DwntwnGeo

I talked with a college friend of mine that works for Consumers Energy about some of our questions/concerns. Please understand he is not high enough on the coporate ladder to make these types of decisions, but he was willing to talk to me about it. Consumers Energy does own the ROW lines along there. It is one of their main transmission power feeds into the Southern part of the City (Rather large Sub-station on SE corner of US131 & 28th St) and also into downtown. This is a transmission line with 347,000+ volts and not a normal distribution line (7200 volts) that runs down our streets to businesses and homes. I don't see Conusmers letting anyone use/buy the ROW. They have in the past allowed bike/walking trails along their cooridors. This wasn't a large investment (compaired to a rail line) that the city had to invest to pave a trail and it also gave Consumers enough room to bring their large equipment when repairs and maintence is/was needed. You are correct in that the current transmission line is more on one side than the other, this is because this line is one of Consumers route to build an additional transmission line to bring more power to the GR core area when it is needed in the future. What I have mentioned here, doesn't mean that something couldn't change in the future. We all know that when companies have large pressures from local and State levels, weird things can occur, but on the flip side, as our City grows we will need additional power and sub-stations and their are limited ROW that these can be built on. I don't have any personally, but I could take a few at the intersections of 36th Street and 54th Street if you would like me to. Currently the area will be all snow covered though....

I agree that Light Rail right on Division will probably not work well in today's environment and probably even worse in years to come because of lack of grade sepeation and speed constraints. I do think that BRT is a decent choice at this time and possibly upgrade to street cars in the future if the transit demand increases? I just don't think our first choice of transit after busses has to be Light Rail. Looking at both NYC and Portland transit systems, they both multiple levels of tranist. New York has regular busses, a BRT system, the subways, and heavy rail for commuters. Portland has busses, a downtown street car loop and Light Rail for faster/longer commuter transit. I guess my question is, would it that bad if GR has BRT down the southern route of Division Ave. with a street car system downtown and a Light Rail system on another route going out of the City in another ten years? As cities grow their transit systems can too. I believe it was the GT2 study that showed future routes along the rail lines going to Holland, along US131 and along Seward North out of the City to Comstock and Sparta/Rockford. Personally I feel that there needs to be two methods of transit systems in GR. One will need to be a FAST or "express" commuter rail service to get people in and out downtown GR. These routes would possibly follow the existing rail lines to Holland, along US131 and North along Seward and I am sure there are others too. To me the main goal of these routes would be to get people in and out of the City core as fast as possile. The second method is more of a "local" method that should run along business corridors and should have multiple stops ever couple of blocks etc. The "local" method is more of getting people around business & retail locations and not really as a means to express cummuters in and out of the city core. I think a lot of frustration comes from trying to combine these two transit methods into one. I guess my point is having a BRT system down Division would be a good choice for a more "local" type of transit. Because of the speed constrainst and not having grade seperation I do not feel this is a good choice for an "express" commuter line. Does any of this make sense, or am I just out in left feild?

It would depend on how The Rapid lay it out on Division or any street. If there is going to be total seperation between "car lanes" and "bus lanes" than you may have to a dedicated lane just for the "express" service. This is how they do it in NYC. The "local" trains have hte outter rails and the "express" trains have the inner rails. Without complete seperation between "bus" and "car" lanes different arrangements can happen which may or may not speed anything up. As Rizzo, pointed out the Busses will have to follow speed limits and traffic laws alonge the route. Where things would be quicker is if busses have a dedicated lane and a system where the bus will trigger stop lights to change to keep the busses moving and only stopping at the designated bus stops. My thought on Division is to have one dedicated bus lane and run both an "express" and "local" service on the one lane. The only way I can think of to make it work is to have all the actual bus stops being a "bump in" off the dedicated lane into the sidewalk. Very similar to on street parking is now. Doing this will allow the express bus to pass any local bus while it is dropping/picking up passengers at one of the local stops.

I agree, if given an alternative, people would choose the faster/most convient choice for them. In my opinion here is the question/problem: If someone is using transit for commuting, they would want it to be fast and the least number of stops the better. If someone is looking for "local" transit, they would like more frequent stops to get closer to their end destination. I am wondering if The Rapids chooses one route and one mode of transportation, if they will include a "local" and an "express" line? They do this in the New York Subways, but I don't see why it wouldn't work in GR with busses or whatever mode of transit they choose. Your primary line will be local and basically stops at every half or quarter mile intersection with a train say every 10-15 mins. Also have a secondary line that will be used an "express" route to downtown. The "express" route would only hit all the park and rides along the route and only have very limited stops for transfers to the "local" line.

