jimbruckb

I have ready the study in its entirety. In my opinion, it's another example of how nearsighted and reactive MDOT is. The issue is that there are many ways to reduce congestion, but MDOT did not explore any other option than adding more lanes/roads. It's the Michigan Department of Transportation, not the Michigan Department of Highways. Another way to reduce congestion in to explore public transit options like Ottawa county is (ahem, WAS) doing. I wish someone would explain to me why we should not simply throw out any transit study now that this is actually happening. Since 10 years ago, we have had significant more proof that the public is desiring more transportation options, including public transit. Trends are also showing us that talent is attracted to vibrant, urban communities. Thus, it seems like as a region we should be focusing projects that will encourage building our cores and connecting them with public transit. This project does the exact opposite. It encourages sprawl and it reduces likelihood of getting proper infrastructure in place. I strongly disagree with you about bypasses. They encourage sprawl, and building them is a REACTIVE way to address a transportation issue. Again, there are other options for reducing congestion, we just need to get MDOT to really do their job and look past the single driver automobile.

Looks like the we're going to add another highway directly though the region. http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/04/final_hurdle_passed_for_buying.html The study that was done to support constructing this highway was done to "examine options to ease the traffic flow through Grand Haven," but never mentions any other form of transportation besides single passenger automobile. Average daily traffic over the Spring Lake bridge has actually decreased since the study was completed. I see this as a loss for anyone who had a vision for connecting the regional urban areas through any sort of public transportation system. I see this as a win for sprawl. I'm interested in the thoughts of others

If and when federal funding comes down the pipe to support a high-speed rail from Detroit to Chicago, how does everyone feel about a GR line that connects with the HS line at Kalamazoo? There is a slight toss up here. Grand Rapids could focus on connecting to Kalamazoo to hook up with the "high" speed, or we could continue to run the Pier Marquette line. I'm not sure if both lines would make it. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Rizzo, After hearing the President of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association speak at an event last week, I'm interested in pursing the West Michigan Rail idea further again. (GR - Muskegon - Holland) He is a very passionate person and he really motivated me to look into this once again. I spoke briefly with the Nelson/Nygaard consultants about it last time they were in town, and I'm going to be connecting with some of the other players that may be interested in the next few months. Any interest in getting together soon to discuss? I think there are still some questions out there that need to be answered regarding feasibility. If we can get together to concretely get these questions on paper, identify the correct players, and identify some action steps, we can determine if pursuing this is still a good option. I was thinking a "rail-drinks" type atmosphere where anyone who would like to join the discussion could join. I believe you guys did this before. Thoughts?

I'm really interested in the discussion about connecting Muskegon - Holland - GR by rail. Hopefully, the commuter study that Ottawa County is undertaking will show huge increase in commuter traffic in the last 5-10 years. I was told in order to have a reasonably successful inTRAurban transit system you will need a 50% inter county commuter ratio, this way the system could capture at least 3% of the commuter demand. I believe in 2000 we were just under 30%. There's also the chicken/egg question that deals with the above. My opinion on this particular case is "build it and they will come". I and many others have been wrong on this before, but I think this case is different. If we increase to a 50% commuter ratio, we'll have surely created a highway mess similar to LA to "cater" to the commuters. I think the line needs to be put in place before we reach that 50% point so we can properly adjust development patters to compliment the system. anyway.. those were just a couple thoughts. We have an uphill climb so we need some momentum on this. Rizzo (or anyone), any meet up plans for more discussion on this? Also, anyone know what the status is on the commuter/bus transit study? The last update I received was in February.