitments necessary to complete major improvements. Hence, merchant inertia is a concern. An .additional limitation to the Downtown area is that it has no real place to expand. It is bound by a major highway, General Motors, the Capitol Complex, Lansing Community College and, to a certain extent, the river. Among the other existent problems are concerns about the adequacy and convenience of parking, the negative influence of the weather on pedestrian traffic, and the visual unsightliness and inconsistency of the Downtown business district building exteriors. LONG TERM RECOMMENDATIONS 1. To develop an all season walking system connecting parking structures with the Downtown retail business district ,(Michigan - Capitol - Kalamazoo - Grand), and interconnecting business within the district. Such a walkway should be at the I ;second floor level at least occasionally to improve customer/traffic access at that level, and thereby improve landlord/tenant utilization of the square footage. While the -2- actual design and development of such a walkway will require time, and must be undertaken with consideration of: (1) non-interference with existing quality uses of second floors; (2) demonstrated cost effectiveness for any required private sector contributions; (3) security for adjacent businesses and safety for pedestrians; and (4) structual limitation of certain of the buildings. The success of Minneapolis and Cincinnati, for example, in revitalizing their Downtown by such walkways demonstrate the substantial merit of further development efforts. This system should interconnect with the pedway system now being developed for the hotels and convention center and should be consistent with an over-all Downtown design theme. We believe such a project would create a unique attraction for Downtown, while providing the all-weather protection needed to more effectively compete with the malls. 2. To encourage multi -story new construction to allow for greater square -foot growth Downtown. SHORT TERM RECOMMENDATIONS A. ACCESSIBILITY 1. Seek mass barrier free waiver for second floor usage in narrow buildings (e.g. 24 feet or less) coupled with package of financial incentives (limited time availability) to nevertheless comply with the barrier free regulations. 2. Seek immediate funding for a market/feasibility study on the walkway system through the City Block grant program. 3. Develop a "demonstration project" for Olde Towne -3- kiosk/boutique district of small shops on interconnected second floors. The suggested location is the 200 South Washington block, West side,•with an elevator provided by City and financial incentive to assist in making such a project more economically viable from the start for the landlord/prospective entrepreneurial operation. Such a second floor usage would•allow for smaller venture-capital type retail shops akin to Giardello Square in San Francisco or similar speciality shops. In addition, the City Attorney's office would assist in obtaining a mass waiver of barrier free requirements if development of individual second floor spaces were approached on a comprehensive basis. Some or all of the funding for this project may be available through the city block grant funds, but any request must be submitted by December to be considered. 4. Support and encourage the Department of Transportation to establish a rubber -tire trolley loop around the Capital Complex and the Washington Mall business district. The loop should at least include Kalamazoo from Capital to Grand, however. B. BEAUTIFICATION 1. Develop a design theme for the retail district in coordination with any Downtown/Capital area theme being considered by City/State planners and consistent with natural and historic appeal of the existing structures. Based on such a theme, a concerted .program for improving and coordinating the building exteriors and signage should be implemented with public financial' assistance and incentives. Such assistance/incentives should have -4- a limited availability (e.g. 3 years) to encourage prompt action. Whenever possible, preference should be given to Lansing businesses for the design and implementation of such a theme. C. PARKING 1. Expand parking capacity in the immediate Downtown area through expansion of existing ramps and/or construction of new facilities with pricing favorable to short-term parkers and a merchant parking voucher system available — 2. Encourage CATA, the City and State to create satellite parking lots near Downtown Lansing with shuttle service available at the beginning and end of the business day to State, City and private offices. If the economics were sufficient in terms of substantially lower monthly parking rates, and transportation nominal, fewer committed parking spots would be needed in the Downtown area, thereby making more room for shoppers, tourists and hotel guests. D. ORGANIZATIONAL 1.. Reactivate the Downtown Development Authority to assist in financial incentives, to provide a vehicle for "block grants", and to provide leverage where necessary (e.g. serving as a design review board). 2. Constitute a new organization comprised of Downtown merchants and business owners to assist in refining and implement- ing these recommendations on a cooperative and coordinated basis. 3. Encourage Lansing 2000 to assume supervisory responsibility over further development of these recommendations. -5- % The Subcommittee believes that the timing for a major project has never been better. City and State Governmental interest in Downtown revitalization is at its highest in some time, and therefore, City and State assistance in providing funds and satisfying the regulatory hurdles seems more available now than in previous years. Furthermore, the hotel developers have a current source of market data in terms of experiences in other cities and expectations for Lansing which would be quite helpful. It is believed that their cooperation and input would reduce the expenses associated with the study. Respectfull submitted, Ken th W. Beall, Chairperson Mr. Ralph S. Gregory President Alert Paging 230 N. Washington Square Suite 100-A Lansing, Michigan 48933 Mr. Leonard Melse Leonard Melse Associates Interior Design Studio 225 S. Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48933 Mr. George Petroff Petroff Realty Co., Inc. 351 Hollister Building Lansing, Michigan 48933 j Kenneth W. Beall Loomis, Ewert, Ederer, Parsley, Davis & Gotting 1200 Bank of Lansing Bldg. Lansing, Michigan 48933' -6- Mission Statement SIAIt PLANNING. SUB COMMITTEE Mission: Acquire and present to the full committee an outline of the state's master plan for the total -downtown complex. Provide reccomendations to the committee on those actions - which must be considered by the committee and by the state it we are to concentrate the state's growth -into an area which will provide the greatest beneficial impact to downtown in the future. Joseph Pandy, Jr. General Manager Telephone 517 487-4826 Mr. Jim Jordan Executive Director Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce 510 West Washtenaw - Civic Center Lansing, MI 48901 Dear Jim: Board of Water & Light • Post Office Box 13007 Lansing, Michigan 48901 September 8, .1986- Following are recommendations of the State & Local Planning Sub - Committee of the Downtowji Business Development Committee: . 1. The proposed rubber -tire trolley loop around the Capitol Complex should be routed to reach retail areas, including Kalamazoo from Capitol Avenue to Grand Avenue as an east -west connector. 2. Development of the downtown area should include plans for residential area, with attendant issues of security, and access to facilities. 3. A market analysis needs to be conducted to determine potential needs to be filled by retailers. r 4. City of Lansing plans contemplate significant additional parking; development of same is essential to the downtown. 5. State and City planners should also be mindful of the major role of Lansing Community College (LCC) and should interface with LCC plans; this may lead to financial alternatives for plan implementa- tion. 6. The State and City plans contemplate very significant improvements; the ability to secure the financial resources necessary to accomplish these plans will be a major effort. Please advise if any further information is desired. Very trul yours, Joseph Pandy, Jr. General Manager 123 W. Ottawa - Telephone 517 487-1885 Initial Charge to the Committee The following pages titled "Thought Starters" were used in giving the Downtown Business Development Committee it's initial charge of responsibility at the committee's first meeting, May 20th, 1986. THOUGHT STARTERS for the Downtown Business Development Committee of the GOVERNOR'S CAPITAL CITY REVITALIZATION TASK FORCE Meeting May 20, 1986 - 3:00 pm State Transportation Building 4th Floor Commissioners Board Room MISSION STATEMENT To develop a revitalization package for downtown Lansing that will result in an improved business mix, increased investor confidence and a strong, stable role for the downtown as a major component of the region's economic health. TIME ELEMENT Report to Governor's Task Force Chair, Robert Mitchell, by September 15th. THE COMMITTEE Broadly representative of the retail, service, professional, governmental, investor/owner, tenant, banking and management components. Continued ... Page Two Downtown Business Development Committee "THOUGHT STARTERS" in preparation for the May 20th meeting. A wide variety of subjects are available for this committee. These might include: PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF THE DOWNTOWN GENERAL "COMMUNITY ATTITUDE" INCENTIVES FOR NEW INVESTORS AND PRESENT BUSINESS PARKING AND TRAFFIC INVENTORY OF WHERE WE ARE NOW AND WHAT "GAPS" WE HAVE SHOPPERS IMAGE OR IMPRESSION OF DOWNTOWN AS A SHOPPING CENTER ACCESSABIBLITY OF DOWNTOWN A LA MINNEAPOLIS & CINCINNATTI AND THE PRODUCTIVE USE OF SECOND FLOOR SPACE IN DOWNTOWN FUTURE PLANS OF STATE GOVERNMENT However, "time" and "practicality" are extremely important and it will be very difficult if not impossible to deal with all of these subjects. In this document I propose.to you that certain "paths" be defined in order that we focus on those topics which you may deem most important. If you have other thoughts please be ready to voice your views and be ready to WORK on those topics. Continued ... Page Three Downtown Business Development Committee THOUGHT STARTERS - CONTINUED (1) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF THE DOWNTOWN THE SHOPPERS, TOURISTS AND CONVENTIONEERS IMAGE OR IMPRESSION OF DOWNTOWN AS A SHOPPING CENTER ... How does downtown's appearance compare with that of other cities ? ... Does the appearance make people WANT to come downtown ? or be glad they did ? ... Does the appearance of downtown make us competitive with other convention cities ? ... What is downtown's physical condition ? ... are the storefronts and window displays attractive ? (2) GENERAL "COMMUNITY ATTITUDE" ... define attitude in a variety of ways (a) downtown sales people (toward customers) (b) downtown owners (toward incoming businesses/investors) (c) eagerness of The City to attract and help good investment prospects. The "bend -over -backwards" philosophy of saying "we'll do ANYTHING to get YOU here and keep you". (d) are there any specific regulations which our City Representatives or our'business people believe might be changed to make downtown more attractive to investors ? Continued ... Page Four Downtown Business Development Committee (3) INCENTIVES FOR NEW INVESTORS AND PRESENT BUSINESS QUESTION ... are there any "incentives" other than MARKET which will attract new investors to locate downtown aside from those which already exist ? ... or will help existing firms in their operation or expansion ? NEED ... Describe for our own knowledge incentives ALREADY available. DEVELOP ... State Loan Guarantee program to supplement existing incentives. (4) PARKING AND TRAFFIC ... One way streets ... Parking Mall. Open or Closed ? NOTE: While these topics are legitimate subjects of concern, they must not TOTALLY occupy the time of this committee because they are being addressed by another of the Governor's Committees. Other questions must also be given consideration. (5) INVENTORY OF WHERE WE ARE NOW AND WHAT "GAPS" WE HAVE what is the downtown today ? ... what is our "inventory" ? what is the "business mix" in downtown NOW ?? ... what "gaps" does the city have in its mix ? ... what programs presently attract people (sale -promotion) (art, ethnic, holiday observances ? Continued ... If Page Five Downtown Business Development Committee THOUGHT STARTERS.