Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[GRDadof3]

The day just wouldn't be complete with GRDad posting something about Diesel Multiple Units

Haha! That's right tracer! A change of pace from miring in talk of parking lots and lack of retail.

[Rizzo]

The Stadler GTW 2/6 model for Arriva Netherlands:

Never mind hearing an engine, listen to the wheels on the rails -- smooth

Edited April 5, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

Ooh, I like that Rizzo. Here's a duplex:

[Explorer55]

The Transportation Research Board will be sponsoring a conference on the coordination between transit and regional planning which will be held this August in Denver. In case anyone might be interested in learning more about it or may consider attending this, here's a link to the conference webpage:

http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CUTS/trb/conf/

It looks like it will be a very enlightening and stimulating event. And Downtown Denver in the summer is just plain fun!

[Libertarian]

The best part is that if you do have a comprehensive transit plan, the city does not HAVE to have ridiculous building codes because the impetus to accommodate pedestrians/street life would already be there. It would be organic without the need for government "fertilizer." Portland is a great example that is used often here:

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/storie...15/daily31.html

This building being built by TMT Development will have 525,000sq. ft.; 280,000sq. ft of that is class a office space. There will be three floors of retail. That means there will be 1 parking spot for every 925sq. ft. of office space if you subtract 1 parking spot for each of the 85 residences(a very generous estimate for luxury condos in my opinion). This estimate is not even taking into consideration the need for parking from the retail! Now bear with me here.

http://www.bridgewatergr.com/about.html

The Bridgewater, which I would consider GR’s premier class A office building has 400,000sq. ft. and 1,380 parking spaces. I would subtract 375 of those spaces because according to the website those are reserved for visitors. Oh, there is a caf

[GRDadof3]

The best part is that if you do have a comprehensive transit plan, the city does not HAVE to have ridiculous building codes because the impetus to accommodate pedestrians/street life would already be there. It would be organic without the need for government "fertilizer." Portland is a great example that is used often here:

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/storie...15/daily31.html

This building being built by TMT Development will have 525,000sq. ft.; 280,000sq. ft of that is class a office space. There will be three floors of retail. That means there will be 1 parking spot for every 925sq. ft. of office space if you subtract 1 parking spot for each of the 85 residences(a very generous estimate for luxury condos in my opinion). This estimate is not even taking into consideration the need for parking from the retail! Now bear with me here.

http://www.bridgewatergr.com/about.html

The Bridgewater, which I would consider GR

[therustymitten]

Do you think the city would accept a proposal like this?

http://www.unstudio.com/projects/country/us/1/230

If the link doesn't work, you just might have to type it into your web browser. It's worth checking out.

Why does this blogging have to be so difficult!

[tamias6]

Something like this could work for connecting Michigan Hill with north Monroe. The price would have to be right though.

[GRDadof3]

The connection that the Portland Aerial Tram provides between Oregon Health and Science University and its new waterfront development is very unique. It's hard to tell by this aerial, but the the hospital sits 450' above the riverfront, and is separated from much of the city by tight winding 2 lane roads and the I-5 expressway. They also really had no place to expand on the hill, so they built the $57 Million aerial tram to connect the hilltop campus with their new riverfront land for expansion. The tram runs right over SW Gibbs St and connects the hill on the left and the waterfront on the right.

This is a pretty good history article about the campus and the need for the tram:

http://www.oregonlive.com/living/oregonian...&thispage=1

(you probably will have to enter your zip code and year of birth, but it's a good article)

Not to say that it's a bad idea Woody (I like Portland's) I don't see GR needing (or spending) that kind of money on something like that, yet. BTW: on some peak days the tram has averaged 3500+ riders a day, and much of the riverfront development has not opened yet.

[tracer1138]

This may or may not be of any use to regional or Intra-city transport in the Grand Rapids area, and I definitely haven't yet taken the time to read through the whole thing (I skimmed it for about 2 minutes)...

But here is the state's Inter City Passenger Technical Report component of the Long Range Transportation Plan

It deals specifically with passenger rail and bus transport.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDO...06_178140_7.pdf

happy reading!

Edited April 9, 2007 by tracer1138

[Rizzo]

Anytime the state refers to passenger rail they really mean Amtrak -- which doesn't count. When I read through the pamphlets out of MDOT boasting Michigan's passenger rail infrastructure I roll my eyes.

[GRDadof3]

Gas is getting close to $3 a gallon again. Since it always seems to be highest in the Summer, wonder what kind of gas prices we'll be looking at?

