Jump to content


-- CLICK HERE to buy advertising space for this spot! --

Why haven't you registered yet?

Registration is quick, easy and completely FREE! Click the Create Account button located at the top-right to sign-up and receive additional benefits that existing members are already receiving!

Photo
- - - - -

New census definition puts Metro Grand Rapids at 1,000,000+


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 Matchetes

Matchetes

    Crossroads

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:32 AM

The article pretty much says it all. Ottawa county is now included due to commuting patterns, which accounts for most of the population increase, but Kent County's population increase over the past 2 years is nothing to sneeze at. The article points out that the main benefit of this new definition will put Grand Rapids on the radar of businesses and industries that would otherwise dismiss a population of under 1 million

 

http://www.mlive.com...t_river_default



 

#2 GRDadof3

GRDadof3

    Gigalopolis

  • Global Moderators
  • 17,968 posts
  • Location:Metro Grand Rapids

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:56 PM

It is interesting the shifting commuting patterns, especially to see that Barry County shrank while Kent grew by about 12,000 in two years.



#3 wingbert

wingbert

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 666 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 03:40 PM

Well, that's terrible news.  All those people commuting to Grand Rapids.  Driving cars and needing places to park them. 

 

:whistling:


  • Veloise likes this

#4 fotoman311

fotoman311

    Burg

  • Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts
  • Location:"The Woods" in Midtown, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Posted 14 March 2013 - 04:41 PM

Well, that's terrible news.  All those people commuting to Grand Rapids.  Driving cars and needing places to park them. 

 

:whistling:

Well, once the Lakerline BRT is up and running someday to compliment the Silverline, they can all park in Kentwood and Allendale in the excess big box store lots.

 

:good:



#5 GR_Urbanist

GR_Urbanist

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,000 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 06:28 PM

I would love for them to scrap the Silverline and run a BRT from GR to Grand Haven.

 

 

Make it look like this (maybe even longer or a double-decker), have 4 running all day, and make it comfortable.

 

brt_vehicle.jpg

 

They will not only have lots of workers taking it, but you will also get tons using it during the summer months to the lake. It will make L. Michigan a part of the metro area instead of a still "far off" place for people that dont have a car.


Edited by GR_Urbanist, 14 March 2013 - 06:29 PM.

  • jthrasher likes this

#6 GRDadof3

GRDadof3

    Gigalopolis

  • Global Moderators
  • 17,968 posts
  • Location:Metro Grand Rapids

Posted 15 March 2013 - 08:52 AM

I would love for them to scrap the Silverline and run a BRT from GR to Grand Haven.

 

 

Make it look like this (maybe even longer or a double-decker), have 4 running all day, and make it comfortable.

 

brt_vehicle.jpg

 

They will not only have lots of workers taking it, but you will also get tons using it during the summer months to the lake. It will make L. Michigan a part of the metro area instead of a still "far off" place for people that dont have a car.

 

The problem with this theory is that most people commuting from Ottawa into Kent County don't work downtown GR. What do they do when they get there? Hop a transfer out to their place of employment? You're talking an hour or more, when you can drive it in 35 minutes.



#7 arcturus

arcturus

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 15 March 2013 - 12:11 PM

Interactive map showing the change in population in Michigan counties over the past year - http://www.freep.com...D=2013130313114

 

Just 25 of 83 counties gained population but I think the overall state population is slightly higher.  Makes you wonder just how old the average year round resident in those rural counties will be if these population trends continue. 



#8 MJLO

MJLO

    Town

  • Moderators
  • 3,528 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids Michigan

Posted 15 March 2013 - 02:39 PM

I think what you're seeing is a typical trend throughout the country,  people leaving the rural areas for the cities.  The counties that lost population are overwhelmingly rural.  (Exceptions being the same urban counties that have struggled for decades.)  The state also gained population which makes county by county migration rates less significant.  Rural flight isn't a new phenomenon, those same rural counties have had flat or negative growth for decades as well.   Michigan is growing again,  the growth is centered around, and seems to be condensing on the I-96 corridor.  I would imagine that the majority of the negative migration from those rural counties to be internal migration within the state.  People moving from the country to the city, but not leaving Michigan. 



#9 arcturus

arcturus

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 16 March 2013 - 09:21 AM

A metro area of 1,000,000 and it still has that abomination known as the northbound offramp to Wealthy on 131.


  • jthrasher likes this

#10 jas49503

jas49503

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 17 March 2013 - 08:57 AM

A metro area of 1,000,000 and it still has that abomination known as the northbound offramp to Wealthy on 131.

what's wrong with that? I've taken it a bunch of times and never had a problem.