- CONTINUED (6) SHOPPERS IMAGE/IMPRESSION OF DOWNTOWN AS A SHOPPING CENTER QUESTION ... is it worth the time, effort and money to do a "survey" of shoppers attitudes ? OR ... do you believe that shoppers will respond positively once the other factors are resolved ? (7) ACCESSABIBLITY OF DOWNTOWN A LA MINNEAPOLIS & CINCINNATTI AND THE PRODUCTIVE USE OF SECOND FLOOR SPACE IN DOWNTOWN ... closed suburban malls, heated and sheltered in the winter and cooled in the summer present tremendous competition to downtowns throrughout the nation. QULS1ION ... after considering the earlier point of "appearance" then consider the question of"ACCESSIBILITY" ... this could have the sub -title "EASE OF MOVEMENT" within downtown. ie: are aerial pedways a practical addition to our downtown. They could help accomplish three things: (a) ease of shopper movement regardless of weather. (b) open 2nd floor retail space without additional construction. (c) open 2nd floors for residential development. NEED ... assessment of cost and practicality on pedways. Restrictions which bar/restrict the use of 2nd floor for residential. Continued ... Page Six Downtown Business Development Committee THOUGHT STARTERS - CONTINUED (8) FUTURE PLANS OF STATE GOVERNMENT As we consider this MARKET which served by, or composed of down- town Lansing, a number of questions present themselves: Question ... What is the state's master plan,for its own growth and development ? Question ... Does the State foresee bringing secondary complex people downtown at any time in the future ? Question ... What are the State's plans for the future. deployment of state employees ... will you continue to move people into the South Pennsylvania complex, away from the central city ? Question ... what is the tourism potential of the state complex and how may the city be involved with and then capitalize on that potential ? Comment Much of the driving force behind downtown business and downtown development comes from State Government, its payroll and the overall plan for development of the downtown state complex and they are sensitive to their impact on the city. If the state's own master plan for development is built around an east/west line, then we must consider asking that they keep future growth tightly contained around the central business district. If they continue their westward development they may, in effect, create a major office and commercial sprawl within the very city they are trying to help. If they do not plan to continue their westward growth, then perhaps they can and will erase that phase of the master plan from their books so that the community not face that possibility in the future. END ... Ir FISHERIES ENHANUMENT SUSCOi IMITTEE - Findings and Recommendations - State Capitol Revitalization Task Force September 1986 Executive Summary Governor James J. Blanchard formed a State Capitol Revitalization Task Force early in 1986, to establish a course of action for revitalizing Lansing. The Task Force, which includes public and private interests, created subcommittees to provide recommendations for revitalizing Michigan's Capitol City. A Fisheries Enhancement Subcommittee, chaired by Department of Natural Resources Deputy Director William G. Turney, was formed with a mission to identify ways to develop and_. promote._existing and potential fishing opportunities within the greater Lanstng.drea. The findings of the Subcommittee,are contained in the following pages. Broadly speaking, the subcommittee reached three conclusions: * Lansing's water resources offer untapped opportunities for a quality fishery. Those water resources should be fully developed and promoted for public fishing opportunities. * People need to be informed of Lansing area fishing opportunities through a public information program. * Several innovative fishery -based developments could serve as major Lansing attractions. The State Capitol Revitalization Task Force should incorporate an aquarium, a fisheries museum, and person -made fish ponds in Lansing revitalization plans. -i- T A 3 L E' 0 F C O N T E N T S Subcommittee Composition and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Subcommittee Composition and Goals The Fisheries Enhancement Subcommittee of the State Capitol Revitalization Task Force consisted of eleven individuals representing public and private interests. The subcommittees' goals were: * To promote fish and -fishing -as a focus for the State Capitol Revitalization Project. * To develop information on existing fisheries and fishing opportunities in the State Capitol project area. * To develop information on fish oriented projects of a long range nature that have potential for incorporation in the State Capitol Revitalization Project. Subcommittee members include: Jim Bedford Toxic Substances Control Commission Bill Bishoff Fisherman's Corner William Darr Lansing Community College Tim Ervin, Director Michigan Youth Corps and Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps Doug Finley, Director Lansing Parks and Recreation Department Fled Fogle Fisheries Division Department of Natural Resources -1- Niles Kevern Chairperson, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Michigan State University Bob Laraway Downtown Neighborhood Association Suzanne Tuck Public Member Dan Tucker Wildlife Division, Department of Natural Resources William G. Turney (Chair) Deputy Director Department of Natural Resources Observations No report on Lansing's fishing opportunities would be complete without reflecting what the people of our Capitol City think about their fishery. On August 5, 1986, members of the Michigan Youth Corps surveyed a number of people fishing on the Grand River between Moores Park and the North Lansing Dam. Questions asked included: --How often do you fish in Lansing? --Where do you usually fish? --What do you usually catch? --Do you eat the fish you catch and, if so, how do they taste? --What do you think should be done to improve fishing in Lansing? Responses to this modest survey revealed the following: * Some Lansing residents fish the Grand River virtually every day during spring, summer, and fall. * Most of those who fish consume their catch and report the taste to be satisfactory. * The most sought after species appear to be bass (both largemouth and smallmouth), pike, walleye, panfish, and carp. * Respondents felt there should be improved stocking of rivers and lakes in Lansing. * Respondents urge that the river be cleaned on an on -going basis (a reported need for removal of such things as car doors, bicycles, shopping carts, and general debris). Several of those questioned urged that additional trash cans be placed along the river, especially between Kalamazoo Street and the arenke Fish Ladder. * In general, respondents seemed to have good luck fishing on the Grand River (the most substantial catch witnessed during the survey period was a 20 inch smallmouth bass). -3- Findings GOAL: TO PROMOTE FISH AND FISHING AS A FOCUS FOR THE STATE CAPITOL REVITALIZATION PROJECT. ` Objective: To encourage and support the development of Lake Delta as an example of a person -made fish pond. There has been on -going dialogue involving the Board of Water and Light and public and private interests concerning the availability of a 40-acre Board -owned reservoir for public fishing opportunities. The pond is located on the Board's Erickson Plant complex, west of Lansing. A Department of Natural Resources (DNR) survey showed good populations of perch, sunfish, and bullheads. A conceptual plan for public access to the pond -- the second largest body of water in Ingham County -- has been prepared by the DNR's Fisheries Division. Delta Township and the Board are working toward an agreement to manage the pond for public fishing opportunities. As proposed, the DNR would develop the fishery and access facilities, with Delta Township assuming maintenance and enforcement responsibilities. Artinn Plan What: When agreement is reached between the Lansing Board of Water and Light and Delta Township on using the reservoir for public fishing, the DNR will assist the Township in development by constructing an access road and gate -off Canal Road, a security fence around the lake, a parking lot and access ramps to the dyke. Who: DNR Fisheries Division will be responsible for completing this project and Ned Fogle will track progress. When: The project will start in the fall of 1986 and be completed by spring of 1987. Cost: Access site development is expected to cost about $35,000. The funds will come from DNR Fisheries accounts. -4- GOAL: TO DEVELOP INFORMATION ON EXISTING FISHERIES AIND FISHING OPPOR- TUNITIES IN THE STATE CAPITOL PROJECT AREA AND ENVIRONS. Objective: To develop information on fishing opportunities which can be offered for public distribution. Salmon, trout, wail`eye,'bass, pike, panfish, and catfish -- all are available to anglers in the Lansing area. With increased plantings of desirable fish species, fishing opportunities in the City of Lansing will continue to grow. There is a general perception, however, that few in Lansing are aware of fishing opportunities which exist in their own backyards. Action Plan What: A brochure showing local fishing opportunities is in final stages of production and will be printed by November 1936. Twenty thousand copies will be available for distribution to: Task Force committee members, local newspapers and magazines, local downtown businesses, and area fishing goods businesses (quantity distribution). Who: Tim Ervin and Bill Turney. When: The brochures will be available in November 1936. Consultation will occur with appropriate Task Force persons regarding the timing of public distribution. Cost: No additional funds are needed for this project. -5- GOAL: TO DEVELOP INFORMATION ON FISH ORIENTED PROJECTS OF A LONG RANGE NATURE THAT HAS POTENTIAL•FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE STATE CAPITOL REVITALIZATION PROJECT. Objective: Prepare a list of potential actions which would enhance the existing fishery and/or fishing opportunities. Recommendations: *Improve public access to expand fishing opportunities. Expanded public access is particularly needed along the Red Cedar River and Sycamore Creek and at Jones Lake. *Evaluate fish population in Jones and Fidelity lakesl for reclamation and/or fish stocking purposes. *Stock predator species in Lake Delta (if agreement is reached with the Board of Water and Light to provide public access). *Resume stocking the Grand River in Lansing with steelhead utilizing larger smolts. *Resume stocking chinook salmon in the Grand River in Lansing. *Reduce adverse impacts of water level manipulation on spawning fish in the Grand and Red Cedar rivers. *Improve water quality. Reduce adverse impacts of: raw sewage bypasses and overflows, elevation of water temperature by power.plant cooling water, and chlorine residuals. *Work with Michigan State University officials to implement a plan that would encourage public access to fishing in the Red Cedar River on campus. 1 Fidelity Lake is located in Crego Park on Lansing's south side. At this writing, Crego Park has been closed to the public due to a chemical contamination problem. When the chenical clean up program is completed, it is strongly recommended that the fishery in Fidelity Lake be given a high priority for investigation and development. This lake appears. to have outstanding potential for a quality fishery. Action Plan What: Who: When: Cost: The eight recommendations made by the committee involve follow -up -action by specific state or I-ocal agencies. Letters will be sent to the appropriate entity offering --the recommendatfon with suggestions on how it might be implemented. Bill Turney will be responsible for development of this correspondence. Letters will be nailed by November 1, 1986 Not applicable. -7- GOAL: DEVELOP INFORMATION ON FISH ORIENTED PROJECTS OF A LONG RANGE NATURE THAT HAVE POTENTIAL FOR INCORPORATION IN THE STATE CAPITOL REVITALIZATION PROJECT: Objective: Prepare conceptual design, cost, and operation information for a State Aquarium. ` The subcommittee investigated the feasibility and merits of establishing a Capitol City Aquarium by requesting information from thirty aquariums in North America. We received annual reports, design plans, news articles, advice and offers for assistance. This research revealed: 1. The majority of the aquariums in North America are state/municipally owned and operated by a non-profit corporation designed solely for aquarium management. 2. The cost of construction ranged from $6 to $25 million. Average building time is three years, with additions planned in phases. 3. Annual attendance ranges up to 1.2 million visitors with 200,000-600,000 for mid -sized cities. 4.. The operating budget of most are 50 to 70 percent funded by general admissions. The remaining revenue comes from sources such as group discount admissions, gift shop and concessions, society memberships, corporate and private donations, grants, and educational programs. 