Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[GR Jackson]

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

More money than all of our road construction is costing? Plus added to that cost is the cost of our highways on the enviornment.

[GRDadof3]

Sorry GR Jackson, but there is no way Grand Rapids is getting monorail. GR is having hard time getting light rail going, for a fraction of the cost per mile. The Seattle monorail expansion proposals that I have seen are upwards of $2 Billion for 14 miles (or $150 Million+/mile), or the other option was $4.2 Billion for 20 miles ($200 Million/mile).

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not a big fan of it. The only places I see it working well are large tourist cities like Vegas, or extremely dense urban areas like cities in Asia.

[GR Jackson]

Sorry GR Jackson, but there is no way Grand Rapids is getting monorail. GR is having hard time getting light rail going, for a fraction of the cost per mile. The Seattle monorail expansion proposals that I have seen are upwards of $2 Billion for 14 miles (or $150 Million+/mile), or the other option was $4.2 Billion for 20 miles ($200 Million/mile).

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not a big fan of it. The only places I see it working well are large tourist cities like Vegas, or extremely dense urban areas like cities in Asia.

I just don't see how trains can run downtown. The streets are too narrow for two way traffic, can light rail be elevated and incoporated into the city center? I know the cost is great, but monorail allows for greenspace along the tracks, and is silent. I guess it was a pipe dream in Seattle, so no dice for GR either.

[Libertarian]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not a big fan of it. The only places I see it working well are large tourist cities like Vegas, or extremely dense urban areas like cities in Asia.

It doesn't even work in Vegas.

[tamias6]

Expense and the Disney-esque image are things that will prevent the mono rail from being considered as a serious and viable means of mass transit.

[Rizzo]

I just don't see how trains can run downtown. The streets are too narrow for two way traffic, can light rail be elevated and incoporated into the city center? I know the cost is great, but monorail allows for greenspace along the tracks, and is silent. I guess it was a pipe dream in Seattle, so no dice for GR either.

I'm not ever sold on monorail. It's traditionally rubber tire on concrete which makes me think less on its efficiency which is why we also want rail. That alone turns me off to the concept. Downtown doesn't need rail to run in and around it, what it needs to do is have rail run into it and have the DASH continue to provide a "circulatory" service at a central station. Also, many rail vehicles can and often do mingle with traffic if the rail is embedded.

If light rail ever did make it to GR I'd like to see it run down a ped x only street creating a mall. With this mall there could ground floor retail.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Rizzo

[GR Jackson]

ok, scratch monorail. But I think as far as light rail ect. goes simplicity is the best route. If you're going to install the system, make it a complete system that takes people from as close as possible to where they are to as close as possible to where they want to be. If it is a simple system it would draw more people to it, if there is a lot of transferring and whatnot it would be another reason for people not to use it. Part of the point is to add a higher level of comfort and ease, i.e. "I read the newspaper on my way to work and didn't have to deal with traffic by riding the rail".

[GRDadof3]

ok, scratch monorail. But I think as far as light rail ect. goes simplicity is the best route. If you're going to install the system, make it a complete system that takes people from as close as possible to where they are to as close as possible to where they want to be. If it is a simple system it would draw more people to it, if there is a lot of transferring and whatnot it would be another reason for people not to use it. Part of the point is to add a higher level of comfort and ease, i.e. "I read the newspaper on my way to work and didn't have to deal with traffic by riding the rail".

Obviously ease of use is important. The key to successful light rail is to run it as straight as possible, with just the right number of stops to get the most riders while also making it fast and efficient for the riders who use it. It's a fine balancing act of where and how many stops to have, with a tremendous number of factors involved such as availability of land, ample ROW's, acceleration/deceleration of the train, spacing, etc.. We think we have a pretty good plan that we're laying out and gathering costs for. It will be more of a "suburb-to-downtown" commuter light rail system following existing freight rail lines vs. a "neighborhood streetcar lightrail", and we think it will be substantially less expensive than traditional light rail, in the neighborhood of $1 - $5 Million/mile on average.

[gvsusean]

Obviously ease of use is important. The key to successful light rail is to run it as straight as possible, with just the right number of stops to get the most riders while also making it fast and efficient for the riders who use it. It's a fine balancing act of where and how many stops to have, with a tremendous number of factors involved such as availability of land, ample ROW's, acceleration/deceleration of the train, spacing, etc.. We think we have a pretty good plan that we're laying out and gathering costs for. It will be more of a "suburb-to-downtown" commuter light rail system following existing freight rail lines vs. a "neighborhood streetcar lightrail", and we think it will be substantially less expensive than traditional light rail, in the neighborhood of $1 - $5 Million/mile on average.

suburb to innercity? what about us urban dwellers? i think a streetcar system is more useful in hte city and busses are more useful as you go further out

[Rizzo]

^Well at 20/30 million per mile... I think rail is really most useful to move people in and out Center City. On the point of attracting development a streetcar between downtown and nearside neighborhoods would be a huge investment.

