The Michigan Land Use Institute has reviewed the five-page Preliminary Traffic Impact Study Recommendations (the “preliminary study”) developed by URS Corporation for the proposed Village at Grand Traverse (the “Village”) and dated June 7, 2004.

Lacks Detail
First, it’s important to note that the preliminary study mostly lacks the pertinent details necessary to fully evaluate the impact of the proposed Village at Grand Traverse and it’s attendant 2.4 million square feet of development. The preliminary study does not even convey the average daily traffic counts expected at the Village when fully developed, a fundamental and necessary component of a traffic evaluation.

The preliminary study of June 7 promises that a “complete traffic impact study … will be provided by the end of the week.” However, conversations by me on July 22, 2004, with the Village planner Steve Hayward, Sharon Corpe of Acme Township, Mike Dillenbeck of the Grand Traverse County Road Commission, and Dave Langhorst of the Michigan Department of Transportation all confirmed that a “complete traffic impact study” does not exist.

Old Development Data
Importantly, the preliminary study explicitly relied upon outdated and underestimated numbers for development's square footage and, therefore, related future traffic counts and problems are underestimated. The Village developers' refined application, submitted apparently on June 14 and June 16, 2004, boosts the square footage of the proposed development by about 380,000 square feet or 20 percent more than the square footage used by the preliminary study.

Questionable Baseline Traffic Data
The Village developers assert in their mixed-use planned development application to Acme Township that 26,000 vehicles a day currently use M-72. This appears to be a considerable overestimate. The MDOT 2003 Average Daily Traffic Count map (the most current available) shows between 16,700 and 21,000 trips a day on M-72 near the proposed Village site. And MDOT traffic counts taken there in August 2003 generally confirm that range. Overestimating current or baseline trips on M-72 could have the effect of underreporting actual and percent-increase in traffic on M-72 that is expected to be generated by the Village.

Visits To The Village
The developers of the Village expect 34,000 visitors a day when fully developed, according to their application. Village planner Steve Hayward said to me in a telephone conversation on July 22, 2004, that this likely translates to about 20,000 vehicle trips a day (assuming that some vehicles will have more than one passenger and some won’t). Thus, the Village developers expect their project to essentially double daily traffic on M-72. During the afternoon “peak hour” of visiting, 2,551 vehicles are expected to enter and exit the Village — about 1 trip every 1.5 seconds.

The Grand Traverse Resort
The preliminary study more than once refers to the intent of the Grand Traverse Resort to seek an access point on M-72 to the north and directly opposite the Village. MDOT’s Langhorst said July 22 that the resort is asking MDOT to allow the Resort to establish its main entrance on M-72. The resort currently attracts unknown thousands of visitors a day and, if the Grand Traverse Band’s casino were relocated to the resort, as some suppose, then many more thousands of daily visitors also would be traveling along M-72. These scenarios appear to be mostly unaccounted for in the preliminary study.

Impact to M-72 at the Village’s Main Entrance
Even while overestimating current traffic on M-72 and underestimating future traffic related to the Village and the resort, the preliminary study calls for significantly expanding M-72 and adding a traffic signal at the Village’s main entrance. Specifically, the preliminary study recommends that M-72 at the main entrance have:

• At least four lanes of through traffic (two lanes in each direction, east and west.)
• A right and left turn lane for eastbound M-72.
• A right and left turn lane for westbound M-72.

This equates to at least six lanes of traffic on M-72 at the Village’s main entrance.

Impact to M-72 at Lautner Road
Even while overestimating current traffic on M-72 and underestimating future traffic related to the Village and the resort, the preliminary study calls for significantly expanding M-72 and adding a traffic signal at Lautner Road. Specifically, the preliminary study recommends that M-72 at Lautner Road have:

• At least four lanes of through traffic (two lanes in each direction, east and west.)
• A right and left turn lane for eastbound M-72.
• Two left turn lanes for westbound M-72.

This equates to at least six lanes of traffic on M-72 at the Village’s Lautner Road entrance.

Impact to Lautner Road
Lautner Road itself would be significantly expanded at its intersection with M-72 but otherwise Lautner Road would remain two lanes because the preliminary study estimates that only five percent of traffic to the Village would arrive or exit from the south on Lautner Road. The Grand Traverse County Road Commission in its July 6, 2004, review of the Preliminary study asserted that far more than five percent of traffic likely would rely on Lautner Road, and we agree. The traffic impact to Lautner Road and Bunker Hill Road, and the attendant pressure to develop Lautner and Bunker Hill roads could be extensive and merits much more analysis.

Public Transit and Non-Motorized Traffic
Residents of the Grand Traverse region strongly support public transportation and bicycling and walking options, but these modes of transportation are not accounted for in the preliminary study. The Grand Traverse County Road Commission’s July 6, 2004, review notes this deficiency as well.