Jump to content

The State of Downtown Grand Rapids Retail


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts


Reminds me of the Kansas City Power & Light District. It won't be easy.

http://online.wsj.co...1425094502.html

That development is mainly entertainment venues and a movie theater, according to the article. No big anchor retailers.

Better a mall then a casino :P

I still think there's room for a casino in downtown GR. The casino in Wayland is cutting some pretty big checks to the local municipalities.

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2012/06/gun_lake_casino_makes_third_st.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I visited SLC last year and it is an impressive town. In many ways it reminded me of GR. Progressive urban bent in the center, surrounded by conservative ring. Interesting intersections of the two groups with the wealthy conservative groups dedicated to the revival of urban center -- makes for an interesting synergy (as an aside, the largely non-partisan tone that most local politics in Grand Rapids is what makes it successful. Most can cooperate with those of different political stripes because it is not as overt on local issues as it is in other parts of the country...simplified and I digress). The key difference is that in SLC, the principal investor (Mormoun church) is also headquartered downtown...now if we could just get Amway to move their headquarters downtown!

The other impressive component in SLC, is that the residents and businesses have a bit of a social contract to develop one of the most robust urban transit systems in the country. SLC is a relatively small city population-wise, but the community has agreed to tax themselves to develop an amazing light rail and street car network (yes, they are building each).

In regards to the proposed, the $2b encompasses several square blocks and contains residential and office towers.

I've passed through SLC three of the past four years, the last time in April. No I'm not a Mormon, it is just that Salt Lake City is a convenient staging area when traveling to many western national parks. I've also thought of the similarities between SLC and GR, i.e. the wealthy religious conservatives that pull the strings versus their generally not as wealthy opposite. SLC is 50% Mormon and obviously 50% not Mormon (Utah is even more Mormon, 70%.) And I was struck about the commitment to mass transit in a metro area that is not really terribly large. Considering the unpopularity around here of mass transit among the right-wing crowd I was really surprised to see its apparent popularity in SLC. Another thing that surprised me about SLC, despite it being a very clean and prosperous looking city, it has a substantial population of homeless people. Every time I've walked in the downtown area, I've been greeted by (polite) panhandlers.

I didn't even know about this new downtown mall but looking at the map, a couple of blocks away is another huge downtown mall called Gateway that I've patronized. It was built around the time of the SLC Winter Olympics. It is built on the existing street grid connecting existing buildings, most notably their old Union Station, with new infill retail buildings along with office buildings and apartments, all connected by multi-level walkways. Except that it doesn't have a re-tractable roof or any roof at all, it looks a lot like the photos of the new mall. In fact I thought I was looking at Gateway when I first took a look at the pictures. I don't believe it is owned or controlled by the Mormon Church in that its restaurants, stores, and theaters are open on Sunday.

So I wonder if Salt Lake City can support two large downtown malls (seeing how we couldn't support in the past one small one.) Googgling about the new mall, I see that it was built on the properties of two old adjacent Mormon owned enclosed malls that were torn down several years ago. I imagine that there is some local politics going on here that we are not aware of.

EDIT: I see GRDadof3 snuck in some comments about Gateway just before I posted this.

Edited by walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That development is mainly entertainment venues and a movie theater, according to the article. No big anchor retailers

The development adjoins the garment district which features a number of retailers, mostly boutique. I imagine a big retailer like one would find in the 'burbs either didn't fit the developer's strategy or they couldn't find one interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to keep in mind regarding City Center and its failure is that it was launched long before Van Andel Arena, GVSU downtown campus, DeVos Place, JW Marriott, Van Andel Institute, Medical Mile, ArtPrize, etc. were around. I'm not sayin' it wouldn't up and fail all over again if executed the same way now, but if I recall, it was created in the hopes of sparking a downtown revival. Nowadays, there is much more vibrancy downtown than there was when City Center was attemping to make a go of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with all the comments on City Center - different time, different downtown, shabbily executed, and even tacky by 1980s standards. Regardless, the ghost of City Center will be an obstacle to overcome for skeptics.

SLC is 50% Mormon and obviously 50% not Mormon (Utah is even more Mormon, 70%.) And I was struck about the commitment to mass transit in a metro area that is not really terribly large. Considering the unpopularity around here of mass transit among the right-wing crowd I was really surprised to see its apparent popularity in SLC. Another thing that surprised me about SLC, despite it being a very clean and prosperous looking city, it has a substantial population of homeless people. Every time I've walked in the downtown area, I've been greeted by (polite) panhandlers.

