These seem to be pro forma procedures before an official decision. Only one alternative (the modified brt) has been deemed cost effective and competitive for federal funding. Am I missing something?
And to @Hood - Leap is indeed a public private non-profit, but our website barely scratches the surface. This organization currently fills three voids in our region:
1.) Regional Economic Development - before Leap there were several loose initiatives to tie local economic development efforts together, but this brings it to a new scale. All (or most...) site selection requests for Greater Lansing get sent to the region through Leap, and Leap Staff follow up with the ensuing process. As an example, when IBM came to town, this interrelated, cooperative, regional approach of which leap played a role - but not THE role - in finding a good space within the region that didn't require tons of incentives and spark an incentive war between neighboring municipalities.
Leap also coordinates with other regional organizations around entrepreneurship and small business assistance. Essentially, Leap (and the many partners) help bring business to Greater Lansing, help people start businesses, help small businesses become bigger businesses, and help big businesses stay in business.
2.) Regional Marketing - we don't have a single entity that markets the entire region... so now we do. Leap works closely w/ the Lansing CVB in this regard, but because the CVB is funded by the City of Lansing, they (and rightfully so) are less inclined to build their marketing around the entire region. That being said, we've got some forward thinkers there who understand that tiny Lansing competes not with Delta Twp, but with Guangdong Province in China... and they've taken a real leader's role in representing the entire region well.
3.) Engaging Progressive Business Leaders and Electeds to make local governments work better together - This is where my work comes in. We are working to facilitate better working relationships, more collaboration and coordination of services, and all of that good governmental stuff people say we need to be more competitive as a region. I'm trying to push Leap to a more supporting role of existing efforts - Tri-Co's scenario planning efforts ARE a national best practice and more local advocacy is needed to bring them to implementation at a local level. I'm working to bring our region's CEO/advocates up to speed on the importance of supporting infill and brownfield development, figuring out why some things things turn out the way they do (Accident Fund vs. MSUFCU as an example), and other heady/long-term planning concepts such as urban services boundaries, metro councils for regional land use planning, and whatever else we can pull out of the hat.
Leap is a non-profit funded primarily through private contributions, but municipal members are asked to contribute a much smaller amount as well so that they have a stake in the game... Their contributions don't quite pay for the traditional E/D role we play, but budgets on the public end really don't permit much planning for the future so it's good to have a public-private org like this to temporarily fill a few of those voids. If you want to get involved in some of the stuff, check out www.greaterlansingnext.com, specifically w/ Strategy 3 and 7 - those are mine, they're the fun ones anyway!
It's not 100%, I don't have the full details in front of me, and i'm purposely backtracking and equivocating, but it looks the modified BRT is probably the only option that will meet the federal funding criteria. I don't know if they've had communication w/ FTA to that effect, but that's my impression as well.
It's a tight line we walk here - we can't let any of our assumptions of anything exogenous to 'the locally preferred alternative' and the goals we set out with at the beginning affect the outcome. As as I understand, even the funding mechanisms shouldn't factor into that decision directly - this portion of the study is to only select a Mode that will be suitable for the outcomes we need.
It seems like a goofy process, I was really skeptical initially, but after reading Eugene Bardach's "A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis", the heavily prescriptive and purposive 'tunnel vision' will likely end up with a better outcome in the end. (Shameless plug, read that book.)
This way we're not value engineering at the conceptual stage, and then rethinking the big-picture stuff a week before shovels start digging...
The State News also features an article on the Corridor Transportation Study. The article mostly discusses the modified BRT option, which CATA assistant executive director Debbie Alexander claims, "in addition to (the cost) . . . also carries the most passengers."
My favorite point is the random opinion thrown in by the author that states the modified BRT "makes the most sense for the area." I probably know less about the pros and cons of the presented options than she does considering I didn't write an article about them, but I can't imagine she's really that engaged.
Yeah... I'm amazed at what gets written with no basis in fact. LSJ's editorial board wrote an editorial - while well-written and factually accurate - without actually calling CATA or any study committee member to get information. Amazing.
A State News article headlined information regarding an East Lansing development, but also had some interesting tidbits about where the City stands on the potential for CATA BRT. The City Council ended up asking for an additional 30 days, so CATA could take a look at some concerns, the largest of which seem to be "the preservation of medians on Grand River Avenue and the maintenance of eastbound left turns into downtown East Lansing" according to City Manager Ted Staton.
Mayor Vic Loomis mentioned that by requesting the additional 30 days, East Lansing wasn't saying "no," but wasn't saying "yes" either.