5. They employ approximately 100-200 persons and usually have large volunteer support. In the past ten years, freshwater/marine aquariums have been the focal point of many urban revitalization projects (see Wall Street Journal article in Appendix A). It is difficult to quantify the economic benefits of an aquarium. John H. Prescott, Executive Director of the New England Aquarium, wrote that "They calculated an aquarium that cost $23 million to build attracts 1.2 million visitors per year, has an earned revenue base of approximately $7 million and expenses of $7 million, also generates $80 million of ancillary benefits for the city." Toutists visiting Lansing will contribute to the city through lodging, meals, parking, transportation, and entertainment. Lansing is an appropriate aquariums location for two reasons. First, the city is located in the center of the state, and three of the six major Michigan highway routes (I-69, M-27 and I-96) converge on Lansing. Because of this geographic location, the Lansing aquarium can draw from a market of 4.95 million potential Michigan visitors within a two hour drive. (The population figures are based on the 1980 census and do not include the neighboring border cities of South Bend, Indiana and Toledo, Ohio also within two hours.) Second, the Lansing aquarium would be a unique attraction. It will be the most modern year-round aquarium in the Midwest and would be comparable only to marine coast aquariums. The other aquariums found in the Midwest are either very small (i.e., Toledo Zoo) or old and outdated (i.e., Belle Isle and John G. Shedd Aquariums). Sea World of Ohio is not a year-round operations. The aquarium could become a major addition and enhance the already established museum/entertainment business in Lansing. The museum areas of Lansing (i.e., Michigan Historical Museum, the planned Yes! M!ch!gan Center, Impression 5, R.E. Olds, Potter Park Zoo) could be linked with the educational tours of the State Capitol, the impressive amateur/professional theaters, the performances at the Wharton Center, sporting events at Michigan State University and the numerous art galleries through a convention/visitors guide and a hotel/city shuttle bus system. Combined, these facilities will give Lansing area residents and visitors exciting places to visit, stay, and return. The aquarium project meets the goals of the State Capitol Revitalization Task Force. First, the aquarium provides a broad range of educational opportunities for Lansing area residents and visitors. Second, it could be designed as a "one of a kind" in the Midwest. Finally, it would serve as a major tourist attraction to boost commercial activity. Action Plan What: The information has been developed and is available for use by the entire Task Force and others who may have an interest. Letters will be sent to Task Force Chair Mitchell and to the Capitol State Park Subcommittee urging adoption of the recommendation to incorporate a State Aquarium in the overall revitalization plan. Who: Bill Turney will prepare and send the letters. When: Incorporation of the State Aquarium into the Capitol State Park design should be done now. Actual construction could be years into the future. Cost: The actual construction cost could be in the $20-$30 million range. No first year costs are anticipated. ' ' -9- CO&C,*��- e DEs1GN o� �-iSy-ovr' po)DS 1=a2 GAW F4 ZAAISII116 A water body for fishing will tit in in almost any place there is open space not being utilized. Most people picture a pond as a rectangle or saucer -shaped. However, a fish -out pond can be any shape and actually a ribbon -shaped pond is most ideal for fishing. The accompanying figure depicts how a pond could be constructed In a neighborhood park that perhaps seem- ingly to some would not have room for a pond. The heavy dotted line outlines where a pond could be constructed without moving one tree.- The skating pond has been Incorporated into the pond. Now the community can have both a nice warm -weather fishing pond and a much Improved skating pond. A water supply may be a stream, springs or a municipal water supply r So C ICC FICc J . o � I pry.M. ON ' �ttT�a06n P ..•s 1 • �T '• `DTI•._-- :�. wTf 1 MONO $A%L DIAMOND ♦/ '00,/10001 / /0/ . (T) = T2EE cSN4�dS r `` _ _ 90vtioAa% aF FesN-our Pomp GOAL: DEVELOP INFORMATION ON FISH ORIENTED PROJECTS OF A LONG RANGE NATURE THAT HAVE POTENTIAL FOR INCORPORATION IN THE STATE CAPITOL REVITALIZATION PROJECT. Objective: Prepare generalized design and operation parameters for person -made fish ponds. Person -made fish ponds and streams have an outstanding track record of successfully providing fishing and educational opportunities for youth and others. These artifically constructed resources can be readily developed to complement other urban facilities. It is recommended that fish out ponds and manmade streams to enhance fishing opportunities be incorporated within the overall design of Lansing's revitalization utilizing some or all of the design features shown in Figures 1 through 6. Figues 1-3 offer a concept and design of fish out ponds for Greater Lansing. Figures 4 and 5 provide a concept and design of a person -made stream for Lansing's downtown Washington Street Parkway. Figure 6 is an innovative, preliminary design of a pond configuration identical to the formation of the Great Lakes.. This structure could be developed west of the Capitol complex. Action Plan -- Not applicable. Objective has been achieved. -11- Figure 2 cosiceprs Foe F154-ovi- 40 10 T� is v fav 10 p -LES I &A) # -1 VAcAAor 1A^,z C S tsumt* (. 'atoc") wo r of . t*a cA porac- ,f-O"P(,r,X COUCLO P&OVIOCZ AAA IOCAL, S"W(S,) r-Oft -FrA -our P*A.,Os. -TVIS ASOUS vest&v ca"spr m Yacm -H,D&d 10641- -MA.V A I?DUWO 02 We-*r4.v&jvff C-Md U.SU4L, I 06A) POA4 120e_ 5dVffJZAL ?.f.2A$*Af.S: Sr 9kompOt6s, A Si6m#FiCAA1r I'm 5Af4z1jN6C9.om Aot Home Aortotas); Att &MllolL .C*4j BE UACA 90 TO FISA (MG r so IAA IECUMo oc 4mO SuCA A J>SSI" IS Hod.3w, �TU*io -0 -12- DES 160%) �z Figure 3 r.+^r IF t SMALL AMPI o7W MATffrL. Fort FISH /A.& ZSMOS OK. Tv�,2uCT�Orr - . MA-"r'1" M Cow NAvc X4J 4MP4rr:.4 U 4-M JZ. _MSSS AZZ loveAL. Foit- "PvMvb oAj r tS1411v& DEMoS o f, t O 2 CoN o & crpv4p F&i s j i t o&o, I4o w 'Ta ~ C LASS as. -13- Figure 4 a�1. OjEr srzEAH-- ):arz L4Ns��y�5 ZbwivroWN G✓ASHiNOVti SrWEE7- _ t� . CONGFi�1�_a b (.�, Lr# iNG i MJ 6'17Rg07' /,Of/ DOuI,UTOt�J L4NSiA,6 GJ ItQ irs M,4,t &ccor t'S 14w /001- Pt.4CF6 -AD POS161-1 AV-fl /,dU-I'XcZ-� 14 eoo 4-w4-f E,Q —AC . N1 cc, 7UOv&4.A-6EtlCU of /�006, LOGS; 6,040,9c. A&LO (, OUW 11OVtpI-55 tD64C. 4ABt74T' Foe �JJ'h�. ,4� vAr1G �t/N � B,��k % w � lip .�Rv/L/r L/�✓ice Gc.�D�G� $F L�vJ�Pr� To Cot��L� n•-�wr, .. . Sair-S dc 270" UtiG 604trW4YS' AAoD 3ZI066-5 CODvGP P62mI'r Coa0 I)I C-W IN 6 , POD 210C16 54C&O ,C�ios�s cv a u Lo Pcod,0E 7LO' Pa814 ()tA �,uF -;poi✓ O,v 73e &W4FFf,+ 14tid /IT 11,1N s Be T,A_,i '. _ Fioa&rA//y -14- At owsF � Figure 5 3gtpGz OAD BOO LOlb ,„� :� •_ �:.�--" - � �1L1 r S r`i IdiCr4��Y _ _ -15- Figure 6 0 L -16- GOAL: DEVELOP INFORMATION ON FISH ORIENTED PROJECTS OF A LONG RANGE NATURE THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR INCORPORATION IN THE STATE CAPITOL REVITALIZATION PROJECT. Objectives: Develop a concept paper on a State Fisheries Museum to display unique fishing/fisheries contributions from within Michigan. Develop information on procurement and display opportunities for trophy fish mounts. As part of Lansi,ng's revitalization, consideration should be.given to exhibiting one of Michigan's oldest, most traditional, and enjoyable recreational forms -- sport fishing. This could be done through exhibits of fish mounts, tackle development, unique fishing products, and artifacts. Artinn Plan What: The State Capitol Revitalization Task Force will be urged to work with the Department of Natural Resources, the Office of the Michigan Sesquicentennial, and the Product Promotion Office in Department of Commerce to pursue the museum/exhibit concept. Who: Ted Fogle, Fisheries Division, DNR will be responsible for the following: 1. Secure fish mounts from the University of Michigan Museum, with other mounts completed by private contractors. 2. Contact Rebel Baits in Ft. Smith, Arkansas, and the Shakespeare Company to acquire representative products for display. 3. Contact the Tackle Manufacturers' Association to'obtain samples of Michigan -made products for display. 4. Work with the Michigan History Bureau to attempt to develop a conceptual layout of the fisheries display. 5. Contact Lake Michigan Community College to attempt to obtain the collection of Heddon Company sport fishing tackle. Jim Bedford will contact groups such as Trout Unlimited, the Issac Walton League, the Michigan United Conservation Clubs and others to obtain unusual fishing -artifacts. Bill Bishoff will contact other tackle manufacturers to receive donations of tackle unique to Michigan. When: Ongoing. Cost: No immediate funding needed. -17- APPENDIX A Aquarium Article WALL STREET JOURNAL APPENDIX A SAN FRANCISCO, CA. D. 410,348 Forget BigCo'n''vention. Halls; Now Cities SeeAquar0 as Urban Renovation Tools _ By JOANN S. LUMIN StW/JReportero177z Wm.zSrnswrJounNAL Here's a plan to revive badly depressed Camden, N.J.: First, offer Philadelphians a ferryboat. ride across the Delaware River to Cam- den. Then, walk them along an artificial stream and into a S20-million aquarium. They would reachh-the exhibits, including a staged sea storm, by passing classy bod- tiques and a decorative whirlpool. A whala- shaped clock would spout on the hour. A fishy idea? Camden doesn't think so; it has already secured tentative financing for the project's construction. Lured by tourist dollars, about 30 American cities are planning or building large aquariums. Construction of just 20 of them would dou- ble the number of professionally run aquariums in the country. • Cities long to duplicate the phenomenal success of the recently -opened waterfront aquariums in Baltimore and Monterey, Calif.; during their first year of operation, each drew more than double the number of -yisitors anticipated. Their popularity swelled the coffers of nearby shops, restau- rants and hotels. "Aquariums are one of the great growth industries in America," says William Don- aldson, the head of Philadelphia's zoo and an adviser to the Camden project. "Every- body is interested in aquariums," he says, because of "the urban renewal that goes on around them." Urban Renewers Civic leaders have begun to realize that all "living museums" —aquariums, zoos and botanical gardens —can help cure an ailing local economy. Indianapolis, for in- stance, broke ground this fall on a $37.5 million zoo three blocks from its downtown convention center. The new zoo is expected to draw a million visitors a year, four times more than an old, less centrally -lo- cated one did. Yet aquariums are the biggest hits, not only because of the public's fascination with aquatic life, but also because cities want to have year-round, compact down- town attractions. As domed sports stadi- ums and convention centers were to the last two decades, aquariums are "the next generation of civic -booster projects," says Robert McNulty, president of Partners for Livable Places, a Washington, D.C., urban - issues clearinghouse. An aquarium, he says, gives a city "something more color- ful to put on the cover of a phone book than a new waste -treatment facility." Aquariums are particularly effective in the revitalization of decayed or little -used waterfronts, especially when the plans also -call for glittery retail centers, dubbed "fes- tival- markets." Such projects, already op- -Orating in Baltimore and Boston, are envi- sioned by Camden; Toronto; Chattanooga, -Tenn.; New Orleans; Portland, Maine; and Erie, Pa. Cleveland plans to build a $25 million lakefront aquarium —and to bring Lake Erie closer tq downtown Cleveland, the state of Ohio will begin a lakefill dredg- ing effort next Junelthat will move the wa- terline several blo�ks inland. Baltimore's Aqu um Baltimore's Nati nal Aqua— a soar- ing glass edifice th t opened in 1981 along the city's renovate4 Inner Harbor, is the example other citie3 look to. It has become A AQU�►RIUM, says one co ultant, gives a city `something more colorful to put on the cover of a phone book than a new waste -treatment facility! Maryland's major tourist attraction, con- tributing $88 million to the state economy in 1984. Margaret Mohrey typifies the aquari- um's visitors. One Wednesday earlier this month, the 58-year-old Bethlehem, Pa., housewife and her steelworker husband paid $29.50 apiece for an all -day bus trip to Baltimore. "I'd say this is tops," she ex- claims after viewing some of ,the exhibit's 4,000 marine specimens, many of which are swimming behind 13-foot-high windows in a re-created coral reef. She turns to an aquarium staffer and asks, "Where can we get some good seafood to eat?" In California, the 2.4 million people who toured the newly opened Monterey Bay Aquarium this year helped the restaurants on nearby Fisherman's Wharf eliminate their usual winter slump. Since nearly two million tourists are expected to stay over- night in Monterey this year, up from 1.5 million in 1984, the aquarium has also sparked a local hotel -construction boom. Some of the cities now contemplating aquariums may not be able to find the money for them, however. Monterey was fortunate because computer magnate Da- vid Packard contributed SO million to fi- nance the facility there. But even the hugely successful National Aquarium will be pressed to secure the $20 million it wants to enlarge its complex. Crowds and Ulcers Last year, St. Petersburg, Fla., voters rejected a $10 million municipal bond needed for a waterfront development that includes an aquarium. Critics said the project would overcrowd its downtown lo- cation. Indeed, over -popularity has proven a problem for some aquariums. When Monterey's aquarium opened, massive traffic jams ensued. An adjacent 110-space parking lot built by the city proved "woe- fully inadequate," recalls Carl Anderson, public facilities director. The city recently began a shuttle -bus system to ferry visi- tors from downtown parking garages. In Baltimore, the needs of some of the aquarium's sea creatures have clashed with the aquarium's popularity. At first, the facility was rented almost every'day until midnight for convention cocktail par- ties. Waterfowl and all kinds of fish —ex- cept the sharks —showed stress from the excessive noise and light. They developed infections, didn't mate and acted lethargic. Several of the dolphins got ulcers, one died and finally all had to be moved to another facility in Florida. Since then, the aquar= ium has cut back on its night bookings. "You can't do all the marketing and hard sell that you want," says Robert Jen- kins, director of operations and husbandry.. Yet, to meet public. demand and maintain high attendance, the National Aquarium this week began exhibiting its first pair of Canadian beluga whales —despite protests from animal -rights advocates. Aquariums such as Baltimore's "don't have the facilities to house a whale. But they are doing so because it will bring the public in," argues Jeanne Roush, captive - wildlife program director for the Humane Society of the U.S. She thinks the whales won't fare any better than the dolphins did. "This isn't an optimum facility" for ei- ther marine mammal, concedes Nicholas Brown, the aquarium's executive director. But that's why the S20-million expansion is important, he says, adding, "People want to see dolphins and whales." -19- TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE CAPITAL CITY REVITALIZATION TASK FORCE Findings September 15, 1986 T•A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Heading page 1. Executive Summary, Major Recommendations . . . . . . 