Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[tracer1138]

Do I smell competition and the free market?

[Grand Rapidian]

Definitely there is a lot of work to do build up to the streetcar line going in, if that's what the study determines.

) Most people in Grand Rapids have never ridden a real "train" mass transit system in their lives. You may have some who remember the old streetcar system in Grand Rapids from the early 1900's, but those people will be pretty elderly by now (sorry if that offends anyone, as I may have the dates wrong ).

This is true, but how many of you have commuted to work or ever regularly ridden too mass transit to you entertainment on weekends? Riding one on vacation is one thing, but riding one daily for months and years is another.

) Downtown Grand Rapids ran a trolley for tourists back in the 80's or 90's that was a complete failure. It was like the Grand Rapids Trolley Co. ones you see carrying bridal parties, except it shuttled people around downtown to different sights. It was a complete failure. Much like City Centre and malls downtown, it is singed into some people's heads that anything even remotely similar will also be a failure (totally neglecting to acknowledge that no one builds multi-million dollar developments along a kitchy bus-trolley line).

Streetcar lines will not, absolutely will not, draw mulit-million dollar developments. They are not a permanent enough fixture to bet that kind of investment on. They just are not seen as something permanent enough.

) Depending on when this ramps up, the state of the state economy may be still weighing on people's minds. Any kind of expenditure of tax dollars for transit is going to be looked at as a foolish way to spend people's money, especially when they can hardly pay the bills themselves. Even if it is coming from Federal tax dollars and far removed from their every day paycheck.

) The RAPID's and RapidGrowth's continuance to hammer away at the notion that a $69 Million investment will result in $Billions in development is the way to go message-wise. People can't argue with jobs and economic growth right now, if it can be shown that it WILL happen.

The streetcar is not an development engine. It supports what is already there by moving people around. It is a economic boost for existing development to usher people across distances that are beyond a comfortable walk. It will add vibrance to the urban core for a cost. It will help make our smaller shops and retail more sustainable and promote mobility around the core which is a tool for large developments. It is merely a tool in our toolbox, not an ace.

I promote a streetcar system downtown, but I do not believe it will cause any large scale development along its lines.

Another reason street cars do not draw multi million dollar investment is because they have extremely limited line capacities, its more or less glorified bus with tourist appeal.

Where is the report that says $69million will result in $billions in development? Who garuntees the "WILL"

[GRDadof3]

This is true, but how many of you have commuted to work or ever regularly ridden too mass transit to you entertainment on weekends? Riding one on vacation is one thing, but riding one daily for months and years is another.

Streetcar lines will not, absolutely will not, draw mulit-million dollar developments. They are not a permanent enough fixture to bet that kind of investment on. They just are not seen as something permanent enough.

The streetcar is not an development engine. It supports what is already there by moving people around. It is a economic boost for existing development to usher people across distances that are beyond a comfortable walk. It will add vibrance to the urban core for a cost. It will help make our smaller shops and retail more sustainable and promote mobility around the core which is a tool for large developments. It is merely a tool in our toolbox, not an ace.

I promote a streetcar system downtown, but I do not believe it will cause any large scale development along its lines.

Another reason street cars do not draw multi million dollar investment is because they have extremely limited line capacities, its more or less glorified bus with tourist appeal.

Where is the report that says $69million will result in $billions in development? Who garuntees the "WILL"

Streetcar systems do draw multi-million dollar development along them, if they are designed and implemented properly. There are numerous examples of this in other cities (other than Portland). As far as permanence goes, are you talking about the old bus trolley that ran downtown? If you're talking about streetcar systems being non-permanent, I don't know how you can get more permanent than rebuilding roads, sinking miles of tracks, and building multiple zero-clearance platforms along the line, without building a subway system. I agree it's a tool and not an ace. The report to determine the development opportunities is what the RAPID is working on right now.

