Would you ride lightrail?

[buzzkill]

Light rail would be a huge boondoogle here. As environmentally appealing as it is, it just would not be a wise use of public money.

[Rizzo]

Care to expound?

[Michi]

It would have to be faster or as fast as it takes to drive to gain significant ridership. If someone's drive is fifteen minutes, who's gonna spend 45 minutes commuting just for the fun of it?

Cost? It would have to be cheap...no more than $3 "round-trip"

Yes and no. When I visited Denver a few years ago, my friend who lived there toured me around which also included a ride on the light rail line that connected Littleton to Downtown Denver. Say I lived in Littleton near the transit station (which a lot of people do) and I worked in downtown Denver. The commute was about a half hour I believe. Not sure what the time would be in freeway rush hour, but regardless, that 1/2 hour could be used productively rather than fretting behind the wheel.

If any of you have been to Denver, you know that the Union Station (which is being planned as the transit central station) has a direct connection to the 16th Street Mall Free Ride. You can literally get off the light rail, step onto a free battery powered bus that takes you up into the central business district of downtown Denver, and withing walking distance of a huge number of office and government buildings.

Transit systems of this nature (in which GR can participate) are not just laid down and expected to work. You plan FOR them and then UPON them. For instance, transit stops require high density and attractive development and quality. People are going to desire to live near them for maximum usage of the system. When each stop acts as its own "node" it makes efficiency much more doable. So, say you live at one node, or transit stop and you do your grocery shopping/banking 4 stops down the line where the store is 2 or 3 blocks from the stop...it's that kind of idea that planners will take into account instead of planning for the grocery store to be 12 blocks away out of the sphere of influence of transit access.

That's just one example. You can think of just about any daily occurrance and apply it to that idea. It's called transit oriented development or TOD. It's what densifies our urban centers and even suburbs and can act as a deterrant to useless sprawl. In this respect, I think Grand Rapids highly qualifies because even though it may sprawl, I think it is put together fairly well as it is and can impliment TOD on all levels (light rail, bus feeders, bike, walk, and automobile functionality.

Of course if your going to build higher density, you have to be careful to stress the importance of quality of life and livability...open space such as parks, amenity, safety, ease of access for all modes of transportation, etc. These are the principles that make a great community. Grand Rapids already does well, and I can only dream of what proactive transit implimentation will do for that city...one of the nation's finest, if I do say so myself.

By the way, I love the idea of talking about light rail in Grand Rapids!

[Michi]

Oh and to add my own 2 cents on routage...I'd build the first on South Division first and foremost. The north end of this line would travel up Monroe Street to Plainfield Avenue to the northeast. And then on the south, I'd connect to an east/west route along 28th Street from Great Lakes Crossing to the 96 connector at the airport.

Fulton/Michigan-Medical/Aquinas College/Meijer Gardens/Calvin College/Airport will be served by an east route which would be the same line on the west side serving Bridge Street/Lake Michigan Dr./John Ball Zoo, with the possible extension to GVSU in Allendale and then beyond to (probably) Holland first since it is closer (as opposed to Muskegon).

That's just my little plan.

[Michi]

Another great model Grand Rapids should mimick is Salt Lake City. Especially on the political aspect. Both heavily Republican-influenced regions.

[Michi]

Define light rail. To me light rail is intra-city, as opposed to something like Amtrack. To me, both street cars and subways qualify as light rail, but they are totally different. Are we talking about a bus replacement or a rail system with stations and everything? I'd like both, really, but the latter seems like it might be too expensive.

Light rail can be a subway, but most subways are heavy rail. I believe St. Louis' light rail has sections where it is subterranian (below ground). Street cars can be a form of light rail but usually stick strictly to street surfaces. "Light rail" as the modern term describes is seen as being able to occupy surface street right of way as well as the ability to access higher speeds on rail lines that are totally removed from streets. This aspect of them, helps to identify light rail as a more efficient mode of commuter travel, rather than street cars which would be more limited in speed and distance.

For example, in the map below, you can see Denver's system has both. The Orange Line is mostly representative of commuter light rail, whereas the Green Line is both commuter and street-car oriented. When the Green Line gets downtown, it uses the right of ways of streets and the stops are closer together.

I don't think Grand Rapids has the density yet to support that model either, though I think street cars could do well.

No, as I stated above, you build density into transit, not transit into density. That would be somewhat backwards. However, my decision to build Grand Rapids' first line down S. Division is because it is probably the most dense and commercialized strip. But say you extended that line to a point south where there is less density, say to the new South Beltline. Those locations will be build with density in mind in order to maximize the potential usage of the transit system.

