2618 replies to this topic

[DwntwnGeo]

Francishsu posted this in the Coffee House section already, but I thought it appropiate for this thread also.

Haven't seen any publicity about this, but I found a blurb in the Wyoming Advance.
http://www.mlive.com...900.xml&coll=10

QUOTE
Topics of discussion will include cooperative efforts among local, state, and federal agencies; local communities; and citizens as they all strive to achieve a vision of West Michigan's transportation needs through 2035.

Resident knowledge of their area and input in the planning process is crucial to developing the best overall plan, according to the Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, which will oversee the forums.
[...]
Friday from 10 to 11:30 a.m. at The Rapid, 300 Ellsworth St. SW in Grand Rapids.

June 19 from 5:30 to 7 p.m. at Wyoming Public Library, 3350 Michael Ave. SW.

June 20 from 1:30 to 3 p.m. in room 142 of the Kirkhof Center on Grand Valley's Allendale Campus.

Call 776-7696 for more information.

I am going to try and attend tomorrow's meeting at The Rapid Central Station.

[DwntwnGeo]

Hey Urban Planners  

If any of you have time this morning (Friday) between 10am and 11:30 at The Rapid Central Station (300 Ellsworth St. SW in Grand Rapids) there will be a Mass Transit public hearing put on by the GVMC. This will be a great way to voice our concerns and suggestions to the Planning Board. It would be great to show them public interest in these types of projects. I hope some of you will be able to attend  

[DwntwnGeo]

I went down to the conference on Friday morning. There was around 10 citizens attending including the representatives from MDOT, The Rapid, and GVMC who sponsored the meeting. Basically the gentleman from GVMC gave a 15-20 minute presentation on the 2035 Land Use/Transportation Master Plan including all forms of transportations (public transit, roads & highways to non-motorized bike paths and walkways. The current Long Range plan is required by the State to be revisited every 4 or 5 years. GVMC is currently making any corrections to the existing plan and plans to have a draft completed for public review later this Fall. At this time, citizens will have their change to voice any concerns or questions in regards to the presented plan.

After the presentation, I had the opportunity to talk with a nice gentleman working for The Rapid in the Mass Transit area. I asked about the possibility of Light Rail and he reiterated the facts as to why we cannot have our first stage being Light Rail. Though it is definitely something they are planning for so when the need is present it will be an easy transition in the future. He stressed that it is very important because we are submitting our first proposal for federal funding, that it be the most efficient, economical and appealing proposal. There are over 300 different cities that are or will be applying for federal aid and we need to make sure we are one this will be pick and not left behind.

He also talked about some of the differences in federal funding between the “New Starts” and “Small Starts” programs. It hasn’t been decided as to which we will try and get funding for. Though he suspects that it will be the “Small Starts” program. “Small Starts” was specifically designed for mid-sized cities or smaller projects (phases that are less than $150 Million). Larger project for larger cities  would fall under the “New Starts” program. With the “Small Starts” program he mentioned there is a lot less paperwork and applications and the best part is you could start construction in the next 5-7 years verses 15 or more years with the “New Starts” program. Both programs are a 50% federally funded and 50% funded by local or State means.

I asked if I could be put on their mailing list for upcoming meetings or public hearings. As I hear more, I will pass it on it everyone here.

[tSlater]

Awesomeness.  So what did the current master plan seem to show, or did it even show anything?

[DwntwnGeo]

tSlater, on Jun 18 2006, 11:42 PM, said:

Awesomeness.  So what did the current master plan seem to show, or did it even show anything?

They had around 3 large maps of the Grand Valley area that they cover (basically all of Kent County and five townships/communities in Ottawa County). They didn't show anything in great detail. The two routes that were mentioned were the southern route along Division Ave. and the Eastern route through East Grand Rapids to Woodland. When talking with The Rapid gentleman he seems to think the Division route is ahead of the Easten route. Basically along Division has the most ridership currently. He also mentioned that if/when they do the eastern route that they wouldn't go past the Woodland Mall area. He mentioned that there really wasn't enough density between there and the airport and that it would be a huge investment for not enough gain. He didn't say it would never be done, just that it wouldn't be included in the first few phases.

Also on a side note, he mentioned that they are really looking at BRT instead of street cars. The main reason for this is because a streetcar system would not be able to go up Michigan Hill. Something about street cars cannot go up a grade that is larger than 10 degrees. The BRT system though, would have a dedicated ROW or lane so they wouldn't have to deal with other vehicle traffic.

[civitas]

DwntwnGeo, on Jun 19 2006, 08:23 AM, said:

Also on a side note, he mentioned that they are really looking at BRT instead of street cars. The main reason for this is because a streetcar system would not be able to go up Michigan Hill. Something about street cars cannot go up a grade that is larger than 10 degrees. The BRT system though, would have a dedicated ROW or lane so they wouldn't have to deal with other vehicle traffic.