This is where I have issues. (maybe there are my own and no one elses). If you want a FAST (like LTR) direct or low number of service stops into downtown than you should not use Division Ave. Use should try and use the freight lines along US131 or the Frieght/Amtrak lines over to Holland etc. To me these would be more considered "commuter" lines and would come from Holland/Kalamazoo/Muskegon/Lansing etc. If you want a "local" mass transit to system with multiple stops (like every few blocks) to support retail and business locations than I think Division would be a good location. It is the largest route current in use (outside of students for GVSU-Allendale). The infrastructure is mostly set up along Division etc and there are existing buildings with businesses/retail. I do not think that we as a Metro area can support a system that would combine both the Commuter and Local transit systems like they do in larger cities of NYC and Chicago. However I do feel we can support each type of system in their own ways in seperate areas. This is just my $.02 and I could very well be wrong.

Rizzo, I see what you are saying and if locals can put up the money that is good too. But you need a people base to use the product..... From your example, than buildings downtown should all be 600+ feet because someday someone will fill the floor space, because we don't want to tear down or add to an existing building to make it taller when the need is there. You cannot get funding from banks/local partners without having a certain percentage of spaced called for. Wouldn't it be simular to how funding for a transit system would work? What bank/businessman is going to contribute money to something that might be overbuilt? If you are going to have close to the same ridership on either type of system, than why spend more money on one than the other?

We also should understand, and many of use do, is that sometimes we have to take smaller steps forward than what we would like to. In talking with a Rapid Manager yesterday, he would also like to go right to Light Rail, but he also says that there would be no Federal Funding and you cannot expect all the Money for LTR to come from locals and Millages. So if you can take small steps forward, to establish the ROW, and the best route now so you can plan for your ultimate design in the next decade or two. So BRT may not be the ultimate goal we want, but if we can use it as a tool to increase support and ridership, start laying a foundation for future steps towards getting more Federal dollars for our ultimate transit plan, than isn't it worth it? Look at downtown, it isn't what it is today because of just one project, it took many small and large projects over the course of a couple of decades to make it what is it is today.

When I stopped by yesterday, I asked for the minutes and they were not available yet..... If/When I find them Rizzo, I will let you know.

Thanks dragt for the updates on the meeting. When I stopped by on Thursday, it was mentioned that attending the Board Meeting on 1-24-07 would be a good idea. As you mentioned there is suppose to be a vote in regards to the "next" transit step. If approved by the board on 1-24-07, there woudl be some additional information would be made available to the public.

FilmMaker, were you able to attend the meeting on Wednesday? I got my days/dates mixed up and drove to The Rapid today (1-18) for yesterday's meeting

From an article posted in the news section of The Rapid website: "WASHINGTON, DC - Today, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) released a groundbreaking new study finding that public transportation use saves 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline every year, and can reduce household expenses by $6,200 - more than the average household pays for food in a year." "Public transportation usage reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by 1.4 billion gallons each year - or the equivalent of 108 million cars filling up, almost 300,000 each day. These savings result from the efficiency of carrying multiple passengers in each vehicle; the reduction in traffic congestion from fewer automobiles on the roads; and the varied sources of energy for public transportation. If twice as many Americans had the choice of taking public transportation, these gasoline savings would at least double to 2.8 billion gallons each year."The complete article published 1-10-07 can be read here: http://www.apta.com/media/releases/070109_energy_report.cfm

Looking for some additional information on the internet, I came across this site on MDOT for public input: "MI Transportation Plan MI Transportation Plan, also known as the State Long-Range Plan, is a 25-year plan for transforming Michigan's transportation system. With input from stakeholders and the public, MDOT is developing a vision for our future transportation system. The draft plan will be released in late spring 2007. "There are a couple links to some current MDOT visions and goals. There is also a link for public comment. This is our time to let the State of Michigan know how we feel about transit issues in our State. The MDOT link is here: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/1,1607,7-151-...4809---,00.html

Most all of Division south of downtown is at least 4 lanes wide (two lanes of traffic each direction)and 5 in some places. What if the City were to dedicate one lane in each direction for tansit (LTR or BRT)? Wouldn't it be possible for the City to "curb" off this transit lane so drivers could not jump lanes? This would create a dedicated ROW for a tranist system. There are additional services that Cities have put on BRT to "adjust or change" stop lights on cross streets to make the transit lane more effient and on time by not having to stop at each and every light. Of course the major down side to this plan would be the adjustment required by drivers to have one lane in each direction instead of two. Another option in some areas where street side parking is available is to loose the parking lane verses the driving lane. Maybe the frustration of driving on only one lane would encourage additional users of the transit system? or maybe it would encourage them not to go downtown?