From my understanding, due to Utah's mountainous terrain, Salt Lake City's commuters reside almost entirely along a single corridor (Interstate 15), so they learned fast to love mass transit, or else I-15 would be hopelessly gridlocked. GR isn't dependent on a single commuter corridor, so we haven't had the traffic issues they have. Someone more knowledgeable of SLC than I can chime in (I think it's been discussed here before).

But on a larger note, I really don't understand the sudden conservative backlash against mass transit. Is that a new phenomenon? I'm not talking about opposition to BRT - I can understand that - but it seems nowadays whatever the Rapid does is a divisive partisan issue. Or every new bike lane, for that matter.

And you should see the bizarre conspiracies being cooked up elsewhere. Apparently mass transit is a secret UN plot to take over Atlanta. Because, you know, the traffic down there is just dandy, I don't understand how any effort to improve it could be legit.

Sorry to go on a tangent here, but was it always this way?

Edited by RegalTDP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mass transit, at least around here, is perceived as a welfare program that heavily subsidizes transportation for the poor. Granted, there are exceptions, but that is the general view of it, and there is probably some accuracy to it. To the extent there is a "conservative" backlash I would tag that as the underpinnings of it. Even from a non-conservative perspective, one still has to ask whether this is a program that efficiently and effectively makes use of tax dollars. To that, I think the answer is "no." As I've noted before, operating/initial costs for the new BRT line are so high that you could buy a used car for every rider, plus the gas, and still come out ahead (and with no appreciable increase in traffic counts). As presently conceived, mass transit is a fiscal disaster.

Standing on its own, mass transit is a fine thing. Unfortunately, it never stands on its own. Until it can support itself from its own revenues, you're going to continue to have a hard sell around here. Now, if you can build a huge mall and bring tens of millions of people downtown, and clog up the streets with cars everywhere, so that the options become building double-decker streets or riding buses, you might have an easier time selling it, and a much better, more vibrant city. Mass transit, however, isn't going to create the vibrancy. The vibrancy (and people) need to come first.

But on a larger note, I really don't understand the sudden conservative backlash against mass transit. Is that a new phenomenon? I'm not talking about opposition to BRT - I can understand that - but it seems nowadays whatever the Rapid does is a divisive partisan issue. Or every new bike lane, for that matter.

Edited by x99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love mass transit. I can sit here and look at pictures or trams/trains, BRTs, light rail, monorails, and double-decker buses all day and drool.

But when it comes to what we have here, I simply find it boring, low-rent, and reeking of hypocrisy + politics. I had some (not many) decent rides on the buses here, but mostly I could live with never stepping on one again until we stop spending tax money on gimmicks and garages and start making this system worth using beyond the simple utility of getting somewhere without using a car.

Right now it is nowhere near going beyond that with the buses we have today. They just are PITAs to even look at, nevermind using.

We need less of these 90s era, teeth-rattling, stuffy blocks on wheels:

10187184-large.jpg

And more of this:

trams.jpg

tomytec-tetsudo-port-tram.jpg

volvo-hybrid-double-decker-bus-london1.jpg

G6RC3310.jpg

I can guarantee these would give many of us a reason to give PT a second look.

Edited by GR_Urbanist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mass transit, at least around here, is perceived as a welfare program that heavily subsidizes transportation for the poor. ... As presently conceived, mass transit is a fiscal disaster.

Standing on its own, mass transit is a fine thing. Unfortunately, it never stands on its own. Until it can support itself from its own revenues, you're going to continue to have a hard sell around here. Now, if you can build a huge mall and bring tens of millions of people downtown, and clog up the streets with cars everywhere, so that the options become building double-decker streets or riding buses, you might have an easier time selling it, and a much better, more vibrant city. Mass transit, however, isn't going to create the vibrancy. The vibrancy (and people) need to come first.

