Would you ride lightrail?

[monsoon]

now a heavy line from DT to the airport would make sense. As would DT to Muskegon, and Holland (with a stop in Grand Haven along the way)

No it would not make sense. Not unless you needed to move thousands of people every few minutes. See the definition above of what heavy passenger rail is.

It sounds like you are getting heavy rail confused with commuter rail which is basically a short haul locomotive pulling passenger cars.

[Allison Slater]

A route between DT and Kalamazoo would also make sense, with a stop in Wayland considering that by the time any rail system would be put in place, the casino will probably be open. (And I could finally commute without a car heh xD)

[snoogit]

No it would not make sense. Not unless you needed to move thousands of people every few minutes. See the definition above of what heavy passenger rail is.

It sounds like you are getting heavy rail confused with commuter rail which is basically a short haul locomotive pulling passenger cars.

well maybe, but the amount of people coming from the West, and South of Grand Rapids is staggering (I think in my former workplace alone I knew of 3 people who are from St. Joeseph! Thats quite a drive! )

[GRDadof3]

I think monsoon is right that you guys are confusing heavy passenger rail and light rail. I can't see enough volume of riders to justify any heavy rail in this area.

Here are some examples of heavy rail:

Metra in Chicago (think of Amtrak serving far suburban commuters)

New York to Boston high-speed rail

Examples of light rail

Dublin

Minneapolis

You have to look at how many people are commuting from any given quadrant (that could be served by rail stations) and then take a fraction of that ( 5 - 10%) that would actually use a mass transit system in the beginning. If 5000 people drive from Kzoo to GR to work, then maybe about 100 of them would take mass transit. That's about enough to fill one train for one trip. Hardly the thousands/hour needed to support heavy rail

There isn't even enough demand that could fill a light rail line in the near future between GR/Kzoo or GR/Muskegon IMO. The two routes that have been chosen are probably the best bet, since they both run through the densist parts of Grand Rapids. The proposed line that serves the airport may not even serve that many passengers from the airport to downtown. If a light rail line takes you 25 minutes to get from the airport to downtown, whereas the Air Porter service can get there in 15 or less, which do you take? Unless the Air Porter service is done away with, which might be an option.

However, with 131 becoming more and more bottlenecked at peak travel times, park-n-ride stations along 131 might do very well. Especially if it's cheaper than parking downtown.

[DwntwnGeo]

Thanks for the references to online articles

Here is another article I found in the December 2005 issue of MassTransit. It talks alot about The Rapid and its Executive Director/CEO Peter Varga and the transporation vision for the Grand Rapids Metro area.

The complete article is here:

http://www.masstransitmag.com/publication/...p?pubId=1&id=90

An interesting quote towards the end of the article:

[monsoon]

Metra in Chicago is classic commuter rail. It is not passenger heavy rail. While the locomotives and cars are massive and carry a lot of passengers, the element that is missing is a system of this type can't make frequent and fast station stops. That is why it is not considered heavy rail.

[Greedo]

I doubt Chicago could have been built nearly as dense as it is without it's rail system.

That's true. Much of Chicago's growth before the turn of the century was fueled by private land developers who wanted to make their neighborhoods more attractive by extending commuter rail. The neighborhood I lived in was built that way.

Granted, all of the commuter trains, rails and platforms were also privately-owned by a group of rail "barons" who wanted as many people living farther from the Loop so they'd have to pay to ride the train into the central core.

[GRDadof3]

[Greedo]

In my spite for unsightly LRT wires, and other's disgust for elevated track, I stumbled on this report about a technology that safely uses third rail in ground-based systems.

The INNORAIL system is currently being used in Bordeaux, France. Basically it uses a sectionalized central rail embedded in the ground. The electric current is activated only when the LRT train is above.

Aesthetically pleasing, no wires, and no elevation. More here.

[GRDadof3]

In my spite for unsightly LRT wires, and other's disgust for elevated track, I stumbled on this report about a technology that safely uses third rail in ground-based systems.

The INNORAIL system is currently being used in Bordeaux, France. Basically it uses a sectionalized central rail embedded in the ground. The electric current is activated only when the LRT train is above.

Aesthetically pleasing, no wires, and no elevation. More here.

I had read that report last Summer. Way cool!

[monsoon]

Unfortunately it's not approved for use in the USA, it currently does not support operation with snow and ice which I assume would be an issue for Grand Rapids, and the sole source manufacturer has shown no interest in adapting it for the USA. If GR wants LRT anytime in the forseeable future this is not a technology that should be relied upon. There are way too many hurdles in trying to use it.

[GRDadof3]

Oh well, it would have been cool to go wireless.

I think I found the answer to my own question. This is a section out of Great Transit - Grand Tomorrow Report:

http://www.ridetherapid.org/Main/Adobe_Acr...sletter_10r.pdf

Streetcar as shown here is what I think of as Light Rail (as in Portland). I'm going to push for the Streetcar option then, because that's what I would like to see (if I get a chance to voice my support). Cost is projected at $206/ $258 Million based on the two preliminary routes.

[snoogit]

My question is why does BRT project to have more riders then Streetcars, or LRT?

I'd think it would be the opposite. and my PO, I'd much rather have LRT, then even Street Cars, expecially a system with its own ROW, and its own track system. I'd replace minor streets that run parallel to major streets with Light Rail myself. As this would make things safer as well.