[Rizzo]

The report is coming sometime mid year 2008. Seeing how the downtown streetcar is being championed by a lot of folks I can't possibly believe it isn't for good reason. Of course the streetcar proposal must fulfill the preponderance of the evidence. However, my gut tells me that all the folks pushing this already know what will be gained from it. All they are concerned with is getting the study done to develop costs and let T.I.F. and endowments take care of it all.

I think heritage streetcars aren't something that should be implemented regularly, but on occasions having a Horsecar would be awesome. We were discussing this streetcar loop and we thought it would be cool to have a nice ride on one of these through downtown and the neighborhood extensions. Maybe on a nice winter night (really adds to the Christmas ambiance)

[blueradon]

The horsecar would be a really good idea for christmas light tours - maybe if ppl in heritage hill have a christmas light competition of sorts and ppl could ride through every night to see all the houses lit up.

Just a thought...

[Grand Rapidian]

When I said that streetcars are not permanent enough this is why.

The system costs less which means there is less incentive to not shut down a line. If you invest 60million in a streetcar system that ends up going down the tubes you are more likely to close it than if it cost 400million (LRT).

The tracks in the road are not as permanent or expensive as light rail. It is merely a good enough track to get it down the road. As it is not expensive or overly pernament that means routs can change. That is why you don't get big developments around bus lines, the route is to fluid. Streetcar rail is still quite fluid even though it seems like it is permanent. It is as expandable as resurfacing a road. Depending on the power system, power distribution does not incur significant cost.

It also does not support high enough capacity and is not seen as a fully reliable transit method as it is street running.

[tamias6]

Based on the effects that fixed guide way based systems have had on other American cities, a streetcar system would have more positive impact on DT than Van Andel Arena, Devos Place, and Health Hill put together. On that note, if building a streetcar system in GR were put on the ballot right now it would have my vote.

[Rizzo]

When I said that streetcars are not permanent enough this is why.

The system costs less which means there is less incentive to not shut down a line. If you invest 60million in a streetcar system that ends up going down the tubes you are more likely to close it than if it cost 400million (LRT).

The tracks in the road are not as permanent or expensive as light rail. It is merely a good enough track to get it down the road. As it is not expensive or overly pernament that means routs can change. That is why you don't get big developments around bus lines, the route is to fluid. Streetcar rail is still quite fluid even though it seems like it is permanent. It is as expandable as resurfacing a road. Depending on the power system, power distribution does not incur significant cost.

It also does not support high enough capacity and is not seen as a fully reliable transit method as it is street running.

The application of the streetcar is not to move people in and out of the suburbs so it doesn't require high speed and capacity. The downtown streetcar will serve as a distributor and ridership spread out throughout the day therefore the system is scaled to the needed capacity.

But, the cost of rail doesn't seem to be proportional to investment spin off. You also have to take into account the length of a system. Two and half miles of potential redevelopment versus tens of miles. No wonder a streetcar loop may have less development potential than an entire interurban line.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

When I said that streetcars are not permanent enough this is why.

The system costs less which means there is less incentive to not shut down a line. If you invest 60million in a streetcar system that ends up going down the tubes you are more likely to close it than if it cost 400million (LRT).

The tracks in the road are not as permanent or expensive as light rail. It is merely a good enough track to get it down the road. As it is not expensive or overly pernament that means routs can change. That is why you don't get big developments around bus lines, the route is to fluid. Streetcar rail is still quite fluid even though it seems like it is permanent. It is as expandable as resurfacing a road. Depending on the power system, power distribution does not incur significant cost.

It also does not support high enough capacity and is not seen as a fully reliable transit method as it is street running.

Again I disagree, and there are examples in Portland and in Tacoma, WA that prove just the opposite. In Tacoma, an $89 Million streetcar line has leveraged $1 Billion in redevelopment efforts along the line. In Portland, their streetcar line that runs through the Pearl District and through downtown and now along the South waterfront (not their light rail system), has leveraged $6 Billion in redevelopment along its line.