I suppose one man's welfare program is another man's economic development tool. In the case of Salt Lake City, they have kindly discarded the tired rhetoric of "transit having to stand on its own" and have recognized quality transit will yield far greater investment within the community through jobs, residential development, the ability to concentrate city services, more efficient investment in infrastructure, and increased tax base. Only when one can move beyond the mythical concept that all transportation should be funded through enterprise payments (user fee payments), then we can have a serious conversation about transportation trade-offs. Research has concluded many times overs that roads do not pay for themselves, so why the far right continues to foist false arguments of transit having to pay for itself is quite perplexing. SLC has done a great job of looking beyond the rhetoric and making a decision of how they want their community to grow and what they want their community to be. I can't wait until GR is ready to have the same conversation. Perhaps the Streets Taskforce recommendations is the first step in that direction. SLC is certainly a larger "peer" city that GR can look to as how a community can pick itself up and forge its own destiny.

Edited by Jippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't slc get a bunch of funding for light rail in preparation for the Olympics? Anyone want to research that?

Found it. The fact that they use so many superlatives in this wiki entry leaves me a bit skeptical, but it does sound like winning the 2002 Winter Olympics helped accelerate support for light rail.

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

I would bet that there was just as much opposition to light rail back then in SLC as there is to transit here today.

has the new tenant at 50 Louis not been formally announced? it's not going to be retail, but rather business use most of the time with occasional assembly use.

Nope. Assembly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't slc get a bunch of funding for light rail in preparation for the Olympics? Anyone want to research that?

For some fun (my ride has not yet arrived), I took you up on the offer. So according to the definitive resource known as Wikipedia, SLC received $240m in federal funding for the first 17.3 mile line, which covered 2/3 of the cost but was incorporated into the overall budget for the reconstruction of I-15, which was also federally funded. The first line clocked in at a respectable $20 million per mile (M-6 cost $35 million per mile).

SLC 90's transportation investment decision: $360 million on 17.3 miles of light rail

GR's 90's transportation investment decision: $700 million on 20 miles of exurban highway....urgh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some fun (my ride has not yet arrived), I took you up on the offer. So according to the definitive resource known as Wikipedia, SLC received $240m in federal funding for the first 17.3 mile line, which covered 2/3 of the cost but was incorporated into the overall budget for the reconstruction of I-15, which was also federally funded. The first line clocked in at a respectable $20 million per mile (M-6 cost $35 million per mile).

SLC 90's transportation investment decision: $360 million on 17.3 miles of light rail

GR's 90's transportation investment decision: $700 million on 20 miles of exurban highway....urgh

SLC also completely rebuilt 17 miles of I-15 prior to the Olympics -5 lanes each direction,at a cost of $1.52 Billion or $89 m per mile. the light rail was incorporated into that. The numbers are from the FHWA website.

SLC is also in a differsnt situation. It is a built up area sandwiched between the Great Salt Lake and the mountains. Not much in the way of alternate routes. GRR, another story, you can drive thru or around the core city on freeways (except for the West Beltline) We don't know what congestion is. You can drive inbound to the core city at 70mph just about anyday with only minimal slowdowns. The exception is SB 131 north of I-196. Once MDOT builds the merge weave lane from Ann to Leonard, that will get better also. (I've told folks at MDOT for years, extend the Ann Street SB on ramp so the trucks can get up to speed on the hill before they need to merge and it will reduce the backup on SB 131 in the morning.)

GRD3 and I with others worked on a commuter rail plan. Only 131 north has enough congestion to consider rail. Even had a friendly RR (at least talked to us) but GRD3 will agree, there's too much parking available downtown to get commuters out of their cars.

Edited by Raildudes dad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SLC also completely rebuilt 17 miles of I-15 prior to the Olympics -5 lanes each direction,at a cost of $1.52 Billion or $89 m per mile. the light rail was incorporated into that. The numbers are from the FHWA website.

SLC is also in a differsnt situation. It is a built up area sandwiched between the Great Salt Lake and the mountains. Not much in the way of alternate routes. GRR, another story, you can drive thru or around the core city on freeways (except for the West Beltline) We don't know what congestion is. You can drive inbound to the core city at 70mph just about anyday with only minimal slowdowns. The exception is SB 131 north of I-196. Once MDOT builds the merge weave lane from Ann to Leonard, that will get better also. (I've told folks at MDOT for years, extend the Ann Street SB on ramp so the trucks can get up to speed on the hill before they need to merge and it will reduce the backup on SB 131 in the morning.)

GRD3 and I with others worked on a commuter rail plan. Only 131 north has enough congestion to consider rail. Even had a friendly RR (at least talked to us) but GRD3 will agree, there's too much parking available downtown to get commuters out of their cars.