1 2. Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Transportation Subcommittee Membership List . . . . . 11 4. Issue Team Report Listings . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Issue Team Reports - Capitol Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - Pedestrian Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - Shuttle Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 - Traffic Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 E X E C U T I V E S.U'M N A R Y The mission of the Transportation Subcommittee is to develop and/or improve pedestrian and vehicular movement to and through the Capitol Complex and Lansing's central business district. The goals established to accomplish this mission include the following: The first step in accomplishing this mission was to develop a method to. evaluate the access and circulation problems in and around the downtown area. With this ability to quickly evaluate traffic problems, the Capitol Loop concept can be monitored to identify inefficiencies that may arise from changing development and movement patterns. Adequate parking convenient to improved pedestrian facilities and downtown shuttle bus stations will -also be developed. A summary of the Transportation Subcommittee's major recommendations for the downtown Lansing revitalization follow. These major subcommittee recommendations were developed by the subcommittee's Steering Team ( the subcommittee chair plus the issue team chairs), based'onthe *issue team reports. As such, differences may exist between the issue team reports and the following subcommittee major recommendations. The reports of the five issue teams are included with more detailed descriptions of the ideas considered during our study. Final recommendations depend on review and consideration of the final recommendations of the other subcommittees. 1. There needs to be ongoing traffic studies. These studies will assure that the major routes into the area provide adequate service, have a minimum of congestion, and serve major activity centers with convenient access to parking for visitors, workers, and tourists. System modifications should assure adequate pedestrian and bicycle access to adjacent neighborhoods but discourage through traffic movements. The Traffic Issue Team should be retained. to address transportation -related issues in the revitalization area for the foreseeable future. 2. A Capitol Loop is to be developed and given a distinctive name. Possibly, a contest could be organized to name this Loop. The preferred recommendation is 'to close Allegan Street to through traffic and use Washtenaw and Ottawa Streets as the east/west one-way pair. If this is not feasible, then the alternative would be Ottawa and Allegan Streets. The complete Loop would consist of: Logan Street from I-496 northbound to Washtenaw/Ottawa Streets (Washtenaw one-way eastbound, and Ottawa one-way westbound); Grand Avenue one-way northbound, to connect Ottawa and Washtenaw Streets to Michigan Avenue, eastbound to the Cedar/Larch one-way pair, south to I-496. The final design of Logan Street will be worked out after other recommendations have been finalized. Z 3. A parking facilities and services review and coordination board should be established before January 1987. The board •will facilitate the integration of existing and planned parking facilities into a coherent parking resource to serve both city and state needs. All existing surface and street parking on and within the Loop should ultimately be removed or replaced. New facilities should be covered (either underground or ramps), attended (to ensure a safe, secure environment), and designed to be pleasant, bright, and accessible. Bicycle storage will be provided at all facilities. These parking areas will be considered as multi -use (i.e., make the State'Capitol Complex parking ramp upper and lower levels available for public parking evenings and weekends). 4. The Civic Center should be designated as a visitor/service f acility. A "service mall" concept for state government offices should be located in the Yes M!ch!gan Center. On - site underground parking will be developed that will accommodate* various'recreational-type vehicles. Off -site storage for school buses will also be provided. 5. Develop a shuttle bus system. All new facilities should support the shuttle concept and the overall circulation system. The shuttle route should accommodate the kev user groups (tourists, downtown/Capitol Complex workers, and 3 conventioneers). The style of the shuttle will be unique in nature as well as adaptable to changing conditions. The route signing and stops will be different so that they will be easily distinguishable from other transit services. The entire shuttle system will be designed so that it can be easily modified to accommodate future new functions and locations. 6. A Pedestrian and non -motorized plan, for the Capitol Complex and downtown Lansing area, should be developed in cooperation with state government and the City of Lansing. Pedestrian needs in the downtown/Capitol Complex area must be monitored to adapt the pedestrian network to meet identified needs. This network should be used to determine locations for snow removal, maintenance, and capital investments for pedestrian uses. A guidelines manual 'will assist in 'determining the location and type of pedestrian facilities and services needed. Color -coded, self -guided tour maps will be developed. Location maps and outside directories should be established, which would be color - coded and clearly legible. Coordination between walkways. and activity centers will be ensured. 7. Development of an all -season walkway system should be a priority consideration for both the Capitol Complex and downtown. The Michigan climate reduces the effective use of the complex and downtown attractions during a significant �ii part of the year. Metropolitan areas suc.h as Toronto, Montreal, Cincinnati, and Minneapolis have confronted the same problem through development of all -season pedestrian walkways. This approach has the potential of providing a year-round attraction for Lansing. 8. Other Transportation Recommendations: There should be an early resolution to the issues of the Logan Street corridor, north of Ottawa. A review should be undertaken of the one-way street system, as it impacts neighborhoods in the downtown area. The focus would be on minimizing through traffic in residential neighborhoods. This should be accomplished either by the Traffic Issue Team or by a consultant. Evaluate the land use and traffic operations of a reconfigured Cedar/Larch system, north of Michigan Avenue. This could be a secondary, northern loop. Investigate the feasibility of establishing Shiawassee Street, between Capitol Avenue and Seymour Street as a new inter -modal transportation terminal/CATA staging area. 9. Non -Transportation Recommendations: Bury all utilities. Coordinate signage, lighting, and streetscape design. Restore the existing Capitol. Maintain as a focal S point. Establish a visual review board for the revitalization area. Establish a focal point at the west end (Logan Street) of the Capitol Complex. Convert the Ferris parking lot back to parkland/open space, and combine with the existing park. Encourage the state to schedule meetings downtown to take advantage of the new hotel/convention facilities. Additional business for downtown restaurants, shops, etc. would occur. More' effectively utilize the City Market facility. Expand to either daily usage, or multi -usage. 1 A C T I O N P L A N Recommendation 1: What is to be done: Ongoing traffic studies. Who is to do it: The Traffic Issue Team and possibly with consultant support.. When is it -to be done: The transportation impacts of the final recommendations should be analyzed within the next year. First year funding needed: $26,000. Remarks/Coordination: Between City of Lansing and State of Michigan, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Planning. Recommendation 2: Development should proceed in three phases. PHASE A: LOGAN What is to be done: Neighborhood coordination and a publid meeting are needed to finalize design details and determine the level of environmental documentation needed. Who is to do it: Joint cooperation between MDOT and the City of Lansing through the Transportation Subcommittee. When is it to be done: Coordination should begin immediately with completion by mid-1987. Contract letting in 1989 and construction completed by 1990. First year funding needed: Construction and right-of-way are estimated at $4,250,000; agency staff time will contribute. Remarks/Coordination: MDOT, Federal Highway Administration, and City of Lansing. PHASE B: OTTAWA/WASHTENAW What is to be done: Need decision closing Allegan and immediate coordination with City of Lansing and Department of Management and Budget on design of Washtenaw at the State Museum site. Longer range will be design of the roadway, including landscaping. Who is to do it: Joint cooperation between MDOT and the City of Lansing through the Transportation Subcommittee. When is it to be done: Coordination with DMB by October 1986; agreement on closing Allegan by mid-1987; designs and contract letting by early 1989; construction complete by 1990. First year funding needed: Agency staff time will be contributed, construction has not been estimated. Remarks/Coordination: MDOT, Federal Highway Administration, City of Lansing, and DMB. PHASE C: CEDAR/LARCH What is to be done: Need study of improving access with I-496 and cross-section of Cedar/ Larch from I-496 to Shiawassee. Coordinate plans with the Embassy Suites Hotel and the Convention Center. Who is to do it: The study should be conducted by a consultant which may include preparing design plans. Coordination by MDOT and the City of Lansing. When is it to be done: Coordination should begin immediately. RFP's should be prepared and sent out to consultants (by MDOT). Study to be completed by mid-1988, design plans by 1990. Construction by 1991. First year funding needed: Coordination will be contributed staff time. Consultant contract will be about $500,000. Remarks/Coordination: MDOT, Federal Highway Administration, and City of Lansing. h Recommendation 3: What is to be done: A parking facilities and services review and coordination board should be established before January 1987. Who is to do it: State of Michigan and City of Lansing should establish Board and include Lansing Community College, Department of Management and Budget, Legislative Services Bureau, City of Lansing, and private interests (possibly the Chamber of Commerce. When is it do be done: Within the next four months. First year funding needed: Remarks/Coordination: State of Michigan and City of Lansing Recommendation 4: What is to be done: The Civic Center should be designated as a visitor/service facility. Who is to do it: State of Michigan should purchase facility from City of Lansing. When is to be done: As soon as possible. First year funding needed: Remarks/Coordination: State of Michigan and City of Lansing Recommendation 5: What is to be done: All new facilities should support the shuttle concept and the overall circulation system.. Review should be assigned to a joint state/ city or city agency. Who is to do it: A private contractor under the management of the Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) and funded by the State of Michigan. When is it to be done: Sometime in 1988,-after the completion 'of the 'Yes M! ch!gan Center and the Historical Museum - Library Complex. First year funding needed: Operational - $259,200 per year Capital - $210,000 to $450,000 Remarks/Coordination: MDOT and CATA Recommendation 6: What is to be done: Pedestrian and non -motorized plans for the Capitol Complex and the downtown Lansing area should be developed in cooperation with state government and the City of Lansing. Planning and development of a directory system should begin immediately. Who is to do it: Pedestrian Action Team and Design Review Board. When is it to be done: Within 12 months. First year funding needed: Approximately $20,000 plus materials. Remarks/Coordination: MDOT, Tri-County Planning Commission, and the City of Lansing coordinating with the Design Review Board. Recommendation 7: What is to be done: Development of an all -season walkway system should plan be a priority consideration for both the Capitol complex and downtown. Who is to-do it: A task force -appointed public/private action team or consultant. When is it to be done: Within six months for the feasibility study; another 24 months for construction. First year funding needed: $20,000 minimum for planning and research; unknown for construction. Remarks/Coordination: Task force report to city and state for approval. 0 /0 TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE Howard McCafferty, Director Dept. of Public Works City of Lansing 119 N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 483-4066 Jon Coleman, Director of Transportation Planning Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. 