I hope my explanation is clear, because one of the first myths in planning for light rail is arguing that a region is too spread out or not dense enough. With all due respect, that's not the point. People here in Detroit argue that all the time too.

[snoogit]

Another great model Grand Rapids should mimick is Salt Lake City. Especially on the political aspect. Both heavily Republican-influenced regions.

Two different kinds of Republicans though. Although the libertarian base of the GOP is slowly being drained from Grand Rapids too.

[grcitydog]

I hope my explanation is clear, because one of the first myths in planning for light rail is arguing that a region is too spread out or not dense enough. With all due respect, that's not the point. People here in Detroit argue that all the time too.

Thank you for a good explanation. I really hate it when people argue not to plan for light rail because we are not a big enough city to need it and there simply isn't enough density. The purpose and definition of planning is to anticipate something and prepare for is before you really do need it and the costs escalate. In GR, we are at a time when we should be thinking about the future, and not what we need right now, because I know in 10-15 years, if we haven't thought about it, we are going to regret it.

[GR8scott]

I agree that you want to plan ahead for things like this and the southbeltline which probably should have been built years ago. At this time I cant see the light rail being feesable but thats why they should plan now instead of waiting until its late and overdue and more expensive.

I myself would probably not ride it regularly, but just for fun, The only route I can see now that would warrent light rail is maybe dt to GVSU, DT to airport with stops at mall, colleges and easttown/EGR, and maybe a division/131 route from DT

[GRGridGirl]

Here is a good link to find out more about Light Rail.

I searched the threads to see if this streetcar picture was ever posted. I didn't find it, so I'll post it here.

(Fun fact: The Rapid's Number 6 bus route was the only route to use the same name as the old #6 streetcar route, Cherry. The #6 is now named Eastown/Woodland.)

Here is another map showing the streetcar and interurban lines:

"Map shows electric railway trackage in the Grand Rapids area. Local streetcar trackage is shown in red, along with a suburban line north to Comstock Park. Beyond the Grand Rapids area, interurban trackage is shown in brown. The Grand Rapids, Holland and Chicago Railway line to Holland originally exited Grand Rapids via the Grandville streetcar route. In 1915, the Michigan Railway line was completed to Kalamazoo, including a route out of downtown Grand Rapids using private right of way, also shown in brown. The Grand Rapids, Holland and Chicago Railway also used this route from 1915 until its abandonment in 1926. And from 1926 until abandonment in 1928, the Kalamazoo interurban line used the Grandville streetcar route."

Now, if there was a way I could take the train from Grand Rapids to Grand Haven, Saugatuck or Lansing, I would pay $10-20 and I would pay more to go to Traverse City. I do not like to drive, hence why I avoid using 196, 131, and 96 to get around the city and I always try to avoid going on 28th St, Alpine, 44th St, the Beltline, etc.

I especially do not care for the drive to Lansing. I continue to debate about taking a class in East Lansing, but always decide not to, because I would have to drive. Taking the interurban would give me the opportunity to use that time to work, visit with friends, relax, hey maybe even have a glass of wine; and for those who would still drive; it would make the highway a safer place without crazy drivers, like me, on the road.

Please help me and the 1,000 of other future transit riders! We don't want to drive no more! Help Green Grand Rapids with Light Rail.

IF WE ONLY COULD BRING BACK:

GRAND RAPIDS, GRAND HAVEN & MUSKEGON RAILWAY

Interurban line: Grand Rapids-Grand Haven/Muskegon (completed 1902, Abandoned 1928)

GRAND RAPIDS, HOLLAND & CHICAGO RAILWAY

Interurban line:Grand Rapids-Holland-Saugatuck (completed 1902, Abandoned 1926)

-Triple G Speed

[AlexPKeaton]

I understand the density aspect. But without at least some density, building a rail system is a much harder sell. Of course we'd all love to see it, but ultimately the residents of the city in general that vote on it. I'd love to see a route up to Meijer's headquarters though. I don't work there, but I work in the office portion of a warehouse right near that corner.

-nb

[Michi]

2 other things. Corporations and companies looking at a region to relocate to take heavy consideration transportation viability. Peter Zetche, former President of Diamler Chrysler America once stated that he wished there was mass transit that connected his HQ out in Auburn Hills for his employers. As many of you may know, Auburn Hills has like negative density.

The other thing is tourism. GR is a booming center of tourism and to further promote that, transit accessibility throughout the city is a must. Linking Grand Rapids' most notable attractions will help them to maximize their potential as well.