I have recently discovered another commuter gridlock area: the East Beltline between I-196 and Knapp, and East Beltline where it becomes Northland Drive where it meets with Plainfield Ave. There's a time period in the morning between about 7:40am and 8:20am where Southbound East Beltline traffic backs up from Cornerstone University aallllllll the way back to beyond Celebration Village. Traffic just trickles along, and it takes almost 15 minutes to travel about 2 miles.

The opposite happens in the evening, as you take East Beltline up to where it becomes Northland Drive and crosses the river. It can take almost 15 minutes sometimes to go a couple of miles. This seems to be a relatively new(er) phenomenon, probably driven by growth in Cannon Twp, Plainfield Twp, GR Twp and Rockford, and only a few routes over the river.

But you're right, the 131 corridor makes the most sense, of any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is good news... in a way it's a silver lining relative to the economic slowdown.

Cities grow more than suburbs, first time in 100 years

I haaatte when articles like that about economic/statistical data don't put a link to their source. Here it is for those curious about GR:

http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/files/SUB-EST2011-IP.csv

Looks like GR regained about 1500 people so far in 2011 (estimated) from its low last year of 188,840 (down from 197,800 in 2000).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your empirical support for all of those lofty assumptions is what? Here's a relatively lengthy survey that, while trying to do the opposite, actually ends of proving that public transit is, by and large, a welfare subsidy program: http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/economic_impact_of_public_transportation_investment.pdf. Jump to page 42, where they reveal that transit costs $7.42 per trip over a 20 year cost averaging period, which assumes a ridership increase (as best I can tell) of about 2.4% per annum. Over the life of the "assets" the transit option costs $1.52, again assuming these ridership increases which, I would suggest, are unsustainable over a 30-40 year period.

Those are the "real" costs of operating this stuff in a best-case scenario. Now jump to 46, where they discuss the costs "savings" of using transit over driving a car. How do they do this? Not by using real operating costs, but by using "fare" costs which are subsidized. Then, to rig the numbers even further, they used the (then current) IRS vehicle business-use operating cost of 58.5 cents per mile. Of course, the medical/moving rate is about half this, and the charitable rate about a quarter. Why? Since this is a simplified, national standard, the IRS actually does surveys and studies to determine how much money people making those types of trips actually spend. Business people drive newer cars which are expensive. People running to the doctor and taking a deduction, less so. People driving for a charity drive stuff that's really cheap. Cost of a charity mile? FOURTEEN CENTS. As it turns out, driving a used Chevy Cavalier is really, really cheap.

So, how does that all play into the study? The average transit trip "costs" $1.12 in fare costs, and either $7.42 (over 20 years) or $1.42 (over equipment lifetimes) in real dollars. The study says we need to multiple the mileage rate by five to equate to an average public transportation trip. Using the business rate, they come up with $2.93 per trip. (Driving a Lexus is expensive). But, using the charity rate, that same trip costs $.70. In other words, taking the bus is more expensive than even the subsidized fare rate. Driving an average "medical mileage" car costs $1.15, or about the same as the "subsidized" bus fare. In other words, it costs more to run the buses and other transit than it does to run cars, no matter how you slice it. And then you've still gotta stand in the rain a long way from home.

So, let's just stop with the phone argument that public transportation saves money, or carries with it any other prospect for short-term or long term (20 year) economic growth. Over 50 years, maybe, but then you need to ensure a 2.4% per annum growth rate to break even with vehicle operating costs. The only way transit works is if we stop building roads, clog them up to high heaven, and put in a transit express lane. Once you cut out the road-building costs, you might reach a point with overall savings for society. Odds that will ever happen around here? Who knows.

Am I in favor of building more dense urban environments and placing malls and lots of people in cities and communities rather than these horrid far-flung suburban nightmares? Absolutely. But constantly harping about the need to build transit because it is cheaper than cars and causes economic development is utter hogwash. Only when you can put in a transit infrastructure which will carry more people at a lower cost than the equivalent required infrastructure for automobiles does transit make any sense from a macroeconomic perspective. Else, it quite literally does make more sense to buy people cheap cars to drive if you are concerned about personal mobility, employment opportunities, and the like.