913 W. Holmes Road, Suite 201 Lansing, MI 48910 393-0342 John Beckett Beckett and Raeder Associates 31000 Eisenhower Parkway Ann Arbor, MI 48104 313/973-0417 George Cutler 739 N. Aurelius Road Mason, MI 48854 676-5883 Rod Ghearing, Assistant Executive Director Capital Area Transportation Authority 4615 Tranter Lansing, MI 48910 394-1100 Joseph Pandy, Jr., General Manager Board of Water and Light 2nd Floor, P.O. Box 13007 Lansing, MI 48901 487-4826 Emerson Ohl, Director Economic Development Corporation 9th Floor - City Hall 124 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 483-4140 James foulds, Director City of Lansing Planning Division 119 N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 483-4070 David Starr, Senior Associate Snell Environmental Group 1120 May Lansing, MI 48906 374-6800 Sharon Kellogg, President Kellogg -Realty 421 W. IOnia Lansing, MI 48933 487-6975 James Person, Dean School of Business Administration Lansing Community College 419 N. Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48901-7210 483-1524 Ronald Roush, Director of Public Safety Lansing Community College P.O. Box 40010 Lansing, MI 48901-7210 483-1802 Susan Routsala Storm, PhD 2579 Dustin Road Okemos, MI 48864 337-2099 Dolores McDonald 1719 Osband Lansing, MI 48910 372-9787 (work) John Pollard, Director of Fund Development Impression 5 Museum 200 Museum Drive Lansing, MI 48933 485-8116 Dennis Randolph, City Engineer Lansing Dept. of Public Service 732 City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 483-4455 Alan Tubbs, Director City of Lansing Dept. of Planning and Municipal Development 119 N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 483-4066 * G. Robert Adams, Deputy Director Bureau of Transportation Planning Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 373-0343 Pat Collins Bureau of Administration Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 373-8331 Gus Kavalaris, Federal Aid Engineer Local Government Division Michigan Department of Tranpportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 Lou Lambert, Administrator Urban Transportation Planning Division Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 373-2316 Bill Hartwig, Manager Project Development and Implementation Section Urban Transportation Planning Division Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 373-9560 Paul Hershkowitz, Supervisor Project Development and Implementation Section Urban Transportation Planning Division Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 335-2949 Elaine Burgess, Transportation Planner Social, Economic, & Environmental Section Transportation Planning Services Division Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 373-2233 Dick Nellett, Supervisor Systems Development & Analysis Section Urban Transportation Planning Division Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 355-2958 Bill Savage, Engineer of Electronic Systems Traffic & Safety Division Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909� 373-2323 Stan Blackledge, Engineer of Geometric Coordination Traffic & Safety Division Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 373-2874 Jay Bastian, Supervisor Roadside Development Section Design Division Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 373-0032 Mike Saunders Roadside Development Section Design Division Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 373-0041 Wynell Brush, Staff Specialist Community Coordination and Federal Compliance Section Urban Transportation Planning Division Michigan Department of Transportation _ P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 335-2966 Bob Russell, Supervisor Route Location Section Design Division Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 373-7674 * Chair 120 Kunwar Rajendra, Transportation Administrator City of Lansing Planning Division 119 N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 483-4066 David A. Berridge, Transportation Engineer City of Lansing Traffic Engineering Division 219 N. Grand Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 483-4240 Ray Severy Lansing Dept. of Public Service 732 City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 483-4455 Dave Card Lansing Dept. of Public Service 732 City Hal'' Lansing, MI 48933 483-4455 Dick Baker 1004 W. Lapeer , Lansing, MI 48915 487-9474 Jim Ruff, Transportation Planner City of Lansing Planning Division 119-N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 483-4066 13 Marvin -Harris, Transportation Planner Project Development and Implementation Section Urban Transportation Planning Division Michigan Department of,Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 335-2951 Robert Mitchell, Chief Deputy Director Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 373-3207 Jack Morgan, Assistant to the Chief Deputy Director Executive Division Michigan Department of Transportation -P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 373-8755 Mark Morante Department of Commerce P.O. Box 30004 Lansing, MI 48909 373-7550 Larry 1_eatherwood, Deputy Director Bureau of Administration Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 373-8331 Ken Underwood, Assistant Division Administrator Urban Transportation Planning Division Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 373-2316 Paul Baerman,,Uice-President Snell Environment Group 1120 May Street Lansing, MI 48906 114 Susan Hohl Real Estate Officer Michigan Department of Transportation Real Estate Division P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI. 48909 373-2200 Brad Hagerty Data Systems Analyst Michigan Department of Transportation Traffic & Safety Division P. 0. Box 30050 Lansing, MI. 48909 335-2631 TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUE TEAM REPORTS September 15, 1986 I. CAPITAL LOOP A. Mission and Goals B. Membership C. Ideas Considered D. Recommendations E. Action Plan II. PARKING A. Mission and Goals B. Membership C. Background D. Recommendations III. PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS AND FACILITIES A. Mission and Goals B. Membership C. Ideas Considered D. Recommendations E. Action Plan IV. SHUTTLE BUS A. Mission and Goals B. Membership C. Ideas Considered D. Recommendations E. Action Plan V. TRAFFIC STUDY A. Mission and Goals " B. Membership C. Ideas Considered D. Recommendations. E. Action Plan MISSION AND GOALS OF THE CAPITOL LOOP ISSUE TEAM I. MISSION: Improve access to the Capitol Complex area and downtown Lansing for visitors. Establish uniquely identifiable access route to serve new (or infrequent) to this area. II. GOALS: A. Capitol Loop - Establish I-496, Logan Street, Allegan/Ottawa, Michigan Avenue, and Capitol/Grand as the Capitol Loop. B. Construct attractive landscaped boulevard (Logan Street) to the new Capitol Complex area. a. Bury utilities b. Increase set -backs c. Increase/improve vegetation (other plantings) d. Establish/coordinate welcome signs to the State Capitol and downtown Lansing, flags, other decorative signing e. Enhance first impression - panoramic vista of State Capitol C. Establish recommended Logan street cross-section (short vs. long term phases). a. Review FEIS - determine additional environmental requirements b. Review/determine long range objective D. Establish trunkline jurisdiction for phased improvements; deter- mine project funding and programming schedule. E. Work cooperatively with local neighborhood organizations/local businesses to establish Logan Street cross-section compatible with their interests. F. Meet State/Lansing Development Plan objectives. /& III. CAPITOL LOOP ISSUE TEAM MEMBERS Stan B1 ac.kl edge MOOT Traffic & Safety Division 37-32875 Bob Russell MOOT Design Division 37-37674 Mike Saunders MOOT Design Division 37-30182 Patricia Collins MOOT Bureau of Administration 37-38330 Elaine Burgess MOOT Transportation Planning Services Division 37-32233 Bill Hartwig, Chairperson of Issue Team MOOT Urban Transportation Planning Division 37-39560 Kunwar Rajendra City of Lansing Planning Department 119 N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 483-4066 Raymond Severy City of Lansing Public Service Department 732 City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 483-4455 Jim Foul ds City of Lansing PI anning Department 119 N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 483-4066 17 Alan Tubbs City of Lansing Planning Department 119 N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 483-4066 David Berridge City of Lansing 291 N. Grand Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 483-4240 Jon Coleman Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 913 W. Holmes Road, Suite 201 Lansing, MI 48910 393-0342 Joe Pandy, Jr. Board of Water & Light 2nd Floor P.O. Box 13007 Lansing, MI 48901 487-4826 Dick Baker Citizens Concerned with Logan 1004 W . Lapeer Lansing, MI 48915 487-9474 r IV. ITEMS CONSIDERED BY THE CAPITOL LOOP ISSUE TEAM A. - Jurisdiction B. EIS approval by FM A C. Logan north of Ottawa - (cross-section) D. Traffic projections - future (2000) E. Coordinate aesthetics with Visual Review Committee F. Landscaping - traffic geometric compatibility G. Access/curb cuts/side streets H. East end of Capitol route and I-496 I. Land use at east end (Cedar/Larch one-way pair) J. Deadline (early Fall.) K. Coordination with: a. Downtown Neighborhood Association b. Black Ministers c. West Side Neighborhood Association L. Alignment a. Big Picture b. Capitol Route M. Logan Triangle N. Two blocks west of Butler between Allegan and Kalamazoo 0. Logical sections V. ISSUE TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: Logan Street Develop Logan Street as a boulevard from Kalamazoo to a short distance north of Ottawa where it would transition to the existing four lane cross-section. Reconstructed southbound Logan would allow 30-50 feet of additional front yard space for those properties on the west side of Logan. Median width would range from 60-100 feet. A new northbound roadway would be developed totally on the east side of Logan requiring residential and commercial displacements. It is recommended that a high degree of access be provided at the inter- sections of Logan and Allegan and Logan and Ottawa, involving a free flow right turn lane for inbound Allegan traffic and an exclusive left turn lane for outbound Ottawa traffic. This alignment would require an environmental impact document and FM A approval. Additional study should be undertaken to investigate reducing cross street traffic across Logan to reduce the amount of through traffic that could penetrate the neighborhood west of Logan. It is also recommended that no action be taken to implement improvements 0 on Logan north of Ottawa. Further study of that area should be undertaken when the Capitol Loop is implemented. Other options looked at but rejected for Logan Street were a boulevard requiring acquisition on both sides of the road. This alternative was rejected as being too costly and destroying too much housing in the downtown area. Another option investigated was to develop a boulevard entirely on the east side of Logan with existing Logan being left as a access road for properties fronting Logan on the west. This was rejected as also requiring an excessive amount of right-of-way and destroying housing units that were not needed for roadway purposes. Recommendation 2: Allegan/Ottawa Streets The east -west portion of the Capitol Loop would utilize Allegan and Ottawa Streets. These streets provide the most direct service to the Capitol Complex and the downtown area. Washtenaw and Kalamazoo Streets were briefly examined as alternatives to the Allegan leg of the loop but rejected. By separating the two one-way segments of the loop, motorists could become confused. Washtenaw Street is proposed for conversion to accommodate a traffic circle in front of the proposed State Library and Museum complex and would not be suitable for carrying major volumes of traffic. It is believed that because Allegan would still be in existence, drivers would utilize Allegan anyway as a practical matter and not -go down Washtenaw and/or Kalamazoo. Due to the congestion that occurs on Allegan south of the Treasury Building with trucks and drivers waiting to pick up people in that location, it is recommended that some kind of turn -out bay be considered for temporary storage of vehicles. The other congestion spot is the area between the Michigan National Tower and the Billie S. Farnum Building. Again truck parking, double parking, and triple parking in that area causes a great deal of congestion. Recommendation 3: Capitol/Grand Avenues Visitors traveling on I-496 approaching the Grand Avenue exit will behold an excellent view of the Capitol Building and the downtown skyline. The off ramp from I-496 to Grand Avenue passes a small residential neighborhood known as the Cherry Hill Area. The Master Plan for that area recommends continued residential development and identifies beautifiction and landscaping along the off ramp as a project to be implemented. The neighborhood plan also recognizes Grand Avenue as a non -local street and has recommended rezonings along Z 10 that street to office development which would buffer the residential development to the east. To further beautify, the entrance to the Central Business District along Grand.Avenue, the Cherry Hill Plan in keeping with the historical nature of the area recommends installation of period street lighting, implementation of such plans would certainly enhance the Capitol Loop and would be in accordance with the Master Plan for the area. The remainder of Grand and the entire length of Capitol are almost exclusively devoted to office, commercial and institutional uses such as the Center for the Arts and Cooley Law School. The Cedar/Larch one-way pair was looked at as an option but rejected due to the indirect access from the freeway and obscured view of the Capitol Building and downtown area. Traffic must exit at Pennsyl- vania Avenue and then quickly ascend the service road ramp to exit at Cedar Street. Success of this route would rest entirely on the ability of the signing to properly direct motorists. Additional conflict points along the routing, high traffic volumes, and tight geometrics may affect operational safety. The existing uses along the Cedar/Larch one-way pair are primarily commercial and industrial interspersed with some residential structures. Converting Cedar/Larch into a boulevard would require the purchase and reloction of many existing businesses. This alignment would require extensive study of the I-496/Pennsylvania Avenue/Cedar Street interchange geometrics, preparation of an environmental impact document, and FM A approval. The Capitol Loop team acknowledges that several tourist attractions would not be located directly on the loop, but signing at the intersection of Grand and Michigan Avenues, for example, would clearly identify these sites east of the river. Recommendation 4: Capitol Loop Theme One of the major ingredients needed to identify the downtown street network as the Capitol Loop is a uniquely identifiable theme. Signs, banners, some type of street furniture, certain trees or other vegetation, or unique pavement markings (yellow brick road) would attract the attention of the visitor and assist in their orientation to the downtown area. A map of the Capitol Loop and information on major 'downtown attractions should be included in all literature distributed to visitors, or organizations inquiring about conference/convention/ hotel space in the downtown area. 2! VI. Action Plan A. 