Don't they have streetcars in San Francisco?

I think the grade issue is complicated by Michigan winters.  

[DwntwnGeo]

civitas, on Jun 19 2006, 08:47 AM, said:

Don't they have streetcars in San Francisco?

I think the grade issue is complicated by Michigan winters.  

You have a valid point Civitas, however I think The Rapid was looking at a smaller scale street care than what they are using in San Francisco.  I am sure the weather and climate have some input. He mentioned that the BRT system would have larger cars/busses that would hold more passengers than the street car system they were looking at.

[torgo]

DwntwnGeo, on Jun 19 2006, 08:23 AM, said:

They had around 3 large maps of the Grand Valley area that they cover (basically all of Kent County and five townships/communities in Ottawa County). They didn't show anything in great detail. The two routes that were mentioned were the southern route along Division Ave. and the Eastern route through East Grand Rapids to Woodland. When talking with The Rapid gentleman he seems to think the Division route is ahead of the Easten route. Basically along Division has the most ridership currently. He also mentioned that if/when they do the eastern route that they wouldn't go past the Woodland Mall area. He mentioned that there really wasn't enough density between there and the airport and that it would be a huge investment for not enough gain. He didn't say it would never be done, just that it wouldn't be included in the first few phases.

Also on a side note, he mentioned that they are really looking at BRT instead of street cars. The main reason for this is because a streetcar system would not be able to go up Michigan Hill. Something about street cars cannot go up a grade that is larger than 10 degrees. The BRT system though, would have a dedicated ROW or lane so they wouldn't have to deal with other vehicle traffic.

Division has always been the busiest route, at least it was the whole time I was there.  I think the other really busy routes are Eastern, Madison, Kalamazoo and Alpine. Michigan hill is always going to be a problem, especially in the winters.  Even now, I hear the buses can have a hard time stopping safely when they are heading down the hill.

[GaryP]

DwntwnGeo, on Jun 19 2006, 08:23 AM, said:

Also on a side note, he mentioned that they are really looking at BRT instead of street cars. The main reason for this is because a streetcar system would not be able to go up Michigan Hill. Something about street cars cannot go up a grade that is larger than 10 degrees. The BRT system though, would have a dedicated ROW or lane so they wouldn't have to deal with other vehicle traffic.

Weren't the two routes in consideration 1) South Division and 2) East on Cherry or Wealthy?  Why does the Michigan hill factor into the decision?

[monsoon]

civitas, on Jun 19 2006, 08:47 AM, said:

Don't they have streetcars in San Francisco?

The cars you are thinking of in SF are Cable Cars, not street cars.  They are called cable cars because a very long cable is pulled in a trough under the street on the cable car route.   One of the carriages is engaged when the driver pulls a lever and a vice clams down on the cable.   It is then pulled along by the cable until it disengates.  The cable is powered by a centrally located wheel that is turned by electric motors.  It's similar to a ski slope lift but with the cable buried under the street.   It was specifically designed for the grades in SF.   This is 19th century technology and the SF cable cars are unique as I believe they are the only system in the world that still uses it.    Needless to say, this technology could not be used in Michigan with its freezing winters as the cables would freeze to the ground.

[GRDadof3]

civitas, on Jun 19 2006, 08:47 AM, said:

Don't they have streetcars in San Francisco?

I think the grade issue is complicated by Michigan winters.  

The cable car system in San Francisco actually has moving cables imbedded in the streets that are contantly moving like a ski lift.  When the cable car driver is ready to go, he pulls a level that "clamps on" to the cable and away they go.  The slope doesn't affect their motion, because they are being pulled.

edit: haha, what monsoon said.  

Modern streetcars (LRT systems really) move on their own volition powered by electric current, so slippery slopes of more than 10 degrees would be a problem, like he stated.  Especially with steel tracks and steel wheels.

I think the RAPID (and Peter Varga especially) know what he's doing and knows where we can attain the most success at the earliest time period.  They just need to know the community is behind them.

[monsoon]

DwntwnGeo, on Jun 18 2006, 10:31 PM, said:

He also talked about some of the differences in federal funding between the “New Starts” and “Small Starts” programs. It hasn’t been decided as to which we will try and get funding for. Though he suspects that it will be the “Small Starts” program. “Small Starts” was specifically designed for mid-sized cities or smaller projects (phases that are less than $150 Million). Larger project for larger cities  would fall under the “New Starts” program. With the “Small Starts” program he mentioned there is a lot less paperwork and applications and the best part is you could start construction in the next 5-7 years verses 15 or more years with the “New Starts” program. Both programs are a 50% federally funded and 50% funded by local or State means.