#11 RegalTDP

RegalTDP

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 17 March 2013 - 05:28 PM

I'm really happy about the new MSA designation... Any metric standard that you impose on the whole country is going to have biases, and they're going to work against some MSAs while working for others... I'm glad the data is working for Grand Rapids instead of against it.

 

 

 

A metro area of 1,000,000 and it still has that abomination known as the northbound offramp to Wealthy on 131.

 

I've never had a problem there either.  At least, not as a motorist.

 

I would posit that metro areas tend to add abominations as they grow, not subtract.  We'll know the minute GR is truly booming, because immediately we'll start hearing great ideas like the new "South South Beltline" or the "S-Curve Bypass" or an express tunnel to Nunica or whatever.  If the Wealthy offramp is a problem, it's just the beginning...  :P



#12 Veloise

Veloise

    City

  • Members+
  • 5,170 posts
  • Location:Happy homeowner in Midtown Grand Rapids

Posted 17 March 2013 - 05:31 PM

About the Wealthy interchange DT:

what's wrong with that? I've taken it a bunch of times and never had a problem.

Those of us who did the Arena area tour a couple weeks ago were treated to discussion on how this is like a mini-S curve cutting through the area, imposing a barrier on the streetscape, not needed, used mainly by partiers heading to the arena or the bars while urban form has to contend with it. 

 

My group had an M-DOT guy who spent much time explaining some of the rationale (and everything). Meanwhile, a citizen planner (hi Mark!!) proposed removal of 131 and the S-curve and the exit ramps (and everything). If you go stand near the parking lot just under the S-curve and take a look at the absence of pedestrian access, all will become clear.

 

Er, it was a walking tour.


Edited by Veloise, 17 March 2013 - 05:33 PM.


#13 arcturus

arcturus

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:41 AM

what's wrong with that? I've taken it a bunch of times and never had a problem.

 

Ugly, poor functional, and dangerous.  Take your life in your hands biking Wealthy over 131 and laugh at the view of trucks in the *right* lane trying to turn left or vice versa.  Then there's times traffic is so backed up getting on the ramp the last vehicle is poking into the northbound lane.  With an ever growing downtown and especially when the market goes online ... ditto to apartments, Wealthy will become a primary entrance/exit point, poorly equipped to meet the demand.  Something will need to be done, and soon.



#14 GRDadof3

GRDadof3

    Gigalopolis

  • Global Moderators
  • 17,968 posts
  • Location:Metro Grand Rapids

Posted 18 March 2013 - 08:16 AM

Ugly, poor functional, and dangerous.  Take your life in your hands biking Wealthy over 131 and laugh at the view of trucks in the *right* lane trying to turn left or vice versa.  Then there's times traffic is so backed up getting on the ramp the last vehicle is poking into the northbound lane.  With an ever growing downtown and especially when the market goes online ... ditto to apartments, Wealthy will become a primary entrance/exit point, poorly equipped to meet the demand.  Something will need to be done, and soon.

 

 

I think that's MDOT's next target, is 131 near Wealthy and the overpass. It's in bad shape and needs to be replaced. MDOT is starting the process of redesigning the bridge and on/off ramps. That's why this discussion of at-grade vs burial vs removal has started.

 

That bridge is horrible on a bike. The curbs are way too high and I've actually scraped my pedals on the sidewalk. And you can feel the entire bridge sway when trucks go over it. And yes, I've watched many a semi get wedged between the walls trying to make the turns.



#15 Veloise

Veloise

    City

  • Members+
  • 5,170 posts
  • Location:Happy homeowner in Midtown Grand Rapids

Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:39 AM

I think that's MDOT's next target, is 131 near Wealthy and the overpass. It's in bad shape and needs to be replaced. MDOT is starting the process of redesigning the bridge and on/off ramps. That's why this discussion of at-grade vs burial vs removal has started.

 

That bridge is horrible on a bike. The curbs are way too high and I've actually scraped my pedals on the sidewalk. And you can feel the entire bridge sway when trucks go over it. And yes, I've watched many a semi get wedged between the walls trying to make the turns.

During the afore-mentioned walking tour my group hiked across the bridge. Narrow sidewalks and no curb cuts. The only way I would ride across would be to wait for a "fresh" traffic light to halt the platoons, and take the lane, which is too narrow to allow passing.

 

My tour included a traffic engineer, who pointed out the condition of the fencing. We discussed closing the ramps, which really aren't needed due to the number of other DT interchanges.