'What is to be done? Designate Logan, Ottawa/Allegan, Capitol/Grand as the Capitol Loop. B. Who is to do it? Joint cooperation/agreement between MOOT and the City of Lansing regarding selection of specific streets for the Capitol Loop. MOOT would have jurisdiction over the streets designated as the Capitol Loop.' C. When is it to be done? Logan Street would require major construction improvements if Recommendation 1 is adopted. A schedule which includes the preparation of an environmental impact document, the public involvement process, design, real estate acquisition, and construction would extend project completion to 1992. The adoption of Cedar/Larch as part of the loop would also require major construction improvements with a completion dates extending into the early 1990's. The other streets in the Capitol Loop may require short-term operational changes in order to enhance traffic flow and safety. Implementation of Recommendation 4 could be accomplished in the short term. Less than one year would seem like a reasonable time frame. D. First Year Funding First year funding would cover the costs associated with implementation of Recommendation 4. Dollar amount has not been estimated. E. Remarks/Coordination MOOT would serve as the lead agency. Extensive cooperation/staff time, as evident so far with the State Capitol/Revitatliaation Task Force efforts, would need to be continued between the MOOT and City of Lansing. Funding the Logan Street improvements would require FM A participation. Construction costs for Logan Street are estimated at approxi- mately $2,250,000. A very rough estimate of real estate costs amounts to approximately $2,000,000. Z OL Parking Facilities Issue Team August 22, 1986 Mission: To explore Parking Considerations and Traveler Access needs for the Lansing Revitalization area.. Goals: - Identify existing and future parking and access concerns, in terms of needed policy, service, and facility recommendations. = Identify typical users of parking facilities in downtown Lansing. - Recommend actions to insure convenient parking facilities with access to a total downtown transportation system. - Provide an integrated forum for discussion of parking and access issues. Z3 Parking Committee Issue Team Member List John Beckett Beckett and Raeder Associates 31000 Eisenhower Parkway Ann Arbor, MI 48104 313/973-0417 David A. Berridge Transportation Engineer City of Lansing . Traffic Engineering Division 219 N. Grand Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 517/483-4240 Dave Card Lansing Dept. of Public Service 732 City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 517/483-4455 Gus Kaval ari s Federal Aid Engineer Local Services Division Michigan Dept. of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 517/373-9570 * Louis H. Lambert Division Administrator Urban Transportation Planning Division Bureau of Transportation Planning Michigan Dept. of Transportation P. 0. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48090 517/373-2316 Dolores McDonald 1719 Osband Lansing, MI 48910 517/372-9787 (work no.) Mark Morante Michigan Strategic Fund Department of Commerce P. 0. Box 30004 Lansing, MI 48909 517/373-7550 * Chair Dick Nellett Supervisor Systems Development & Analysis Section Urban Transportation Planning Division James Person, Dean School of Business Administration Lansing Community College 419 N. Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48901-7210 517/483-1524 Kunwar Raj endra Transportation Administrator City of Lansing Planning Division 119 N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 517/483-4066 Ronald Roush Director of Public Safety Lansing Community College P. 0. Box 40010 Lansing, MI 48901-7201 517 /483 -1802 Susan Routsal a Storm, PhD 2579 Dustin Road Okemos, .MI 48864 517/337-2099 2 Y Background A key concern of the Issue Team was the lack of a single source for information about parking facilities, services, and policies. Included in this concern is the need to catalogue the number of parking places presently available in both public and private sectors, policies, hours of operations, and parking costs. Also potential problems in overall operation of these facilities were reviewed. The team has collected and provided to the Capital Complex Area Traffic Study Issue Team.a present parking inventory to be used as part of a unified alternative analysis data base. Total present State, City and Community College spaces are approximately 15, 500. These facilities provide parking services to approximately 24,000 employees, 11,000 residents and 22,000 students in the area. The Parking Issue Team will work closely with the Traffic Study Team to both review the impact of recommended roadway configuration on existing parking facilities and to review access impacts of proposed new locations. A. LIM C. Recommended Policy Action: The need to establish a parking facilities and services review and coordinating board in the next four months is critical to a unified approach to parking and access concerns in the area. This alliance of parking authorities should use the following operational objectives in providing facilities and services to the area. Special emphasis of the Board should be joint use of the various facilities (especially any new ones), establishment of final target parking needs, and coordination of transportation redevelop- ment efforts in the area. • Recommended Operational Objectives 1. All new facilities should be covered (underground or ramps). 2. Remove and replace as much existing surface and street parking as possible in state park area. 3. Provide as much attended parking as possible to ensure a safe and secure environment. 4. Existing and especially new parking facilities must be designed to be pleasant, bright and accessible. 5. Provide bike storage at all new facilities. Additional Recommended Actions: 1. The Civic Center should be designated the visitor/service facility. Development of underground parking on -site is critical. This parking facility must provide storage for various recreational type vehicles. 23 2. Develop off -site storage for school buses to handle school children and state park tours. 3. All new facilities should be looked at for their multi -use potential; parking, shopping, commercial, living, etc. As part of the concept, an intermodal transpo center should be located in the area. Above all, as much land as possible should be kept on the tax roll through this mixed use concept. 4. All new facility locations must be tied to the shuttle concept and to the over-all circulation systems. "Convenient to" no longer should necessarily mean right next to my job. t Z 6 MISSION'AND GOALS OF THE PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS AND FACILITIES TEAM Mission': To create attractive and convenient systems of pedestrian and nonmotorized facilities in the downtown/Capitol area. Goals: * Recommend pedestrian and nonmotorized networks which would adapt to the area's changing needs. * Provide a safe system. * Establish a convenient system. * Encourage coordination between property owners, the City, and the State in the development of downtown/Capitol area design themes. * Provide accessibility to activity centers within the downtown/Capitol area. 107 PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS AND FACILITIES TEAM MEMBERS Ms. Wynell Brush, Chair Transportation Planner Michigan Department of Transportation Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Joseph Pandy General Manager Board of Water and Light P.O. Box 13007 Lansing, Michigan 48901 Mr. Terry Graham Director of Marketing Board of Water and Light P.O. Box 13007 Lansing, Michigan 48901 Ms. .Susan Ruotsala Storm, Ph.D. 2579 Dustin Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 Mr. James Foulds Director, Planning Division City of Lansing 119 N. Washington" Square Lansing, Michigan 48933 Mr. John L. Pollard Director, Fund Development Impression 5 Museum 200 Museum Drive Lansing, Michigan 48933 Mr. Raymond Severy, P.E. Assistant Director Public Service Department City of Lansing 732 City Hall Lansing, Michigan 48933 Mr. Rodney Ghearing Assistant Executive Director Capital Area Transportation Authority 4615 Tranter Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48910 2A/3335/A10 M ITEMS CONSIDERED BY THE PEDESTRIAN TEAM Item Identify primary routes for high maintenance and snow removal: frequented routes convenience for pedestrian ease of maintenance adapting system to changes Location and design of street furnishings: lighting waste receptacles benches planters (hanging and ground) informational signs 1/4 mile markers Location and design of pedestrian facilities: phones restrooms stroller, wheelchair, locker rentals shuttle bus shelters turn —ins or drop—off stations curb cuts and other accessibility issues type of material (e.g. brick) cleanliness Operational guidelines: policy statements guideline manual Walking tours: type (historic, cultural, etc.) route maps/pamphlets identification on routes (color —coded) barrier free access liability distance monitoring markers Linkages between new developments All —season walkways: feasibility - costs type (covered, enclosed) locations style coordination with pro.perty owners Action Recommendation 1 and 4. Recommendation 2 and 4. Recommendation 2 and 4. Recommendation 2 Recommendation 3 Recommendation 4 Recommendation 5 Changes in existing laws Location and design of nonmotorized facilities: route identification lockers/storage racks changing areas (dressing rooms, showers) enforcement legal requirements and ordinances liability Coordination of property owners Coordination of system users Recommendation 6 Recommendation 6 None None 30 RECOMMENDATIONS (in priority order) Achievable at six months: 1. Use the primary pedestrian network (attached) as a major factor in determining locations of snow removal, maintenance, and capital investments. 2. Develop a guidelines manual to assist in decisions regarding location and type of pedestrian facilities and services. 3. Develop color -coded, self -guided tours and.location directories (maps)'for pedestrians. This should be accomp- lished through a multi -disciplinary, public -private action team havingexpertise in historic, cultural, aesthetic and other attributes of the area. Achievable at 12 months: 4. Use the proposed public -private Design Review Board to: -determine design (theme) for the downtown area and the appropriate style of street furnishings. -monitor pedestrian needs in the downtown/Capitol area and to modify the primary pedestrian network to -meet the identified needs. -coordinate development to ensure pedestrian access to downtown/Capitol activity centers. 5. Assess feasibility and potential locations for an all season walkway system. This should be accomplished through a public -private action team working cooperatively with the Design Review Board and the downtown businesses. 6. Develop a downtown/Capitol nonmotorized plan. This should be accomplished through the Lansing 3C planning Process with the MDOT, city, and Tri-County Planning Commission providing leadership. Achievable at 24 months: 7. Begin implementing the all -season walkway action team recommendations. 8. Begin implementing the nonmotorized plan. all ACTION PLAN Recommended Action Agent Schedule 1. ESTABLISH PEDESTRIAN PRIMARY. NETWORK... 1.1: Seek agreement with state State (DMB- administration and city admin- Facilities), istration on routes in the City Council/ priority network. Administration 1.2: The state and the city State (DMB- would work within internal Facilities), structure to ensure that the City (DPW) network needs are addressed 04 in budgets and maintenance plans. !j 1.3: Establish a process for State adopting the network to meet City changing needs of the area. Property owners 6 months Completed at time of fiscal budgeting and maintenance scheduling Within 12 months 2. DEVELOP GUIDELINES FOR LOCATION AND TYPES OF FACILITIES... 