Jump to content

cutlervillegr

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About cutlervillegr

  • Rank
    Unincorporated Area

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Does anybody know how well this building is leasing? I drove by Sunday for the first time in months, and it looked like there were quite a few cars parked outside.
  2. My critiques tend to be related to the following: 1) When MDOT repairs a road, they tend not to future proof it. Examples being the twin I-196 projects in GR and Hudsonville. If you're going to take the time and money to do a major rebuild/reconstruct, why not prepare for future growth, too? MDOT seems to do projects for the present, or even for the traffic levels of 5-10 years ago. 2) Too often, I hear that Michigan roads are poor due to the weather conditions. Having grown up in an area of the country with twice the snow and similar temperatures, you can plow and salt the roads, and repair potholes. Somehow, Michigan hasn't looked to other states in the Northeast and Midwest to figure out what they already know about dealing with snow and freeze/thaw. Taxes and fees (also taxes) can be slushed around and make it difficult to tell state vs. state who is investing more or less in infrastructure. I don't know truly where Michigan stands, but I do know that Michigan taxes are not so low that under-investment can be the sole explanation for Michigan's infrastructure. I have to think that poor management, bad decision making, and poor engineering (see M-6 west of 131) have contributed collectively to the state of the roads.
  3. I know Mdot isn't forward-thinking, but this is a stretch of highway that should be EXPANDED while it is reconstructed. The GR-Holland corridor isn't going to stop growing, so why not move the area around M-6 to 3 lanes in each direction now? Oh, yeah, because the gas tax isn't high enough yet...
  4. A couple of things I find interesting in this photo: 1) In addition to US-131 not being put in yet, I-196 is also not under construction yet. 2) At the very top of the photo, you can see the GR & Eastern Rail bridge and the Ann Street bridge. Beyond (north) of that, there is very little. Alpine certainly hadn't developed into what it is today, and there isn't the growth that is currently on both sides of the river. Essentially, northern city sprawl ended at Ann Street.
  5. I'm not intending to start a debate on the merits for or against the additional gas tax, but I'm curious about the quote below: would this help or hurt the GR area in getting more road attention? Would this help GR get some of the highway upgrades that I believe are necessary (3rd lane on I-96 between I-196 and 28th Street, 3rd lane on US-131 N of West River, 2nd lane on M-37 through Caledonia, etc.)? Or does this mean more money funneled towards Metro Detroit, at the expense of GR? "The new revenue would be targeted to the most heavily traveled and "economically significant" roads rather than be divided under a current formula that critics say favors rural areas." https://www.woodtv.com/news/michigan/a-breakdown-of-gov-whitmer-s-budget-plan/1829151276
  6. I agree with the above comments that this is a waste of time and money. If it was my money to spend, I would use the $1,000,000 towards further growth and redevelopment in Burton Heights. That neighborhood seems to be benefiting from increased development recently, and returning it to a desirable neighborhood would go a long way towards improving the Silver Line. I think the Laker Line will do much better, with proven destinations at both ends of the line.
  7. This article doesn't really spell it out, but I would prefer that any legislative fix (ie, tax hike), means that all gas tax money goes towards infrastructure. Michigan already has one of the highest gas taxes in the country, because so much of that money gets diverted elsewhere. If that also means an income tax hike, so be it, but a consumption tax should go towards said consumption.
  8. I used to live close to Millennium Park, and I have spent many weekend afternoons biking, walking, or running the trails in the Park. It is a huge park, and the size allows a lot of people to recreate in their own space. That's fairly unique for a park that is that close to an urban area. Additionally, to see the reclamation of past industrial space to a wild, open park is very neat. Personally, I wouldn't want to see an amphitheater placed anywhere in the Park (and from the initial picture, it looks like the proposed location is south of Butterworth in the park boundaries). Nor would I like to see a soccer stadium, or any other use besides forever wild space. Aren't there plenty of open spaces around the GR Metro that could be used for an amphitheater? One of my favorite things about Chicago is that the entire lakeshore is park land, and because of that, you have beautiful parks between the lake and the concrete jungle of the city. In the same way, I think Grand Rapids/Kent County would be well served to keep Millennium Park open and wild, as an access to the Grand River. However, it appears that my opinion is in the minority (at least on this board). Which is fine, it just certainly isn't what I would do.
  9. If the public will carry the debt, then the city/county should be required to have the public vote for a millage specifically for this project -- just like occurs for taxes that pay for arenas/stadiums. I would enjoy voting no for additional taxes for a hotel.
  10. What is the reason for the 24% decline? Cheap gas? Lots of airline options? Train reliability/availability? I would hope that a GR-Kzoo-Chicago Amtrak service would be in addition to, not replacing GR-Holland-Chicago service. Maybe arrive in GR early in the morning and leave GR late at night to mirror the current Pere Marquette service. Or maybe a mid-day arrival/departure out of GR. I think augmenting the service would help.
  11. I heard from some one in the construction industry that part of the building is sinking. Has anyone else heard anything about this? It's just a rumor, but I heard it's going to cost Amazon a lot of money to correct the issue.
  12. I'm new to this board (and relatively new to the area), but it is already depressing how often civic leaders screw up some rather obvious transit/cityscape choices (like not trying to complete the wye into the station). I'm sure it's even worse for those who have been following these decisions for a long time. You are correct about CSX. They are not a good host railroad for passenger/commuter rail, and this is evidenced throughout the country. A better option may be to buy R.O.W. from CSX. A decent portion of the GR-Holland portion is double tracked. I'm assuming the R.O.W. is there for the entire line to be double tracked from GR-Holland. Buying or leasing the R.O.W. from the second track may be the better option than dealing with CSX. Although, that defeats the entire point of the initial idea and probably destroys the budget for such an idea. Genesee & Wyoming owns from Ann Street north and east on the West Side. Coopersville & Marne (a tourist line) owns the line west of Ann Street. I believe Grand Elk owns from Hughart Yard (along 131 @ Burton St) south to Kalamazoo. They may also own the abandoned-in-place spur that juts out to 44th St southeast from Burton Street. I don't know how these companies are to work with for passenger/commuter rail, but some of these rail lines may be attractive commuter rail options, particularly a GR-Wyoming-Cutlerville-Byron Center-Wayland line that runs North-South. And like you said, a line up to Sparta would probably do well, also.
  13. One option could be completing the wye to the Amtrak station. It looks like the city already owns the parcel at 280 Logan SW. Acquiring the top edge of 503 Century (Faber & Co) could possibly allow a wye to be connected that would eliminate the need for the train to stop, have the switch pulled and back into the station. Of course, Amtrak would likely be interested in this, too, so that makes me wonder if it isn't feasible, since Amtrak didn't already try this when they put in their station.
  14. I would guess either MDot or Amtrak owns the Wealthy Street Station. (MDOT subsidizes most if not all of the Amtrak trains through Michigan). I would be opposed to using Wealthy Street for the GR Terminal. If you could tie in with the new (existing) Amtrak station off of Grandville Ave., you have a short walk across the parking lot to the bus depot. As others have noted, access to other forms of transportation would be key to making this idea work. Very unfortunate. Thanks for sharing the pictures! Do you have any pictures/locations of other possible depots along this corridor? Or pictures of former depots along this corridor?
  15. This seems like a pretty great idea to me. I'm not sure if it would be viable, but it would be neat to see it happen. Would they terminate at the Holland & Grand Rapids Amtrak stations? Additionally, are there preserved stations/shelters from when this line was previously used for passenger rail (I'm assuming all of these villages/towns previously had a rail stop)?
×
×
  • 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.