Edited by Veloise, 18 March 2013 - 09:42 AM.


#16 Phizzy

Phizzy

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids Metro Area

Posted 18 March 2013 - 01:01 PM

Well, once the Lakerline BRT is up and running someday to compliment the Silverline, they can all park in Kentwood and Allendale in the excess big box store lots.

 

:good:

 

There are big box stores in Allendale?



#17 jas49503

jas49503

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 18 March 2013 - 05:51 PM

My group had an M-DOT guy who spent much time explaining some of the rationale (and everything). Meanwhile, a citizen planner (hi Mark!!) proposed removal of 131 and the S-curve and the exit ramps (and everything). If you go stand near the parking lot just under the S-curve and take a look at the absence of pedestrian access, all will become clear.

 

Er, it was a walking tour.

 really what we need to get rid of is 196 between college and 131.  the only people who need that are folks traveling from Ada towards Holland. everyone from further east can take 96 or M-6.  people trying to get to the ottowa exit can easily take college to wherever they need to go.  I think 131 serves a much more valuable purpose as it is the only way to easily get from south of town to the north.



#18 Raildudes dad

Raildudes dad

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 928 posts
  • Location:Walker

Posted 18 March 2013 - 06:31 PM

During the afore-mentioned walking tour my group hiked across the bridge. Narrow sidewalks and no curb cuts. The only way I would ride across would be to wait for a "fresh" traffic light to halt the platoons, and take the lane, which is too narrow to allow passing.

 

My tour included a traffic engineer, who pointed out the condition of the fencing. We discussed closing the ramps, which really aren't needed due to the number of other DT interchanges.

 

I think that's MDOT's next target, is 131 near Wealthy and the overpass. It's in bad shape and needs to be replaced. MDOT is starting the process of redesigning the bridge and on/off ramps. That's why this discussion of at-grade vs burial vs removal has started.

 

That bridge is horrible on a bike. The curbs are way too high and I've actually scraped my pedals on the sidewalk. And you can feel the entire bridge sway when trucks go over it. And yes, I've watched many a semi get wedged between the walls trying to make the turns.

 

 

First, all bridges "sway' to a certain extent.  I would describe it more as a "bounce" when heavy trucks go over them. They all do it, it's normal.

 

Wealthy Street is not an ideal exit / entrance but you need to keep this in mind. The ADT on US 131 in the late 50's was about 10% of what it is today. The trucks of that era had 32 foot trailers, a 40 foot trailer was rare as they were just coming into existance. Today's 53 foot trailers were not even thought of. The ramps certainly don't meet today's standards but they did in the 50's

 

Underneath 131 and Wealthy was all railroad tracks and the northbound ramps were on the left side to accomodate the "downtown" ramp on the right side that went to Fulton St.

 

Closing the NB exit ramp is not really a viable option. Wealthy Street is vital for NB trucks to Market or Wealthy west of Market - the industrial area west of the river.  Franklin Street doesn't work well, no good route to Market. There's no NB exit at Market Street anymore.

 

I'm afaid MDOT is only going be be able to put a "bandaid": on it in the form of a modified SPUI or a diverging diamond. The Rapid, the new Amtrak station, the new Market and the park have the interchange pretty well constrained to improvement only in the existing foot print.



#19 RegalTDP

RegalTDP

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:55 PM

Here's something weird, if you hadn't seen - a poster at the City Data forum noticed that the Allegan Micropolitan Statistical Area (µSA) is now the Holland µSA, and is still comprised of Allegan County.  It's true (Link to PDF):

 

26090 Holland, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

          Principal City: Holland

               Allegan County 

 

So Holland went from being the principal city of an MSA (Ottawa County) to the principal city of an µSA (Allegan).  Meanwhile, most of Holland's population, north of Allegan County, is in the Grand Rapids MSA.  How messed up is that?



#20 MJLO

MJLO

    Town

  • Moderators
  • 3,528 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids Michigan

Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:28 PM

Here's something weird, if you hadn't seen - a poster at the City Data forum noticed that the Allegan Micropolitan Statistical Area (µSA) is now the Holland µSA, and is still comprised of Allegan County.  It's true (Link to PDF):

 

 

So Holland went from being the principal city of an MSA (Ottawa County) to the principal city of an µSA (Allegan).  Meanwhile, most of Holland's population, north of Allegan County, is in the Grand Rapids MSA.  How messed up is that?

That's why I think Urban area is a more accurate gage of how big a city is.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users