2.1: Establish guidelines to assist in determining con- sistant development of services and facilities Pedestrian team, 6 months Design Review Board for Task Force 3. DEVELOP SELF -GUIDED TOURS AND DIRECTORIES... Establish a public -private Task Force action team to oversee- appointed public - development of self -guided tours private action in the downtown/capitol area. team in coopera- Responsibilities include: tion with: 3.1: Contact and assist appropriate organizations in developing tours of: 1st Year Funds Remarks Coordination function Dependent upon needs of route Coordination function Coordination function; printing report --public facilities, e.g. public facili- 6 months Coordination Board of Water and Light, ties, function Dye Water Conditioning Plant, 148 S. Cedar MDOT would function as coordination lead and staff. Team suggests that Design Review Board in recommendation 4 serve as monitoring agent. Establishes general principles for development of the area. Recommended Action Agent Schedule 1st Year Funds Remarks --historic sites and build- arts groups, ings historic societies, --architectural and cultural architectural points societies, --sculpture and arts area recreation --recreational interests groups/classes, --other, such as botanical naturalist features societies 3.2: Coordinate design and Action team Within 12 Production Coordinate with preparation of tour maps and months of maps Design Review pamphlets. Identify distribution Board. sites. 3.3: Investigate barrier free lis Action team Within 12 Coordination Impacts may effect design requirements and determine months function; scheduling tours. (} compliance impacts where possibly appropriate. legal fees 3.4: Establish walkway director- ies and markers to assist Action team Within 18 Purchase and Coordinate with pedestrians in taking the months design of Design Review tours. directories Board. 4. USE THE PUBLIC -PRIVATE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO MONITOR NEEDS, COORDINATE ACCESSIBILITY, AND DETERMINE DESIGN THEMES... 4.1: Determine a design theme for downtown/capitol area and develop promotional and operational guidelines. 4.2: Develop procedure to monitor pedestrian needs and adapt priority network to address changing demands. 4.3: Develop procedures to co- ordinate pedestrian accessibility with existing activity areas and new developments. Design Review 6 months Coordination Board function; possibly some legal fees Design Review Within 12 Coordination Board months function Design Review Within-12 Coordination Board months function Coordinated with 3.4 See 1.3 Recommended Action Agent Schedule 1st Year Funds Remarks 5. IDENTIFY POTENTIAL FOR ALL -SEASON WALIMAYS... 5.1: Establish an action team Task Force Recommendation $20,000 minimum Should report or consultant to determine appointed 6 months through Task Force appropriateness of all -season public -private to state and city facilities. action team or for acceptance/ consultant approval of recommendation. MDOT will furnish background infor- mation. 6. DEVELOP A DOWNTOWN/CAPITOL AREA NONMOTORIZED PLAN... 6.1: Establish a plan for Tri-County Plan- Within 12 Approximately Lead agency is coordinated development of ning Commission months $20,000 and TCRPC through area non -motorized facilities (TCRPC), city, materials 3C structure.. and services. and state 7. IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ALL -SEASON WALKWAY ACTION TEAM... 7.1: Seek city and state en- Action team 3 months after dorsement on recommendation and from 5.1 recommendation coordinate any revisions. is attained 7.2 Establish oversight team Action team 12 months or for contracting and other or Task Force more associated costs. 8. IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDATION OF NONMOTORIZED PLAN... 8.1: Seek city, state, TCRPC TCRPC 6 months after endorsement and coordinate plan comple- revisions. tion 8.2: Use TCRPC and Design Review Individual 12 months Board to monitor implementation jurisdictions or more progress by individual jurisdic- tions. 406435/67-9 Coordination See 5.1 function Dependent on Coordinate with project costs Design Review Board. Coordination See 6.1 function Coordination See 6.1 function; project costs at jurisdic- tional levels PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS AND FACILITIES TEAM MEMBERS Ms. Wynell Brush, Chair Transportation Planner Michigan Department of Transportation Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Joseph Pandy General Manager Board of Water and Light P.O. Box 13007 Lansing, Michigan '48901 Mr. Terry Graham Director of Marketing Board of Water and Light P.O. Box 13007 Lansing, Michigan 48901 Ms. Susan Ruotsala Storm, Ph.D. 2579 Dustin Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 Mr. James Foulds Director, Planning Division City of Lansing 119 N. Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48933 Mr. John L. Pollard Director, Fund Development Impression-5 Museum 200 Museum Drive Lansing, Michigan 48933. Mr. Raymond Severy, P.E. Assistant Director Public Service Department City of Lansing 732 City Hall Lansing, Michigan 48933 Mr. Rodney Ghearing Assistant Executive Director Capital Area Transportation Authority 4615 Tranter Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48910 2A/3335/A10 ,1wr I.W. RlVEWR:r4 ::Oz .... ►:cmmAju= Olydlr�/19 ::: :: ...: cmrrEl musEwLU� J o E30......... ... . ................. Lxa ................. ................. PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN ROUTE CORRIDORS (TO BE ADAPTED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT AS IT OCCURS.) POTENTIAL ALL -SEASON CORRIDORS No SHUTTLE BUS ISSUE TEAM ACTION PLAN AUGUST 22, 1986 I. MISSION STATEMENT To create a system for the movement of tourists, conventioneers and workers within the Downtown/Capitol complex area.• II. STATEMENT OF GOALS A. Facilitate the movement of people between activity and employment centers in•the Downtown/Capitol complex area. B. Provide•an accessible, convenient and uniquely identifiable shuttle system for tourists. C. Ensure a shuttle system which will adapt to the changing needs of people in the area. III. ISSUE TEAM MEMBER LIST Rod Ghearing, Chair, Capital Area Transportation Authority Wynell Brush, Michigan Department of Transportation George Cutler, North Lansing Electric Railway Museum Mark Fedorowicz, Capital Area Transportation Authority Marvin Harris, Michigan Department of Transportation Jim Spackman, City of Lansing Ken Underwood, Michigan Department of Transportation IV. COMPLETE LIST OF IDEAS CONSIDERED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE The team's initial concern- was to design some method of conveying people around the Downtown/Capitol complex. At first, three ideas were discussed which would achieve the desired system. They were: -- a shuttle bus system -- a fixed guideway/rail system -- a moving sidewalk/people mover system 37 When the three ideas above were viewed in the context of the team's desired goals, two of the three ideas were immediately discounted, at least for the short term. Neither the fixed guideway/rail system nor the moving sidewalk/people mover system allowed for Aufficient adaptability given the rapidly changing appearance of the Downtown/Capitol complex. In addition cost, while not a specific goal, was also a major impediment to the development of the latter two systems. The shuttle bus system, however, addressed all three of the team's goals. It could facilitate the movement of people between activity centers; provide convenience and accessibility in a readily identifiable vehicle; and lastly, could retain its flexibility and effectiveness despite the anticipated growth and resurgence in the Downtown/Capitol complex area. V. SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS In order to successfully implement a shuttle bus system in the Downtown/ Capitol complex area, the issue team has focused on five primary recommendations. In addition, a sixth recommendation is proposed which, while being very general, is critical to the success not only of the proposed shuttle system but also to the establishment of a strong tourist center in the State's capital. Before explaining the recommendations, however, a group of general assumptions which are critical to the whole program will be defined. SHUTTLE BUS ASSUMPTIONS A number of assumptions were made by the issue team in the determination of the feasibility of a shuttle bus service and in the development of this action plan for that service. Many of these assumptions are contingent upon the successful implementation of development and redevelopment plans in the Downtown/Capitol complex area. These include, but are not limited to, the new Radisson Hotel, the proposed Embassy Suites Hotel, the redevelopment of the Olds Plaza, the successful operation of the Convention Center, the proposal for several new office buildings and the operation of a Tourist Center and the State Museum by the State of'Michigan. If any of these assumptions change or fail to occur, then this plan will have to be reconsidered and revised accordingly. Recommendation 1: The Shuttle Route In discussing the actual alignment of the shuttle system one must first consider whom the route will serve. The issue team focused on three key user groups which would shape -the alignment of the shuttle. The three user groups, in order of potential use for the new system, are as follows: A. Tourists Tourists are envisioned to be the main source of riders and the primary group to be served by a shuttle bus system. As shown on Attachment A, the route as currently planned is designed to connect the major downtown hotels and the proposed tourist center with many of the area's tourist attractions such as the Capitol, the State Museum and Library, Impression 5, the R.E. Olds Museum and the planned North Lansing Electric Railway Museum Trolley line. It is anticipated that, given the seasonal nature of tourism, the levels of service for a shuttle system would vary accordingly. B. Downtown/Capitol Complex Workers The second largest group of potential users of a shuttle service is felt to be workers in the downtown area. This group includes not only State office complex employees but also office workers in the Capitol Avenue/Washington Mall area, Lansing Community College faculty, staff and students and shoppers in the area. Service for these groups will primarily need to be oriented toward midday circulation patterns. Some service may also be required in the morning and afternoon peak travel periods. C. Conventioneers The third largest group of potential users is envisioned to be conventioneers. The development of this market segment is, of course, dependent upon the relative success of the community's program to attract conventions to the new Convention Center. The City of Lansing, however, may soon be able to provide nearly 750 hotel rooms in or in close proximity to downtown for convention purposes. Shuttle service for this group would primarily consist of 31 circulator service throughout the downtown area and could be required at almost any time of day. As a result of the needs of the three primary user groups, the issue team has determined that the alignment shown in Attachment A is best.' It provides not only close access to the proposed Yes Michigan Center, the State Historical Museum and Library, the Capitol and the museums east of the river, but also serves the proposed hotels and the considerable office concentration in the Washington Square corridor. Recommendation 2: The Shuttle Vehicle The issue team has determined that in addition to being adaptable to changing conditions, that the vehicle itself be unique or distinctive in nature. Several companies now produce rubber tired "trackless" trollies which resemble streetcars from. the 1920's and 19301s. These vehicles, shown in Attachment E. not only provide the flexibility of a bus but also the attractiveness and distinction associated with old fashioned wooden seats, brass railings and brass lamps. The vehicles themselves will invite ridership due to their unique character and will also be readily identifiable from other transit buses. The trolley should be wheelchair accessible. Recommendation 3: Free Fares The issue team feels that the shuttle service should be operated on a no fare to the rider basis. If the prime reason for operating the shuttle is to maximize the movement of people in the defined area and to minimize the utilization of private autos for this purpose, then charging a fare for the service would only serve to discourage riders and thus defeat the purpose of the shuttle. Any fare charged would have to be so low (no more than 10 or 25 cents) that it would contribute very little toward the operating cost of the service and would greatly complicate its operation. Recommendation 4: Signing and Accessibility The issue team determined that the shuttle system should operate with unique signing and stops, which would distinguish the shuttle system from other transit buses. In addition, stops and/or shelters• should be fully accessible q to handicapped persons. The signs and shelters should be unified in their theme and consistent with recommendations from other issue teams. Recommendation 5: Expandability The issue team was particularly concerned with how the shuttle system would accommodate new functions or new locations. In later years, the shuttle route (Attachment A) could be augmented by a north -south route to serve the Lansing Community College and the Washington Square corridor (Attachment B). The system could also be tied into the state and municipal parking systems (and policies) to allow the more efficient use of land in the Downtown/Capitol complex area (Attachment C). Lastly, the shuttle could be expanded to provide access to tourist attractions outside the Downtown/Capitol complex area (Attachment D). Tours of•Oldsmobile plants, the Turner -Dodge Mansion and Electric Railway Museum and Michigan State University could all be served, either from the Yes Michigan Center or a possible public transit intermodal facility. The timetable for possible expansions has not been determined. however, within one year of the implementation of the primary route, the transportation providers as well as state and