The Huron Valley Trail provides a connection between South Lyon to Wixom. People use the trail because it’s away from cars, it’s green and just a great place to get away.

Lyon Township is trying to change that.

They want to re-route the rail-trail just south of I-96 and east of Milford Road. Rather than run straight through some greenspace, they want to increase their sprawl and build a big ring road.

Under the latest plan, the trail would be routed along this busy ring road. They also want to allow active driveways across the trail, which means it would no longer meet AASHTO guidelines — something that is required by township ordinance.

The DNR is saying “no”. They own the trail property. It was purchased and developed with taxpayer dollars as a recreational facility. They are defending this public investment and rightly so.

Another defender is Fred Dore, long time supporter and rider of this trail. He’s leading the grassroots effort to protect the trail from “being besieged by commercial development interests that may forever damage its utility, safety and natural beauty.”

He’s urging trail users to contact the DNR and Lyon Township officials to prevent this damaging trail reroute.

Link: Fred Dore’s letter to the DNR Director

The sad part about this is Lyon Township officials are claiming this is preventing growth. Southeast Michigan is not growing. Lyon Township is only getting larger because some other community is shrinking.

This is just another example of how the lack of regional planning hurts Metro Detroit’s long term economic health.

It’s just sprawl. And it’s certainly no justification for damaging our public investment in trails.

Today was the joint Senate-House hearing for legislation to better fund Michigan State Parks.

I did some live blogging during the hearing which is on the OurMichiganParks web site.

Nancy Krupiarz, the Michigan Trails and Greenways Alliance executive director joined me as seen in the photo to the right. Senator Patti Birkholz, one of the chairs of the meeting and long time supporter of Michigan State parks liked my neon green bike pin, a la Congressman Earl Blumenauer.

Unfortunately given the very large turnout to the hearing, we ran out of time before Nancy or I could speak. We did submit our written comments and will likely try again at future hearings on this critical legislation.

This morning I expect to speak before a joint House and Senate committee hearing for a series of bills that improve funding for our Michigan state parks.

The above link provides information on how you can voice your support for this new funding proposal.

Here is my testimony –

Good Morning. My name is Todd Scott. I am a member of the Citizen’s Committee for Michigan State Parks and the Detroit Greenways Coordinator for the Michigan Trails and Greenways Alliance.

My job is to advocate for and support a citywide trail network that provides great recreational opportunities for all Metro Detroiters as well as tourists.

We envision a trail network that allows folks to bike or walk to great destinations like Tri-Centennial State Park on the Detroit River.

However, the current state park funding model based on user fees doesn’t support parks like Tri-Centennial. All of its visitors will enter the park on foot, bike, or by boat – not by car. These visitors won’t need to buy motor vehicle passes nor will the park generate funds through camping fees.

And as we continue building trails that connect Michigan communities to our state parks, fewer motor vehicle passes will be sold and DNR park revenue will continue to suffer.

The proposed change in the state park funding addresses this issue.

It will allow great parks like Tri-Centennial to flourish.

I hope you consider supporting the bills brought before the committees this morning.

Thank you.

Two bills critical to the continued operation of our state parks were introduced in the Michigan Senate on Tuesday.

Senate Bill 388 and Senate Bill 389 were both referred to the Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs committee. This committee will hold a hearing on them next Wednesday at 1pm.

[EDIT: The hearing has been postponed.]

These bills are a reflection of years of studying various options by our Citizen’s Committee for Michigan State Parks, but especially under the guidance of committee member Dr. Chuck Nelson from MSU.

What do these bills do? From the new Citizen’s Committee web site, www.OurMichiganParks.org:

These bills would ask every Michigan driver to pay an?optional?$10 fee each year when renewing their Michigan vehicle registration on non-commercial vehicles. While non-residents would still have to purchase a non-resident motor vehicle permit, worker time in entrance booths at most parks would be drastically reduced, resulting in cleaner bathrooms, less litter, better resource stewardship, improved security and increased education and interpretation programs. In addition to providing support for state parks and boating access sites, this would also provide funding for our outstanding and underfunded state forest recreation system including more than 140 rustic campgrounds and almost a thousand miles of non-motorized pathways that serve hikers, mountain bikers, cross country skiers and equestrians. Finally, it would approximately double the amount of grant money annually available to local units of government to renovate or improve recreational facilities in local parks across Michigan.

The Committee is calling on Michigan residents to contact their state senators to voice their support for this legislation. Here’s how you can get your senator’s contact information.

Little Stimulus Money for Michigan State Parks

Despite the huge backlog in much-needed capital improvements, the Lansing State Journal is reporting that our state parks will not be receiving much economic stimulus funding.

Before all the details of the federal stimulus plan were known, the department put together a wish list of projects it could have ready to go in 90 days. The list included 586 proposals totaling $356.6 million, including more than $200 million and more than 300 projects involving park improvements. So far, only three DNR requests have got to the final round for consideration by federal officials.

Of course the stimulus money is going towards road projects. Our state parks have hundreds of miles of roads, many of which require repairs. However, the state considers these parks roads as “private” and not eligible for funding. These roads don’t even receive funding from the state fuel tax. This is just another fundamental reason why our state park operations are not sustainable.

Best Cars in a Crash (but not the safest)

Auto-centric viewpoints are common. Here’s one that’s often blindy repeated.

Forbes Magazine is reporting on the best cars in a crash and only considers safety from the viewpoint of those inside the car. A quarter of all road fatalities in Metro Detroit are pedestrians and cyclists. Which cars are safer for them? Large SUVs that take more lane width, have larger blind spots, have longer stopping distances, and are less manueverable?

Another problem with this type of article is it assumes a crash is inevitable. In a one-on-one situation, more manueverable, lighter vehicles are more likely to avoid a crash than their heavier counterparts.

This topic was well covered in an older New Yorker article. They review a study of fatalities per million cars which includes drivers, passengers, and the other crash victims. Mid-size cars were in found to cause the least number of fatalities.

Conservative Voice against Sprawl

We’ve spoken up against sprawl largely because it results in auto-centric communities that are often unsafe or impractical to bike or walk in.

Christopher Caldwell has this excellent op-ed in the Financial Times that points out the costly and inefficient economics behind sprawl:

In 1958, the great journalist William Whyte coined the term “sprawl”, in an article for Fortune. He noted with horror that, a mere two years after the Highway Act, already huge patches of once green countryside have been turned into vast, smog-filled deserts that are neither city, suburb, nor country. Developments were concentrated in random political no-man’s-lands near interchanges and exits. Road lobbyists and real estate developers colluded against meaningful regulation and planning, with the result, Whyte wrote, that “development is being left almost entirely in the hands of the speculative builder”.

Whyte warned that sprawl was not just bad aesthetics but bad economics. A subtler and more serious problem than blight was that, for local authorities, the cost of providing utilities and other services was exorbitant. “There is not only the cost of running sewers and water mains and storm drains out to Happy Acres,” Whyte wrote, “but much more road, per family served, has to be paved and maintained.” The infrastructure network that came out of the Highway Act had higher overheads than the one it replaced. It became a bottomless pit of spending.

Of course the Road Commission for Oakland County is paying the price for building a sprawled road network that it can no longer afford to maintain. They did no land use planning. And the Oakland County Commission has regularly selected road commissioners from the county’s sprawling communities, so this outcome is no surprise.

And the article even includes a nod to Detroit: “The encirclement of Detroit’s neighbourhoods by highways is often cited as a primary cause of its decline.”