Yeah, yeah. I know I went overboard explaining why "right wingers" hate mass transit--and I doubt many of them have put this much thought into it--but there are really good reasons not to like it, and I really dislike liking or disliking something without facts. And now I've totally lost track of what this had to to with a mall. Oh, yeah. Build lots of stuff in cities and convince people to cram themselves in so we can get rid of cars and stop building massive five seven lane highways. Good luck. It's may be one of my dreams, but most people don't share it. Or was this related to the mall in that both are economically unviable pipe dreams? :) I would certainly love either, though. Some crazy billionaire wants to put a 100mph express subway under GR with a stop in a seven story urban megamall, come be my hero. I will love you forever. Or just build a grocery store. That would be nice, too.

I suppose one man's welfare program is another man's economic development tool. In the case of Salt Lake City, they have kindly discarded the tired rhetoric of "transit having to stand on its own" and have recognized quality transit will yield far greater investment within the community through jobs, residential development, the ability to concentrate city services, more efficient investment in infrastructure, and increased tax base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one study among many that I have read over the years. It states that roads have needed $600 billion more than was collected through user fees since 1947:

http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves.pdf

Or, look at the condition of any local street network. The vast majority of gas tax funds goes to cover state and federal roads. Generally, local roads (which make up the majority of the road network) are maintained by city local budgets (property tax, sales tax remittance, etc). Clearly user fees are not sufficient to cover the cost of maintaining the road infrastructure. Hence the GR Street Taskforce

Or this can be recognized that, despite a $1 trillion deficit in deferred infrastructure maintenance in this country, the Highway Trust Fund has ran a defecit for the last many years -- requiring the Federal general fund to cover a growing percentage cover the costs.

So no matter how you slice and dice it, roads networks do not pay for themselves. Yes, single tolled roads can pay for themselves, but the costs imposed on drivers will never cover the cost of the road network. But thankfully we live in a country where the majority of the electorate recognizes a valid public purpose in maintaining a certain level of infrastructure to facilitate commerce and enjoyment of life. That is why governments invest in things like ports even though the ship user fees are not sufficient to cover the billions it requires to develop the facility. Thus, roads, like transit, do not pay for themselves and the mythical theory they do should disappear. Likewise, public parks are not municipal profit machines either.

Now to transit. The position states, that SLC has determined that the benefits to develop a light rail system outweigh the costs. This would include the cost of the user fee, the economic development, the reduced development cost needed to accommodate downtown patrons with lowered parking demand, and the recognition that private investment almost always follows public infrastructure investment. When a government invests in a new highway within a metro area, development springs up next to it. When a government invests in a light rail system, private investment follows. It is a rational progression that private development is going to occur where current investment dollars are flowing. Face it, people like new things. Recognizing this, effective public policy can shape the outcome by ensuring any one investment will result in the community's expressed interest. Recognizing that total cost of transporting between destinations is more important than looking at individual tranches of cost, then I can look beyond the direct user cost.

How much a transit user covers in the total cost of operations is important, but I hardly believe that it is the singular most important consideration. Equally important considerations are the outcomes it produces. Reduced need for vehicle infrastructure, greater participation in society by a wider variety of individuals, facilitates greater use of existing infrastructure (roads, pipes, electrical, etc), important environmental benefits, etc. Lastly, it facilitates a model of urban economic development that adds to the vibrancy of a community. No serious person can argue that Manhattan would exist in its current form without mass transit. Equally, the user does not fully cover the cost through the ticket. The point is, it doesn't matter. Manhattan is the most important economic and cultural engine in our country. They should also be able to choose how they reinvest the transportation tax money that they have generated. If they want to reassign their gas tax to transit, great. They recognize the return on investment. I do to, and I hope more participants of the GR community will recognize that return in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Local roads have nothing to do with mass transit. They existed before mass transit, and before cars. What they cost is largely immaterial to the discussion. Transit isn't going to do away with local roads. Highways, I agree, are relevant.

As far as SLC, I'm curious what studies they did and what the timeframe was on them. In order to get a return, you're going to need people to ride this thing for far more than a couple decades. You're going to need at least 50 years of use out of it. That is a very, very big gamble. So far as parking and reduced infrastructure costs, I agree with you there. The problem is that we presently have adequate infrastructure, and have ample room to build much more of it, and will. What you end up with around here are redundant systems: One that most people use (cars) and another that far fewer people use (transit). If the ridership doesn't materialize, you have just stuck yourself with a very expensive boondoggle.