The 50/50 funding is probably what will be requested by Michigan/GR.  Previously federal law allowed up to 60/40, but requests for the federal portion can be any amount now.  However......   the Bush Administration's budget for 2007 has cut funding for New Starts so much that it is effectively $0.   They only alloted $1.5B for the entire USA and there are presently $45B in requests.  And most of that $1.5B which is a drop in the bucket, went to existing commitments.  For Small Starts, there was $200M requested and Bush only alloted $100M in his budget, and congress may cut that.    The reason for this of course is the Iraq war and the other changes made by Congress and approved by Bush that are pushing the federal deficit to never seen before highs.   This is causing Bush to make cuts in almost every domestic program that isn't untouchable.  Transit is an easy mark, and many in his party don't believe in it anyway.  

The sad news is if the system in GR requires the feds to pay 50%, you will probably never see it built under New Starts or Small Starts.

[DwntwnGeo]

GaryP, on Jun 19 2006, 09:18 AM, said:

Weren't the two routes in consideration 1) South Division and 2) East on Cherry or Wealthy?  Why does the Michigan hill factor into the decision?

You are right in that those are the two route in consideration, but in the "Getting There Tomorrow" (sorry I cannot remember the true name    ) it states that which ever route is picked that it would include a loop in the downtown core.

[DwntwnGeo]

monsoon, on Jun 19 2006, 09:34 AM, said:

The cars you are thinking of in SF are Cable Cars, not street cars.  They are called cable cars because a very long cable is pulled in a trough under the street on the cable car route.   One of the carriages is engaged when the driver pulls a lever and a vice clams down on the cable.   It is then pulled along by the cable until it disengates.  The cable is powered by a centrally located wheel that is turned by electric motors.  It's similar to a ski slope lift but with the cable buried under the street.   It was specifically designed for the grades in SF.   This is 19th century technology and the SF cable cars are unique as I believe they are the only system in the world that still uses it.    Needless to say, this technology could not be used in Michigan with its freezing winters as the cables would freeze to the ground.

Thanks (Metro & GRDad) for the SF information on their cable cars. I didn't know that, but it totally makes sense and you are right that it wouldn't do well here in Michigan with the climate changes. You learn something new everyday  

[GaryP]

DwntwnGeo, on Jun 19 2006, 09:59 AM, said:

You are right in that those are the two route in consideration, but in the "Getting There Tomorrow" (sorry I cannot remember the true name    ) it states that which ever route is picked that it would include a loop in the downtown core.

Gotcha.  It would be great to have something serving the hill, but on top of grade issues how will we find room on the street?  I think MDoT is already trying to add another lane to Michigan and meeting a lot of neighborhood resistance because of a lack of sidewalk space, how will we fit a BRT lane as well?  I think metrogrkid said something about tunnels, which would be sweet, but probably cost prohibitive.  

And monsoon I think the only way we get this funded is through some kind of earmark.  How many years did the budget of the current transit bill go?

[GRDadof3]

DwntwnGeo, on Jun 19 2006, 10:04 AM, said:

Thanks (Metro & GRDad) for the SF information on their cable cars. I didn't know that, but it totally makes sense and you are right that it wouldn't do well here in Michigan with the climate changes. You learn something new everyday  

I think a stop at Division and Michigan could serve most of Michigan Hill pretty well without going up Michigan.  The new medical complex will actually front Division, with skywalks connecting the entire Spectrum complex for those frigid January days (as much as I hate hampster tubes).

It could then go North into the Monroe North area and maybe circle back down Monroe?

[AlexPKeaton]

With a stop at Woodland Mall that area could eventually become a real urban center. Just think if more people could arrive by means other than cars they could eliminate some parking and build more stuff. Granted, the bus already serves that area, but if a dedicated streetcar system is built I hope it will increase ridership. Perhaps parking requirements could be reduced for businesses along transit lines as well?

-nb

[Greedo]

What about tunneling parallel, underneath Michigan Hill?  Just a short distance, mind you.  It would reduce the grade and connect with the new pedestrian tunnel.

[Rizzo]

So much has changed that I'm just blown away. Wasn't the whole point of having a rapid transit corridor in the East to serve the airport to downtown crowd? As Geo reported it isn't going out to the airport anymore?

[DwntwnGeo]

Rizzo, on Jun 19 2006, 11:40 AM, said:

So much has changed that I'm just blown away. Wasn't the whole point of having a rapid transit corridor in the East to serve the airport to downtown crowd? As Geo reported it isn't going out to the airport anymore?

Rizzo,

I think in time, it will go to the airport. I think The Rapid guy was just saying that it will have to be done in stages/phases and there may be other lines or phases that would be more beneficial than extending all the way to the airport. For example: If they build the Eastern line to Woodland, they may build the souther line along Division ave before spending money to extend the Eastern line from Woodland to the airport. The Rapid reallys wants to make a good empression to the Feds in their proposal so they can try and get some or any funding towards it. As Metro pointed out, there are several cities asking for money, so we as Grand Rapids, need to show that we really want this and to make it as appealing, efficent and feasible as possible.