As has been discussed in this thread previously, Rizzo and I agree that a streetcar line in and of itself it not enough, but it will act as a distributor and a neighborhood connector, much like the current DASH system. Definitely light rail serving the greater metro area in the future is the way to go, but one step at a time.

The study that will be done this coming year is being done by DMJM Harris, a well respected transportation consulting company. They may come back and say "Grand Rapids will only be able to leverage $xxxx in redevelopment, it will cost you $xxx, fares will be $xxx, and it will solve xyz issues", and it may not be enough to make it worthwhile. They may also come back and say "You have a huge number of undeveloped parcels along x corridor and y corridor, the streetcar line partnered with developer incentives (like TIF) may result in more redevelopment efforts". What they can't say, and what no one can really say, is how the market will respond to the streetcar line. Will condo buyers and apartment dwellers want to be along a streetcar line? That all depends on what it connects to and what the housing market is like. Will retailers want to be along a streetcar line? That all depends on how many residential units there are along the line. Will hotels want to be along the streetcar line? Perhaps if it connects to downtown attractions.

[grbrit]

I've been thinking about the streetcar proposal over the last few weeks, and I have to confess I don't really understand the attraction. I mean, we're talking about a fixed route over an easily-walkable area. Where's the benefit?

The attraction of streetcars (or trams as they're called in Europe) is that they criss-cross the entire city, connect to outlying towns, allow easy transfer to national transportation networks and have ample room for cycles (see Amsterdam as a perfect example). Many add subterranean routes at great expense to existing cities to avoid traffic congestion on the surface (see Sheffield or Manchester, UK).

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

It seems that some here are almost suggesting that the streetcar system would be an attraction in itself rather than actually serving a useful purpose. Not sure how a bus with metal wheels would reach the status of attraction.

For GR, I'd rather see a night bus schedule that runs from downtown to outlying burbs until after the last bar, theater, club closes. This would solve parking, polution and drink-driving issues all in one go. Also, routes can be changed at will without needing to dig up the road. Something that we have all too much of around here as it is!

Please enlighten me if I'm missing the point.

[GRDadof3]

I've been thinking about the streetcar proposal over the last few weeks, and I have to confess I don't really understand the attraction. I mean, we're talking about a fixed route over an easily-walkable area. Where's the benefit?

The attraction of streetcars (or trams as they're called in Europe) is that they criss-cross the entire city, connect to outlying towns, allow easy transfer to national transportation networks and have ample room for cycles (see Amsterdam as a perfect example). Many add subterranean routes at great expense to existing cities to avoid traffic congestion on the surface (see Sheffield or Manchester, UK).

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

It seems that some here are almost suggesting that the streetcar system would be an attraction in itself rather than actually serving a useful purpose. Not sure how a bus with metal wheels would reach the status of attraction.

For GR, I'd rather see a night bus schedule that runs from downtown to outlying burbs until after the last bar, theater, club closes. This would solve parking, polution and drink-driving issues all in one go. Also, routes can be changed at will without needing to dig up the road. Something that we have all too much of around here as it is!

Please enlighten me if I'm missing the point.

I don't know if it's "easily walkable" as the exact route hasn't been settled yet. We had an entire task force working on the entire issue back last Spring, and we too think that light rail, separated from roadways, serving the suburban areas is the best way to free up the serious parking crunch that has settled on downtown. That's the #1 issue that downtown is facing right now. But it's extremely (read: impossible) for a city of GR's size to get federal dollars to construct a real light rail system serving the entire metro area. We're talking $Billions in capital costs to build. Our idea was to do low-cost hybrid diesel electric trains on the existing freight rail lines, and build stations along the lines and park-n-ride lots on the outskirts of the city.

There are a lot of things that aren't great about a 2.4 mile streetcar system, but if an effort is put forth by private individuals to put a streetcar system in, then I personally won't slam the door on the idea. It can work to move people from certain areas around downtown to other areas around downtown, if planned properly. But I totally agree that if it doesn't solve any "problems", then it will just be an attraction.