city officials and concerned business leaders should meet to evaluate the potential for expansion as well as its phasing. Recommendation 6: Reinforcement of Tourist Potential As stated earlier, the final recommendation is general in nature but critical to the success not only of this team proposal but many others as well. The state and city should continue to do everything possible to reinforce the tourist potential in the city. The state has taken major steps by the construction of the new Library -Museum complex and the proposed Yes Michigan Center as well as the proposal to create a state park around the Capitol. The city has created an attractive riverwalk system and a museum or cultural center. The city has also created an environment attractive to hotel development. Additional efforts, however, should be spent to provide not only more attractions, but also to create the necessary facilities and businesses needed to support tourism. An excellent example of a new tourist attraction would be 41f the implementation of the proposed North Lansing -Turner Electric Railway Museum rail line into the downtown area. Such an attraction would generate considerable enthusiasm not only by railroad buffs, but by the general public .as well. Tourism is critical to the success of the shuttle bus plan. Previous experience has shown that a worker oriented shuttle cannot succeed without sufficient enticements designed to lure workers out of their offices. These enticements are frequently the same ones which would appeal.to tourists such as, restaurants, boutiques and department stores. As tourism develops in the capital, it will create an environment which will bring office workers out of their buildings. Eventually, downtown workers will come to depend on the shuttle system in,order to take advantage of the area's many attractions. VI. THE ACTION PLAN What is to be done? Implement the creation of a shuttle system using 'trackless', rubber tired trollies. The route, which would serve tourists, downtown workers and conventioneers is shown in Attachment A. Who is to do it? At this point it is envisioned that a private contractor would provide the service under the management of the Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA). CATA would ensure that the system operates smoothly and coordinates where possible with existing linehaul routes. CATA would also maintain service standards, etc. It is hoped that funding for the service would come from the State of Michigan. When is it do be done? In that tourism is absolutely essential to the shuttle service, implementation should not take place before both the Yes Michigan Center and the Michigan Historical Museum -Library Complex is complete. That date is now estimated to be sometime in 1988. y 20 First year funding needed? The funding required is broken Gown into two •components, Operational and Capital. Operational Considerations It is proposed that the initial service operate from 10:00 a.m.. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week, except for certain holidays. Service could be operated every 8 to 10 minutes with two vehicles in operation. This nets approximately 6,480 maximum annual hours of operation. At $40 per hour operating cost, this would result in an annual operating cost to the State or other governmental units of $259,200. This $40 per hour rate is based on today's estimated cost of a private contractor providing the service under contract with the Capital Area Transportation Authority. It should be emphasized that the cost mentioned above is a maximum figure which anticipates nine hours of operation per day, seven days per week for two trollies. Service may in fact be phased -in to the above levels as the number of attractions in the Downtown/Capitol complex area increase and ridership follows suit. Capital Considerations In addition to the operating costs, there are capital costs which must be taken.. into consideration. The acquisition of a sufficient number of rubber tired trolley type vehicles for the reliable operation of the service is foremost in these considerations. If two vehicles are routinely required for the day-to-day service, then backup or reserve vehicles must also be purchased. At least one, if not two, spare vehicles will need to be available to replace vehicles which break down or which are unavailable due to routine maintenance. :Additionally, the spare vehicles could be made available for charter service by the private operator. Currently, vehicles of the type being discussed cost in the range of $60,000 to $120,000, depending on the particular specifications for the vehicles. CATA currently has capital funds available in the amount of $170,000 for the purchase of two of these type vehicles. These funds could be available to fund part of this purchase. Nevertheless, additional capital funds in the Y-3 amount of '$60,000 to $120,000 may have to be secured to purchase the additional spare vehicle or vehicles. Beyond just the rolling stock, other items require capital funding. These would be things such as passenger shelters and/or benches, shuttle bus stop signs, and any other similar types of items. These items could require an additional $30,000 to $50,000. This would bring the total estimated capital cost to $210,000 to $450,000, excluding CATA's possible vehicle contribution. Coordination? The most critical aspect of coordination must occur between the Michigan Department of Transportation and the Capital Area Transportation Authority. While CATA is capable of operating the proposed service, the Authority cannot fund this service without serious effects to the existing public transit system. Accordingly, CATA and MDOT must work closely to determine the availability of funds as well as to determine adequate levels of service in order to insure the shuttle system's success. • Y Y ❑ r SCHOOL r ' aauo.o r r � J t OAP A ATTACHMENT A TOURIST ORIEX'1':1'1'I0�/CA1'ITO1. COMPIF,.: L L- 0 F� I. I OA L7--,11 El � u OL-0 zR7 ❑ e _ rloa i 04 a to 1 AW �11LI -/c w11lto", 11iQ," rA VYY f Oo .r, 11 M..r11 r O � W 13-4 OfUtc:) �.luo•u F1 < < f o a F-I� ❑❑a ❑ VJl Ot rllllll - �• VE 1 1 1 I.lf■/tlwlw f1vt ru{(1wf \ f f of of /.utlur ATTACHMENT B SERVICE. -ORIENTATED 'TO CO?SMERCIAL ACTIVITIES POSSIBLE -ALTERNATE. ROUTES eoa row eLLi1.o I (--� (—� i —i "—_-� (• -- W,❑ _D� 111100 C3 •' Q1Aw1/1 ❑ ❑ _f o � r OA l NO G w1v.11 8 t 1.0 f .J O 1 ❑ -.noc col.e $A 1 AW F� uwu c .120 +ue � 4 F-vir.4F1' Y u Cl 11.,o,1/w �- - i -- �- r El F-11 . I I t IV _r lrltte sswsw/ova rust IM I; `+ t a Of rust ur ATTACHMENT C ILI C 1 © 1/. $Oise. UUMN(Frhit ROUTES AIND PARKING SUlocti row' ntcl.o i f of Fj —IL o.u.�.o O_❑ Ilt " wlv.11 PLQND • ° 7 �j + vF1 0 zAP LA 1 0 7 cl� 1 coon Ircl».. LA 1 AW A0 0 NAW ❑ �J�❑. ❑ U own = t ❑aV :t u❑a aE l I»..1. R[I _ •auwu < < 1= F7 F-� FI 7 ,�.. I � Z F, 7: of t,/...,;.�1`� V W -+ - E pwalliNwely. mtAl tow 1 l Ot ltt ».Alum ATTACHMENT D fOUR iST 'WiiTHIS .41"'D Al"I"RACTIONS ]EEft. ,��J c� arc �t �rJ oat—_!' 0 1 0.1 /J MISSION AND GOALS OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY -TEAM Mission: To identify and examine circulation, accessibility, traffic demand and roadway capacity issues in the revitalization area, and ultimately develop recommendations for the optimum transportation system. Goal s: * Utilize a common set of operating assumptions with other issue teams. * Develop and recommend the optimum accessibility and circulation' patterns to and within the revitalization area for the work force and tourists. * Develop and utilize current and future demand estimation process and figures. * Develop and utilize sensitivity analysis (what if) capability. * Identify problems in traffic operations and recommend solutions. ZE TRAFFIC STUDY TEAM MEMBER LIST Mr. Paul Hershkowitz, Chair Supervisor Michigan Department of Transportation Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Richard Nellett Supervisor Michigan Department of Transportation Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. David Ki ter Transportation Planner Michigan Department of Transportation Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Kenneth Underwood Assistant Division Administrator Michigan Department of Transportation Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. William Savage Engineer of Electronic Systems Michigan Department of Transportation Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Bradley R. Hagerty Data System Analyst Michigan -Department of Transportation Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Jon Coleman Director Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 913 W Holmes Road Lansing, Michigan 48910 Mr. Paul Hamilton Transportation PI anner Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 913 W . Holmes Road Lansing, Michigan 48910 Mr. John Pollard Director of Fund Development Impression 5 Museum 200 Museum Drive Lansing, Michigan 48933 4570 • MEMBERSHIP LIST (CONT-D) Mr. Kunwar Rajendra Transportation Administrator City of Lansing Planning Division 119 N. Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48933 Mr. James Ruff Transportation. Pl anner City of Lansing Planning Division 119 N. Wash.ington Square Lansing, Michigan 48933 Mr. David A. Berridge Transportation Engineer City of Lansing Traffic Engineering division 219 N. Grand Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48933 & . Jerry Spagnolly Traffic Signals Engineer City of Lansing Traffic Engineering Division 219 N. Grand Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48933 Mr. Dennis Randolph City Engineer Lansing Dept. of Public Service 732 City Hall Lansing, Michigan 48933 Mr. David Card Util ity Engineer Lansing Dept. of Public Service 732 City Hall Lansing, Michigan 48933 Mr . David Starr Senior Associate Snell Environmental Group 1120 May Lansing, Michigan 48906 ., VT ITEMS CONSIDERED BY THE TRAFFIC STUDY TEAM Item Action Use of NETSIM, TRAFFLO, or some other Rejected as inappropriate type of traffic operations model to to respond to the issues to analyze the impacts of future develop- be addressed by the Traffic ment proposals. Study Team. Develop a study process using a systems model 1 ing effort and manual techniques to analyze the impacts of future develop- ment proposals. Develop planning and engineering principles for use by all issue teams and subcommittees that are considering changes to the existing street system as a part of their recommendations. Develop target year development assumptions for testing. Analyze impacts of final recommenda- tions of the Transportatoin Subcommittee and the Governors Task Force. Retain the Traffic Study team to address transportation related issues on an ongoing basis. Examine potential use of consultants for future activities. Studied and accepted. Completed and documented in the Committees August 22 Final Report. Completed and documented in the Committees August 22 Final Report. - Recommendation 2. Recommendation 3. Recommendation 1. Recommendation 4. 3l It RECOMMENDATIONS Achievable at six months: * Retain the Traffic Study Team to address part or all of the activities identified for future action. * Assume specific development proposals are implemented and estimate future trip generation. * Determine the impact that traffic from these future developments will have on the existing street network. Achievable at 12 months: * A major issue raised at the July 29, 1986 open house was the circulation pattern in the downtown area (one-way streets). The results of the city's 1984 NETSIM model analysis run will be reviewed. Any additional analysis required to assess the impact of modifying the one-way street system will be determined. * Determine need for and develop an RFP for consultant services if necessary, to evaluate modifications to the one-way street system. Achievable at 24 months: * Complete evaluation of one-way street modifications. S 3 Recommended Action ACTION PLAN Agent Schedule .1st Year Funds Remarks 1. RETAIN TRAFFIC STUDY TEAM... 1.1 Seek MDOT, City and Tri-County MDOT, 6 months Coordination MDOT continue coordination lead. Regional Planning Commission formal City and Function All agencies provide staff. appointments for continuation TCRPC of activities. Admin. h 2. ASSUME FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND ESTIMATE TRIP GENERATION... 2.1 Seek concensus on development Traffic 6 months Coordination Will require input from governor's proposals to be tested. Study Function task force. Te am 2.2 Prepare trip generation Traffic 6 months Coordination SDA Section of MDOT lead with estimates. Study Function assistance from Traffic Study Team. Te am 3. DETERMINE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON TRAFFIC NETWORK... 3.1 Identify trip distribution Traffic 6 months Coordination SDA Section of MDOT lead with using systems model. Study Function assistance from Traffic Study Team. Team from Traffic Study 3.2 Conduct capacity analysis. City 6 months Coordination Traffic Function Dept., MDOT T&S 4. REVIEW CITY'S NETSIM ANALYSIS AND DETERMINE NEED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS FOR DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION STUDY. 4.1 Document System level and Traffic 12 months Coordination Lansing Traffic lead. individual link or intersection Study Function impacts. Team ACTION PLAN (continued) Recommended Action Agent Schedule 4.2 Identify any additional Traffic 12 months analysis required. Study Team 4.3 If warranted, develop RFP Traffic 12 months for consultant services. Study Team 5. COMPLETE EVALUATION OF ONE-WAY STREET MODIFICATIONS... 5.1 Analyze and recommend street Consultant 12 months modifications as appropriate. or Traffic Study Team 1st Year Funds Coordination Function $26,000 Coordination Function Remarks Lansing Traffic lead.