Not really related to the current conversation, but related to local passenger rail services.

According to The Press, Coopersville & Marne Railway Co. is moving their passenger train depot to the Lemmen building at 306 Main St. The new location is hoped to give the 20,000 annual passengers extra comforts, ticket office, waiting area, gift shop, restrooms and a display of railroad memorabilia.

More at: http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ss....xml&coll=6

What a sweet mid point in a Muskegon to Downtown commuter line.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

suburb to innercity? what about us urban dwellers? i think a streetcar system is more useful in hte city and busses are more useful as you go further out

gvsusean, don't you live at Metropolitan Park Apts now? You should be able to walk anywhere now.

Actually, rail works better for long distances, and buses work better for local to local stops. Putting a bus (whether it be a standard bus or BRT) into regular traffic and having it travel great distances is a bad idea. Ever ridden Greyhound? It doubles the amount of time to take the same trip by car. Trains on the other hand get the right of way over cars pretty much wherever they go. No braking every time someone has to slow to 0 to turn into 7-11.

[GR Jackson]

gvsusean, don't you live at Metropolitan Park Apts now? You should be able to walk anywhere now.

Actually, rail works better for long distances, and buses work better for local to local stops. Putting a bus (whether it be a standard bus or BRT) into regular traffic and having it travel great distances is a bad idea. Ever ridden Greyhound? It doubles the amount of time to take the same trip by car. Trains on the other hand get the right of way over cars pretty much wherever they go. No braking every time someone has to slow to 0 to turn into 7-11.

Will there be multiple stops actually in and around downtown?

[MJLO]

Both Monroe and Division are wide enough for LRT. Michigan Ave is as well really for LRT to work down town you'd need an east west street to connect, most of them, Pearl, Monroe Center, Lyon, Fountain ect, are to narrow....... Fulton perhaps? Why not box the core in, have LRT run on Monroe, Fulton, and Division. That would make the most sense to me. It would also make sense to run a line along bridge, up Michigan Ave, and thru the medical district.

[GRDadof3]

Will there be multiple stops actually in and around downtown?

The proposal we are working on, no, not to begin with. It would be similar to Austin's and Nashville's commuter rail systems where they stop just outside of downtown (such as near Lake Michigan Drive and Winter Ave by the YMCA) at a transfer station where DASH buses, that many commuters are already familiar with, would circulate around downtown. The DASH buses could possibly be replaced with streetcars as funds became available. Gotta start somewhere.

[gvsusean]

The proposal we are working on, no, not to begin with. It would be similar to Austin's and Nashville's commuter rail systems where they stop just outside of downtown (such as near Lake Michigan Drive and Winter Ave by the YMCA) at a transfer station where DASH buses, that many commuters are already familiar with, would circulate around downtown. The DASH buses could possibly be replaced with streetcars as funds became available. Gotta start somewhere.

doesnt that just promote sprawl?? now people can live further out and get dt faster...

[Rizzo]

That is will be the downside to a commuter rail concept because it is taking commuters from the farther reaches of the community. This is where experts and community leaders must step in and figure out the most appropriate areas for stations and how many will serve a corridor. If you ran the rail down the southern corridor which is already urbanized it is probably less likely to create sprawl as development is already there. If anything it would likely create compact developments.

On the flip side one could make the argument that the rail on its own doesn't promote sprawl, but really the station.

Edited April 17, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

That is will be the downside to a commuter rail concept because it is taking commuters from the farther reaches of the community. This is where experts and community leaders must step in and figure out the most appropriate areas for stations and how many will serve a corridor. If you ran the rail down the southern corridor which is already urbanized it is probably less likely to create sprawl as development is already there. If anything it would likely create compact developments.

On the flip side one could make the argument that the rail on its own doesn't promote sprawl, but really the station.

I wouldn't say the stations "promote sprawl", and neither would a commuter rail. People are going to choose to live out in the suburbs for many other reasons than a commuter rail system. As the commute to downtown gets longer and more unbearable, peoples' instincts won't be to move CLOSER to downtown, it will be to either find another job, or employers will choose to move out to the burbs, unless there is a viable and efficient alternative.