The results of our task force are going to be forwarded to Kent County and Grand Valley Metro Council very soon.

[Allison Slater]

I think the biggest point here is all about making that next step forward. When we can have a successful streetcar system, the probability of being able to fund and build a light rail system increases greatly.

[Rizzo]

There will be no startup funds for light rail at the federal level and I wouldn't hold my breath with the state. There are just too many strings attached with the feds and Michigan being itself again. The crux is creative local funding, i.e. naming rights, TIF, corporate sponsorship, endowments, etc. all this can be on the table.

Sure, streetcar might be a toy in some folks' eyes, but its still a stepping stone to something more Grand:

[tracer1138]

I think a small part of the argument for investment associated with fixed guideway systems is how these investments are viewed by businesses and developers. Investment in this kind of infrastructure, even something small, is a signal to developers of progressive, long term thinking. In this way, approval of a streetcar is as much a symbolic representation of a city's willingness to invest in its future as it is a physical tool for improved mobility and accessibility.

I think the recent trend of redevelopment of major cities we've seen where transit is at the heart has at least some to do with the perception that our cities are coming back and we're willing to make these kinds of investments. As a result, when a city finally takes those steps (as Grand Rapids seems about to do), it's a sign to developers that this city is finally moving into the 21st century and is now ripe for development. When people in an area vote for and support these kinds of initiatives it's a sign that there's demand for more development downtown. Developers pick up on that and move right on in.

After that, if investment and excitement keep up, the cycle can take on a life of its own, but it seems to need a combination of small moves and big moves, like the installation of streetcar loop.

Edited November 9, 2007 by tracer1138

[AlexPKeaton]

Besides development, I'd like to see a streetcar system in place before the next oil crisis, which is coming. (Some say it's already here, but I don't think we've seen anything yet.)

[Grand Rapidian]

\

The results of our task force are going to be forwarded to Kent County and Grand Valley Metro Council very soon.

Who is on this task force and what is the experience or educational background of these members within transit systems operations and planning?

[GRDadof3]

Who is on this task force and what is the experience or educational background of these members within transit systems operations and planning?

Why, are you volunteering to join us? We could always use help.

[Allison Slater]

http://www.google.com/transit

That'd be pretty cool if we could get TheRapid on there. Is that something Google goes out and does, or does each respective Transit group contact Google about that?

[tamias6]

http://www.google.com/transit

That'd be pretty cool if we could get TheRapid on there. Is that something Google goes out and does, or does each respective Transit group contact Google about that?

That would a stellar idea. I've been trying to figure out how to get to Kendall College via bus.

[Allison Slater]

I actually wish there was some way to get live updates on delayed buses. One late bus can screw up a transfer from one route to another, and with some routes that can result in a one-hour wait. It'd be nice if such info could be found on the go, and be able to map out a different selection of routes to use which may ensure earlier arrival. Although I don't think Google Transit can monitor late buses, it can easilly help with a quick deciscion on the latter.

As for finding a way to Kendall, just check the routes on ridetherapid.org but be sure to check the times and any transfers you may need, and keep an eye out for multiple options on route selection. Some routes cease operation around 5PM, and some routes only run once an hour, which can be annoying. (Oft times it's faster or easier for me to, from 44th & Breton, to take Route 2 to downtown then the Rivertown route just to reach Rivertown Crossings instead of taking Route 44 along 44th street. In fact, it's my only option after 5PM. Route 44 also goes to Woodland, but it's often easier to take Route 2 to 28th St. Meijer then route 28 over, due to increased frequency of buses.)

It's those little quirks which would make a Pathfinder for Rapid Routes really handy, I think.