All of that said, I think that urging transit in order to cause malls and retail and density and the whole bit is putting the cart before the horse. In Grand Rapids and Manhattan transit arose out of a need for it because of existing density and development patterns. Are there any good, concrete examples of transit actually altering development patterns and causing a sustained impact? If you're going to gamble tax dollars, I think it almost makes more sense to build a mall than it does to build a railroad.

When we go to Chicago, we take transit because we don't want to deal with a car in downtown Chicago. I have never once been in downtown GR and though "Gosh, I'm sure wish I had taken the bus instead of driving..." In my view, urban development is a precursor to changing that equation. I don't know why you insist on trying to do this in reverse.

Or, look at the condition of any local street network. The vast majority of gas tax funds goes to cover state and federal roads. Generally, local roads (which make up the majority of the road network) are maintained by city local budgets (property tax, sales tax remittance, etc). Clearly user fees are not sufficient to cover the cost of maintaining the road infrastructure. Hence the GR Street Taskforce

Now to transit. The position states, that SLC has determined that the benefits to develop a light rail system outweigh the costs. This would include the cost of the user fee, the economic development, the reduced development cost needed to accommodate downtown patrons with lowered parking demand, and the recognition that private investment almost always follows public infrastructure investment.

No serious person can argue that Manhattan would exist in its current form without mass transit. Equally, the user does not fully cover the cost through the ticket. The point is, it doesn't matter. Manhattan is the most important economic and cultural engine in our country. They should also be able to choose how they reinvest the transportation tax money that they have generated. If they want to reassign their gas tax to transit, great. They recognize the return on investment. I do to, and I hope more participants of the GR community will recognize that return in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will chime in one last time and then call it a day in honor of Independence Day:

The local road network has everything do to with mass transit. Mass transit does not only replace highway trips. The majority of the trips mass transit replaces are those that would have otherwise occurred on local roads. You are correct that mass transit is not going to do away with local roads, but it has everything to do with preventing a two lane road from becoming a 4 lane road, and a 4 lane road becoming a 6 lane road. It also has to do with not making downtown one big parking garage or lot. Further, all local roads did not come into existence prior mass transit. I believe the GR Planning website has a good map that shows development by the decades.

In regards of demonstrating return on investments through development, you have to look no father than Grand Rapids. Many of GR's most beloved neighborhoods were developed because of mass transit! Eastown is just one example of a neighborhood was developed by those that put in the streetcar. Manhattan would be another example. For modern day examples, the two most commonly cited and researched models are Arlington County, VA and Portland -- each attracting billions within a quarter mile of the rail system and each paying for the systems many times over in increased tax revenue. I am most familiar with Arlington. The Rosslyn - Balston corridor was a 28th Street in Wyoming-styled street with much aging retail. WMATA wanted to put the Orange Line down the middle of I-66. Arlington insisted that they place it under Wilson Blvd. Today, some 40 years later, the corridor comprises 6% of the county's land area, but over 50% of the city's tax base. With the money, Arlington enjoys amazing quality of life, low auto ownership (with saved money being expended in the local economy), and literally the best public high school in the country. It also enables to them to enjoy these services and keep tax rates compartively low. WMATA has significantly higher ridership because people work and live directly on top of the stations. Despite the tens of millions of square feet added to the corridor, congestion has actually decreased with no additional local road network capacity. In Fairfax County (which is actually more wealthy), the Orange Line cuts back to the middle of I-66. The parallel local road corridor where the Orange Line should have been built is mostly the same second-tier building stock that existed previously (single-story, auto oriented, aging, etc).

Arlington and SLC and Portland are all perfect examples of new transit facilitating massive amounts of economic investment, all three cities are now enjoying far greater levels of concentrated tax base than before the investment. Do the users pay the full cost? No. But all three communities recognize the importance of the investment and how the investment is paying immense dividends economically, via regional competitiveness, and via serving a broader public purpose.

Regarding the possibility of it becoming a boondogle, in the instance of light rail, I am not aware of any recent expansion that resulted in a failure to meet projected ridership. Charlotte and Phoenix are now both exceeding their 20 year projections. Denver is doing well and Norfolk (probably another good peer system to examine) is also doing exceptionally well, and Norfolk is an auto-oriented city. Seattle and Minneapolis are running a little lower than anticipated but still have very high total ridership. Clearly due-diligence is necessary, but historically properly planned systems have achieved desired results.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...When we go to Chicago, we take transit because we don't want to deal with a car in downtown Chicago. I have never once been in downtown GR and though "Gosh, I'm sure wish I had taken the bus instead of driving..." In my view, urban development is a precursor to changing that equation. I don't know why you insist on trying to do this in reverse.