And we have 7 months to tap into a lot of ROAD RAGE.

[therustymitten]

I know there's no chance of an aerial tram being a reality in Grand Rapids, I just find the project very interesting. It intices people to use public transportation by the veiw it gives passengers, it saves 20-30 minutes (riding a bus usually wastes 20-30 minutes), it's not your boring run-of-the-mill transit stop (retail is incorporated), it's actually quite nice to look at, etc...

I just think by incorporating some design into the project, it would be a much more sucessful project. People might actually go out of their way to use public transportation.

[GRDadof3]

I know there's no chance of an aerial tram being a reality in Grand Rapids, I just find the project very interesting. It intices people to use public transportation by the veiw it gives passengers, it saves 20-30 minutes (riding a bus usually wastes 20-30 minutes), it's not your boring run-of-the-mill transit stop (retail is incorporated), it's actually quite nice to look at, etc...

I just think by incorporating some design into the project, it would be a much more sucessful project. People might actually go out of their way to use public transportation.

Oh, I agree. I think even the critics of the aerial tram are surprised by the ridership already (although they're still criticizing it). For the cost, it'd have to be the perfect traffic problem that needs to be solved for it to be worthwile. Here's a pretty good video of it (you can make you own decision on the music):

[Rizzo]

Youtube is getting its exposure

Here's a LRT vehicle Siemens puts out called the Desiro. Its another common vehicle used in the UK and Mainland.

[tamias6]

That train was moving at a good clip of speed. What would be the speed limits for such a trains in denser parts of an urban area?

Youtube is getting its exposure

Here's a LRT vehicle Siemens puts out called the Desiro. Its another common vehicle used in the UK and Mainland.

">

[GRDadof3]

That train is sweet! There's no way you'd be able to go that fast though (maybe 60mph?) in the city of GR, but perhaps that fast on sections between GR and Sparta, or GR and Ada, etc??

[Rizzo]

Some sections are posted at 20-25 mph, but I usually see them pulling a solid 10mph. I'm not sure what the rules are, but if you had the infrastructure ready you can get that fast in the City.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Rizzo

[Raildudes dad]

Some sections are posted at 20-25 mph, but I usually see them pulling a solid 10mph. I'm not sure what the rules are, but if you had the infrastructure ready you can get that fast in the City.

GR City ordinance - rail speed limit is 25. RR rules 10 mph through switches and in yards. CSX received a variance from Divison to Breton from 25 to 35. At 25 heavy trains were stalling eastbound and blocking lots of crossings until a yard engine could come out, tie on and pull them back into the yard. The other option was for the condcutor to walk to the rear and ride the rear to protect the back up move. Either way, crossings were blocked for awhile

[Rizzo]

If those are the most likely speeds applicable to a commuter system I would argue it will be detrimental to its success -- the situation would need to change so the rule can allow greater speeds. This would probably concern riders more farther from the core. I wonder what other townships/cities have for their ordinances. Turnouts are inevitably going to require a decrease in speed.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

If those are the most likely speeds applicable to a commuter system I would argue it will be detrimental to its success -- the situation would need to change so the rule can allow greater speeds. This would probably concern riders more farther from the core. I wonder what other townships/cities have for their ordinances. Turnouts are inevitably going to require a decrease in speed.

We talked about that at the meeting that inevitably the city will HAVE to look at raising the speed limits. 25 - 30 is too slow. It will be a battle with residents in those areas because of perceived safety issues, but not insurmountable. That's why it's important to make a very compelling case to move forward, because there will be a lot of roadblocks along the way.

[Rizzo]

I don't think there will be much problems from residential if the rail hugs along expressways or interstates. I think the problem will come from freight users along a proposed line. When facts and concepts are presented it will change minds for the better.

[Rizzo]

Did anyone catch the article in the Holland Sentinel about Holland's Mayor McGeehan calling for Holland's MAX to downtown? I think its fantastic that some of the folks in the article are forward thinking on this regard. Although, there really needs to be a "link" it shouldn't be with bus to Allendale, it shouldn't even be bus.

Here's something that made me smile:

"We always say people won't use it," McGeehan said. "Well, if it's not there, they won't use it."

[GR Jackson]

I saw something this afternoon about Seattle and their battle to get a monorail system in place there on PBS. Is there any activity here for one? I guess since they are elevated and their track is under 3 feet in width they are a way to incorporate this type of mass transit in the pre-existing cityscape.

[Rizzo]

From what I hear the cost to build the infrastructure is enormous.