[Rizzo]

At the very least ITP should get some folks on creating itinerary software for the website. The enhanced bus down Division will have all the bells and whistles for customers including real time tracking.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Rizzo

[Grand Rapidian]

The real time tracking is nice. When I interned for the transit consultants in San Francisco the people in the office who took the express bus (or any who rode busy routes) had the information sent to their cell phones everyday at 5 when work got out or they could check the web. The system doesnt sound cheap though.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Grand Rapidian

[metrogrkid]

Interesting thinking going on with Larry from the NW part of the Metro Triangle (aka Muskegon) . . . .

Over 40,000 people commute between Muskegon and Ottawa Counties every day, and over 25,000 commute between Muskegon and Kent Counties every day. This is just people that live in one county and work in the other. I don't know what the numbers are for Ottawa and Kent Counties. With gas heading towards $4.00 a gallon and with the stress of driving on the highway twice a day, I suspect a lot of people would take the train if one were available.

Larry:

Many UP-GR folks are very pragmatic and don't like to present the image of being out front ahead of trends like you are now about something that is as progressive and obviously needed for a burgeoning Metro Triplex like the Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland triangle. A system like a Chicago METRA-style commuter rail with hub stations at Central Station in downtown GR, at the former Muskegon Mall site in downtown Muskegon, at a key site in downtown Holland and with a secondary hub at the Grand Landing development in Grand Haven, would be a logical end-game for the I-196/I-96/US-31 triangle corridors. An express bus system could be used in the interim to grow the ridership density needed and establish/preserve the station real estate for the future commuter rail upgrade.

Regardless of the phasing scenario, the endpoints of the Metro Triangle are going to benefit hugely from coordinating to make it so that the majority of the public wishing to traverse between the Metro Triplex's hubs will have maximum independence and opportunity to do so at their individual conveniences. The continued increasing attractiveness of Michigan's Adventure, Heritage Landing, the Grand Haven/Holland/Muskegon beaches and downtown GR in general are going to make interconnected movement in the metro triangle mandatory for maximizing their combined economic potential.

That's how Europe metro areas are set up. We have the regional setup to be such a model for the rest of Michigan. Let's get busy . . . .

[grbrit]

The real time tracking is nice. When I interned for the transit consultants in San Francisco the people in the office who took the express bus (or any who rode busy routes) had the information sent to their cell phones everyday at 5 when work got out or they could check the web. The system doesnt sound cheap though.

It could be extremely cheap, and simple to write too. No need even for an SMS server if the messages are sent to phones via email.

Seems like a more "real time" solution would be to fit the buses with GPS units and display them as a blip on a map at each stop on their route, but now we're just getting into sci-fi

I like the idea of the tri-cities commuter rail, but it wouldn't be much fun if it stopped running after the commuters have gone home.

[Sailor]

I like the idea of the tri-cities commuter rail, but it wouldn't be much fun if it stopped running after the commuters have gone home.

I like the idea too, and I used Metra in Chicago to get to work every day for yeeeaaaaars. It has it's serious downsides, but it beat driving into the Loop.

That said, the realities of light-rail use are that commuters are the primary users, and ridership in the evenings and on weekends is remarkably lower, forcing limited schedules and shortened trains. (See pages 29 and 30 of the 2008 Metra Budget Book: http://metrarail.com/Budget/2008_PR_BudgetBook.pdf.)

Metra started the $5 weekend pass because, as they put it, "we were hauling around empty trains." From personal experience, the few times I took the train into downtown on the weekend (only when we had out-of-town visitors who thought it would be "neat"), it was our little group plus maybe a dozen other people on a two-car train.

I think the challenge with a West Michigan rail line would be the cost of keeping it running on the evenings and weekends without having such a severely limited schedule that no one finds it convenient anymore, i.e., if I have to wait two hours for a train to Holland, I'll just hop in the car and be there in 1/2 hour.

It really is a great idea (IMVHO), but, as an experienced train user, I think there would be many challenges to overcome. And well worth overcoming.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Sailor