I just think it would be better if we went LRT to keep it off of main roads, but keep it close enough thats the suburbanites wont complain. one block off of Division for N-S traffic would do the trick.

ahhhh DMU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_multiple_unit

Sounds cool! I think I know why they studied it for such low rifdership for DMU, the railline they are looking at cuts through a large chunk of Industrial property, of course its not going to get much ridership, BUT if they added some lines north of the norfolk line (which ends at Buchannan Ave.) Then DMU would be a really nice alternative (no electric lines, can replace a minor street with it, I wish it were legal in the US

[monsoon]

My question is why does BRT project to have more riders then Streetcars, or LRT?

I'd think it would be the opposite. and my PO, I'd much rather have LRT, then even Street Cars.

Often, proponents of BRT will argue that since BRT is not limited to tracks it can be routed to more places and such the ridership should be higher. The reality unfortunately is the more this is done, the less it is rapid transit and just plain old ordinary bus service in fancy vehicles.

In any case given the ridership projections listed, it is way too low to justify the expense of LRT.

[Rizzo]

^^Asked the right question... I thought rails creates their own market of riders, plus add to that the perception of busses. Is ITP planning a physiological war with the community to change the stigma?

[GRDadof3]

In case you guys didn't take a look at the study, the only two options being pursued any time in the near future (8 - 15 years) are BRT or Streetcars. With that in mind, I say streetcars. You can wish for other options or complain about the two, but that's the reality. I personally think the streetcar systems in Portland and Denver are pretty cool, and would work well here.

Imagine riding a streetcar system through the Cherry/Lake/Diamond/Heritage Hill/Easttown/EGR areas with all the historic buildings going by.

[Rizzo]

As long as there are two rails and the railcars aren't oldy items I'm with it.

[snoogit]

I have an idea, and yeah this would probably be be YEARS down the line (I'm talking decades here) but take a look at this:

http://www.railamerica.com/railmaps/GR.htm

More specifically the RED line. AFAIK this line is RARELY used. Infact I thought for years it was decommissioned and no one bothered to tear it up. This is the line of the Grand Rapids and Eastern RR. its nothing more then a line thats monitored by a small company in greenville. You would need to add a more feasable north-sounth line, but for east-west it cant be beat.

This old line would be cheap to renovate and reuse for LRT (or the proverbial DMU if the USRTA gets off their heineys and allows it) You would probably want to find someway to connect the Norfolk Southern line to the GR&E Line on the east side (they can connect on the west side, via a CSX route but that serves no one in the short term, but it would be perfect for Downtown GVSU-Allendale GVSU rail trips however.)

and you could tunnel a line from where the NFS and the GRE would be best served.

Something like this would have to be done (red is one line, Green is option #2, Blue is pre existing.)

I would think underground would be the best choice if this were a reality.

[GRDadof3]

As long as there are two rails and the railcars aren't novelty items I'm with it.

I agree, with modern cars and platforms it would be sweet!

None of these are my work

I like the lego station the best.

I'd even strongly consider moving to be near a streetcar station.

[Khorasaurus]

Does anyone have a good idea of where the DT-EGR-Kentwood-Airport route would go? (i.e. on what streets?) It just seems to me that the streets on the SE side and in EGR are very narrow to support something with its own right of way at street level, especially Breton Road in EGR.

I guess if it were up to me to design it I'd go Fulton - Lake -Wealthy - Lakeside Dr - Breton - Burton - East Beltline -28th -Patterson -44th BUT I think there'd be major opposition by rich homeowners in EGR.

[Rizzo]

I'd go elevated over 44th... You have the ROW via the median already.

[Khorasaurus]

That could someday be it's own line....Airport to Rivertown Crossings. It might spur some more density in the area and would definately increase ridership on the Division Line.

[GRDadof3]

Does anyone have a good idea of where the DT-EGR-Kentwood-Airport route would go? (i.e. on what streets?) It just seems to me that the streets on the SE side and in EGR are very narrow to support something with its own right of way at street level, especially Breton Road in EGR.

I guess if it were up to me to design it I'd go Fulton - Lake -Wealthy - Lakeside Dr - Breton - Burton - East Beltline -28th -Patterson -44th BUT I think there'd be major opposition by rich homeowners in EGR.

Based on The RAPID's corridor options map, this is what streets they had in mind:

[AlexPKeaton]

It seems there is still much confusion about the different types of rail and what is feasible in Grand Rapids. While I'd prefer a light rail system, that doesn't seem to be on the table. I would strongly support street cars over the bus idea, though. However, how much of an improvement would street cars be? They share the road with cars, right? No dedicated lanes? Do they have to obey traffic signals, or do they trigger signals so as to only hit green lights?

-nb

[GRGyp]

Often, proponents of BRT will argue that since BRT is not limited to tracks it can be routed to more places and such the ridership should be higher. The reality unfortunately is the more this is done, the less it is rapid transit and just plain old ordinary bus service in fancy vehicles.

In any case given the ridership projections listed, it is way too low to justify the expense of LRT.

Looking at those numbers, however, they are not projecting that much more ridership, so I don't think they are trying to skew the numbers to make BRT look better.

I think the argument they are using is similar, but more based on flexibility of adding additional buses onto a route during seasonal busy times (festivals, concerts, other events...) It's easier to get a reserve bus running than dropping another trolley on the tracks so to speak. In this case the number of stops stays the same to retain the rapid transit function. The difference is you can scale bus service more efficiently than rail since buses are cheaper to purchase and maintain, and are not limitted by being on a fixed circuit.