I understand that the current rail line is owned by frieght, but Amtrak doesn't own their rail lines either, they share/lease them with freight, right? I was just mentioning that if a trial works over on the East side of Michigan where Amtrak, frieght, and passenger can share the same rail, than maybe it would/could be an option here on the West side of the State. Would it be a perferct, probably not, because they wouldn't own the rails, but maybe it would spur more interest into rail transit increasing ridership and showing the Feds that it would be a good investment to give us Federal monies to build our own dedicated lines. As the Detroit article mentions, it would cost $3Billion to build a dedicated system, but only $5Million/year to share/lease with Amtrak/frieght. The $5Million being something more managable by local & state governments. It will be interesting to see if they can get something like this to work or not. I know plat maps show land/ROW owned by power companies for their main transmission lines. You can buy them on a county by county basis. It would be great if there was an online version...

Is anyone planning on attending the: 2) The Rapid

"So teaming up with Amtrak for a demonstration rail project -- using existing track, stations and renovated passengers cars -- makes the most sense. SEMCOG is negotiating with Amtrak to provide several limited-stop daily round trips between Detroit and Ann Arbor. Stops might include Ypsilanti, Metro Airport and Dearborn." "Building a light-rail system from Detroit to Ann Arbor would cost an estimated $3 billion. By contrast, the Amtrak demonstration project includes no direct start-up costs and perhaps $5 million a year to operate. Money would most likely come from state grants, local communities and counties that benefit from new service for students, commuters, airline passengers, sports fans and entertainment seekers."If sharing track/stations with Amtrak works out for SE Michigan maybe they can do something simular on the SW side. Wouldn't it be great if share the Amtrak line between Grand Rapids and Holland for commuters? Or to create a route between Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo with stops in Wayland (future Casino?), Plainwell and Kalamazoo. If things were timed right, people from Grand Rapids area could take a commuter train to Kalamazoo and transfer to one of the four Chicago bound Amtrak trains.

Isn't there an on/off ramp for I-196 on the Western side of Division Ave across from the RDV construction site? Maybe they would go a little further west and build on top of the GR Press building

I see your point. From what I have read on the net, it sounds like there will be two systems, the downtown circular street car and more of a commuter system that The Rapid will choose from the Great Transit Grand Tomorrows study group. One system will help people get around the core area while the other will help bring people to and from the core area. For example: If The Rapids decides the route will be down Division, they could construct/build Park and Rides at various stops that have access to US131 (ie: Divsion & 36th or Division & 44th or Divsion &54th or somewhere by the US131/M6 interchange). Doing this may help with some of the congestion for parking/driving downtown for people coming from the South.

I would love to go myself

An article in today's Rapid Growth talks about the recent trip to Portland. Sounds like it must have gone well. "local leaders are now planning a second, larger expedition to Portland later this year to continue to build local interest, particularly among developers, in the streetcar revolution." The complete article can be read here: http://www.rapidgrowthmedia.com/features/pland36.aspx

I heard/read somewhere the automated system replaces the need for a live person at the gate to take your money. The gate will have a way to accept cash, coins, debit and credit cards for payment before letting you exit the ramp. Does the Kinko's surface lot have one of these gates? If so, I wonder if it is working well for them.

Maybe they will snow melt the sea of parking too. We wouldn't want anybody to experience winter in Michigan and get their Italian shoes wets. I would have rather seen some of these shops downtown, but I forgot we have a aweful parking problem and not enough people that spend money I guess.

Maybe there is something more to this.... they(MDOT etc) are going to rebuild Michigan Street starting next year. Maybe they can build something that will work with a transit system the city (and others) are looking at in Portland. Whether it be partially underground or changing the slope somehow to make it work. Maybe the section of the loop along Michigan will be a cable car? Do they make an interchangable street & cable car? (ok, back to reality).

With some talk about the DASH systems, here are the three routes it currently has in the CBD.

Now that my mind is thinking about a possible downtown transit systems instead of work this afternoon, what are some ideas for possible routes in downtown? Do you think there will be one consitant loop, or multiple loops that intersect eachother? Like one North/South loop and one East/West loop intersecting at points for transfers. Would they consider going North along Ionia and South along Ottawa since both of these streets are already one-way, it would be easier to block or dedicate a lane for a transit car. Do you think they will cross the River to pick up GVSU and the YMCA? The East/West crossing can be on Fulton, Pearl or Michigan/Bridge Streets. I am curious to hear what routes you guys/girls think are important in the downtown/core areas. I will have to get my downtown maps out and figure out how many places I can get to in under 3 miles.