The goal is that commuter light rail will help alleviate some of the burden that thousands of commuters are causing on the road system, and help alleviate the need for so much d**n parking downtown for commuters. As parking needs are alleviated, hopefully more development will occur downtown, hence increasing the viability of downtown. For people already living in the city, there is a pretty comprehensive bus system in place. There are NO convenient alternatives for suburb-to-downtown commuters. It takes between 39 - 45 minutes to get downtown from just the near suburbs like Kentwood and Wyoming on the current bus routes. If we were Chicago or Boston, that would be acceptable, not here in GR.

If you would like to get more information on what we are proposing gvsusean, PM me your contact info and I'll try and include you in our next meeting. Or you could peruse through the last couple of months of posts in this thread.

[Rizzo]

I'm only assuming that a station would act much like a on/off ramp of a highway.

Edited April 17, 2007 by Rizzo

[AlexPKeaton]

I don't think outward growth of our cities is necessarily such a bad thing so much as our car culture and having to drive everywhere. Trains and streetcars were what initially allowed our cities to grow to the size they are in the first place. Think about it, how could a city support itself without importing food from the countryside, and the only way to do that efficiently was by train. It's the same story with skyscrapers full of workers. They can't all live within walking distance of work. Outward growth itself isn't so bad so much as the blandness and over-reliance on oil that goes with it.

Edited April 17, 2007 by AlexPKeaton

[tamias6]

Ahhh. But the lines of a fix guide way based system will be more conducive to better and more sustainable forms of urban planning that will greatly reduce or even eliminate need of driving everywhere. What I want out of a mass transit system is the ability to be able to access local daily needs such as going to the grocery store, by foot or bicycle, and commute to work and/ or entertainment via transit. The only time I should really feel the need to drive is to go out of town on a long trip. Give me an urban environment like that and I'd be as happy as a clam.

I don't think outward growth of our cities is necessarily such a bad thing so much as our car culture and having to drive everywhere. Trains and streetcars were what initially allowed our cities to grow to the size they are in the first place. Think about it, how could a city support itself without importing food from the countryside, and the only way to do that efficiently was by train. It's the same story with skyscrapers full of workers. They can't all live within walking distance of work. Outward growth itself isn't so bad so much as the blandness and over-reliance on oil that goes with it.

[blindside]

What's the rundown on this May 8th vote? Who's voting (Kent County?) and what's on the ballot?

[Rizzo]

I guess anyone voter in the cities and townships formed under the Interurban Transit Partnership. The ballot language is supposed to include the renewal of funding for ITP and a increase in millage to cover expansion of services.

More here: rapidyes.org

Edited April 18, 2007 by Rizzo

[Rizzo]

Looks like there is more information coming from the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. A report out suggests that a regional higher speed network of passenger rail could generate $23.1 billion in the 40 years of its implementation. The report goes on to state that Michigan could benefit in extra household income, development near stations, traffic and emission reduction.

MDOT notes that investment in regional passenger rail has potential to provide $1.80 return for every dollar spent on this concept. The return investment ratio of such a system would be one of the highest in the country.

It's good that MDOT is realizing the pent up potential of such a system. My only worry is that this will be the only initiative Michigan will follow and stop there. MDOT really must be looking at transit services between suburban regions and the city, not supplementing transit with this vast regional service.

MiBiz: http://www.mibiz.com/absolutenm/templates/...2&zoneid=25

MDOT: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-...66461--,00.html

Breakdown: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDO...re_193255_7.pdf

[GRDadof3]

Looks like there is more information coming from the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. A report out suggests that a regional higher speed network of passenger rail could generate $23.1 billion in the 40 years of its implementation. The report goes on to state that Michigan could benefit in extra household income, development near stations, traffic and emission reduction.

MDOT notes that investment in regional passenger rail has potential to provide $1.80 return for every dollar spent on this concept. The return investment ratio of such a system would be one of the highest in the country.

It's good that MDOT is realizing the pent up potential of such a system. My only worry is that this will be the only initiative Michigan will follow and stop there. MDOT really must be looking at transit services between suburban regions and the city, not supplementing transit with this vast regional service.

MiBiz: http://www.mibiz.com/absolutenm/templates/...2&zoneid=25

MDOT: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-...66461--,00.html

Breakdown: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDO...re_193255_7.pdf

This would cover the Kalamazoo to Grand Rapids to Holland commuters. I didn't realize that since 2005, Amtrak has been running at 95mph between Kalamazoo and Niles.

Google Map

That's about as fast as the Acela in the Northeast corridor runs in many areas (top speed of 124 mph). The Acela is the sleeker looking ones in this video:

[Rizzo]

I think its all dependent if there is more stops in between downtown and Holland and there is high frequency maybe 30-60 minute headways during peak commuting times.