Three ways to get around the medians: underground, elevated, or reassigning a lane on each side for BRT. Obviously the first two aren't cost effective. Maybe the last option could happen, but it doesn't seem likely (however it would be interesting).
It is too bad michigan cannot get some of the federal money florida has turned down for high speed rail from detroit to lansing to grand rapids. That would be super! Well, as.long as I am dreaming I wish for a million bucks also!
The state is in the process of applying for additional federal money for high speed rail, but it is not for a Detroit to GR via Lansing line. They are more focused on getting the Detroit to Chicago line up and moving (quicker) since that is likely to have the highest ridership returns. Check out this Detroit News article. Michigan among states vying for $2.4B for high-speed rail
Yeah I'm pretty sure you're right MichMatters. Much of that is going to have to wait. In the mean time, it would be nice to see MegaBus or BoltBus add East Lansing/Lansing as one of their destinations. They currently offer Detroit to Chicago for $13.
Comments
1.) Regional Economic Development - before Leap there were several loose initiatives to tie local economic development efforts together, but this brings it to a new scale. All (or most...) site selection requests for Greater Lansing get sent to the region through Leap, and Leap Staff follow up with the ensuing process. As an example, when IBM came to town, this interrelated, cooperative, regional approach of which leap played a role - but not THE role - in finding a good space within the region that didn't require tons of incentives and spark an incentive war between neighboring municipalities.
Leap also coordinates with other regional organizations around entrepreneurship and small business assistance. Essentially, Leap (and the many partners) help bring business to Greater Lansing, help people start businesses, help small businesses become bigger businesses, and help big businesses stay in business.
2.) Regional Marketing - we don't have a single entity that markets the entire region... so now we do. Leap works closely w/ the Lansing CVB in this regard, but because the CVB is funded by the City of Lansing, they (and rightfully so) are less inclined to build their marketing around the entire region. That being said, we've got some forward thinkers there who understand that tiny Lansing competes not with Delta Twp, but with Guangdong Province in China... and they've taken a real leader's role in representing the entire region well.
3.) Engaging Progressive Business Leaders and Electeds to make local governments work better together - This is where my work comes in. We are working to facilitate better working relationships, more collaboration and coordination of services, and all of that good governmental stuff people say we need to be more competitive as a region. I'm trying to push Leap to a more supporting role of existing efforts - Tri-Co's scenario planning efforts ARE a national best practice and more local advocacy is needed to bring them to implementation at a local level. I'm working to bring our region's CEO/advocates up to speed on the importance of supporting infill and brownfield development, figuring out why some things things turn out the way they do (Accident Fund vs. MSUFCU as an example), and other heady/long-term planning concepts such as urban services boundaries, metro councils for regional land use planning, and whatever else we can pull out of the hat.
Leap is a non-profit funded primarily through private contributions, but municipal members are asked to contribute a much smaller amount as well so that they have a stake in the game... Their contributions don't quite pay for the traditional E/D role we play, but budgets on the public end really don't permit much planning for the future so it's good to have a public-private org like this to temporarily fill a few of those voids. If you want to get involved in some of the stuff, check out www.greaterlansingnext.com, specifically w/ Strategy 3 and 7 - those are mine, they're the fun ones anyway!
I hope that answers your question!
-Joe
It's not 100%, I don't have the full details in front of me, and i'm purposely backtracking and equivocating, but it looks the modified BRT is probably the only option that will meet the federal funding criteria. I don't know if they've had communication w/ FTA to that effect, but that's my impression as well.
It's a tight line we walk here - we can't let any of our assumptions of anything exogenous to 'the locally preferred alternative' and the goals we set out with at the beginning affect the outcome. As as I understand, even the funding mechanisms shouldn't factor into that decision directly - this portion of the study is to only select a Mode that will be suitable for the outcomes we need.
It seems like a goofy process, I was really skeptical initially, but after reading Eugene Bardach's "A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis", the heavily prescriptive and purposive 'tunnel vision' will likely end up with a better outcome in the end. (Shameless plug, read that book.)
This way we're not value engineering at the conceptual stage, and then rethinking the big-picture stuff a week before shovels start digging...
My favorite point is the random opinion thrown in by the author that states the modified BRT "makes the most sense for the area." I probably know less about the pros and cons of the presented options than she does considering I didn't write an article about them, but I can't imagine she's really that engaged.
Mayor Vic Loomis mentioned that by requesting the additional 30 days, East Lansing wasn't saying "no," but wasn't saying "yes" either.