Here's a link to transit-oriented development in Chicago. Enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your empirical support for all of those lofty assumptions is what? Here's a relatively lengthy survey that, while trying to do the opposite, actually ends of proving that public transit is, by and large, a welfare subsidy program:

Going back to my original question, on the recent conservative beef with mass transit, this sort of boilerplate phraseology is exactly what I was referring to. Conservatives didn't call the Rapid "welfare" before.

First of all, about the APTA study, it's useful on the national level, but not at all applicable to Grand Rapids. Who cares what the national average bus fare is, when we all know a single fare on the Rapid is $1.50? They have to make massive assumptions on ridership levels because they're trying to cover the whole country. Why do we care about that here? GR has its own ridership data, and its own demographics and traffic levels that we don't have to assume away. You say "any way you slice it, buses are more expensive than cars" but when we're talking about a single municipality, the only way to slice it is with actual, local data, not national averages or assumptions. If you can find a local study, like from ITP or GVMC or something, to pick apart, have at it. But you can't rebut their findings with a national study based on averages.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if GR-specific data confirmed your thesis just as well, if not better, given how easy it is to get around by car in this area. So I'll grant you all that.

But... That still doesn't make the Rapid a "welfare subsidy," and I don't get why you would take that tone. Just because we have both privately-owned cars and bikes and publicly-funded buses on the road, we have to call the public option "welfare?" By that logic, the post office is a welfare program for poor people to send mail. I mean, USPS is cheaper than FedEx or UPS, it operates on subsidies, and it's legally obligated to deliver to everybody... Right?

But it's not welfare. Because parcel post is essential for commerce, it therefore serves the public interest as a whole. The same applies to transportation. Transportation, as a whole, is one giant subsidy. Local roads, highways, oil subsidies, foreign policies that support the oil trade, etc., are all facilitated by government along all levels. They're interlinked, and I'm not criticizing any of them. Mass transit is just one additional component. Just because poor and disabled people use it doesn't automatically mean it's welfare. It's just one subsidy among many. And Greater GR, as a community, decided years ago that access to transportation be made available to as many as possible, to facilitate commerce. Hence, mass transit was established here as a public service.

At least, that's how I understand it, and I feel others used to as well. I thought, prior to 2010, public transportation in GR had pretty widespread bipartisan support. But now, suddenly, conservatives resent the Rapid as "welfare." Did people think that before? It can't just be the BRT's fault. The tone of the debate in the 2010 millage focused squarely on whether we need BRT (a legit question). The tone in 2011 was more about whether we should have public transportation at all, and that seemed new to me.

But it's always possible I just never noticed it. I'll throw it out there again: Has there always been conservative opposition in GR to the Rapid, or is this a new phenomenon?

I don't think criticizing how the Rapid spends its money is a partisan issue, as you noted. I agree with you there. That's why I don't think BRT in particular is a partisan issue, because whether or not it fills a real need along the Division corridor is not an ideological discussion, IMO.

And I also don't believe installing a mass transit corridor automatically spurs development along the corridor. I agree with you there, but I also think you're falsely baiting people into a "chicken or the egg" discussion, when it's more complicated than that. Neighborhood growth is based on a lot of factors, in which transportation is just one. But you're right, I wouldn't support building a transit line just to spur development in and of itself. There has to be a need for the transit line first.

Edited by RegalTDP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Wasn't the McDonald's in the basement? I seem to remember going down steps to get to it.

As for the mall, they used to have wayfinding signs at least, but people would crash into them -- destroying them -- and they were never replaced.

Sure was i remember that when i was a kid.

there was also a wendys a subway and the honk kong inn where the art museum is.

Any of you guys remember the city centre that closed in the 90's.? It was abandoned for several years.

We used to climb on top of the skywalk that went across fulton and you could get right in there. Everything

was pink and turquoise and there was a train that ran on a track on the ceiling and a glass elevator.

Now its the police station so no more sneaking around there.

The 90's was in my opinion the decline of downtown retail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.