If you've ever spent some time in New Orleans, you're probably like me and rarely drove. Instead, you use the streetcar system and hit op all the attractions that way. In turn, the city is built up so that "most" things are within walking distance, or easily accessible from connecting to an efficient bus route.

I pick S. Division as the starter route also because (if my knowledge serves me correctly) it has a very diverse demographic make up, in race, class, income, age, etc. We also have to remember that these types of services must be available to low-income residents or people who do not have the priviledge of owning their own vehicles. I believe the green line in that Denver map, on the east side of downtown was built strategically in that location to serve similar demographics as how I see S. Division. It's an underserved and lower class part of Denver.

[GRDadof3]

I understand the density aspect. But without at least some density, building a rail system is a much harder sell. Of course we'd all love to see it, but ultimately the residents of the city in general that vote on it. I'd love to see a route up to Meijer's headquarters though. I don't work there, but I work in the office portion of a warehouse right near that corner.

-nb

The most densely populated sections of Grand Rapids run from downtown through the Heritage Hill/Franklin/Southeast side area. If you start with a system through there (somehow) through to Woodland Mall and on to the airport, the success would give the system momentum to be built elsewhere.

[DwntwnGeo]

I was in NYC this past week. I loved using the subway systems there. The cost was $2 one-way or I paid $24 for an unlimited week pass and they also have monthly passes. I would pay up to $5 per ride. Station stops would have to be convienent for most people to want to use it. I would like to see a system setup in the Grand Rapids or West Michigan area.

Yes, I'd pay $2 - 5 per ride, maybe less with a monthly pass.

[Greedo]

The most densely populated sections of Grand Rapids run from downtown through the Heritage Hill/Franklin/Southeast side area.

When I lived in Chicago, the most profitable L routes were the ones that ran straight through the most populated neighborhoods (Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, Ravenswood, Lakeview), and the ones that ran out to the airports.

To create a successful rapid transit program, it has to cut directly through the area of most population, and connect to places where people want to be.

An ideal first path would go east/SE from downtown to the airport, connecting through neighborhoods of HH, Eastown, EGR, Woodland--hitting Davenport, Aquinas and Calvin along the way.

The cost was $2 one-way or I paid $24 for an unlimited week pass and they also have monthly passes.

Chicago's L just raised prices, so right now it's $2 for cash or transit card users. But residents using the "Chicago Card," a transit pass, reloadable online, that the entire Metro transit system uses. They pay $1.75/ride. The first transfer within 30 minutes is 25 cents, all subsequent transfers are free. I usually get a 2-day unlimited pass for $9 when I'm in town. Best system ever.

[SpartanGrad]

I would gladly support and use a light rail system in Grand Rapids. I live on the NE side (Plainfield area) and work well south of town (60th and Patterson) which makes for an awkward commute. In short, unless I want to spend 25 miles on the expressway (one way) then I have to fight traffic all the way down the Beltline to get to work. I'd drop the hassle of driving in a minute if I could take a train across town. I lived 4 years in Germany and relied heavily on public transportation. I have tried the bus system in GR but it just takes too long to get anywhere from my house. In Germany I could count on a train/bus leaving every 5 minutes on a very exact schedule. When I took the bus here in GR I would have to wait anywhere from 5-30 minutes for a bus to come by and it was always a guess as to when it would actually arrive.

[NorthCoast]

Does anyone happen to know the route of the old interurban system?

[baronium]

Many have mentioned that GR does not have the density to support a rail system. That's probably true. But it's a complex problem because without a good mass transit system, GR will never be dense enough to support a good transit system. We have lots of affordable land in all directions, so it will just continue to sprawl.

I wonder what GR would look like today had we not lost our interurban rail. My guess is it would have the most density around the rails.

I would definitely ride a light rail system and pay 2-3 dollars for a ride. The trouble is convincing people that mass transit is better for everyone. A new light rail system in GR would lose money for many years until development caught up with it. But in the long run, we'd have less sprawl, less polution and less money spent on roads.

I agree that the downtown to airport and downtown south along division would be the best routes to start with.

Someone needs to come up with a brilliant idea of how to sell this to politicians and the community as a whole.

[GRGyp]

Does anyone happen to know the route of the old interurban system?

You can still see the rail bed of the old GR to Kalamazoo interurban line. I runs parallel with US-131 next to the southbound lane until about 100th street (Middleville exit). If you look south as you cross the overpass you can still see the railcut running south. (About even with the northbound entrance ramp onto 131).

It's easy to spot before the Middleville exit when heading southbound. It's the raised two-track off to the right of the expressway. The concrete culverts that are still in place give it away.

[GaryP]

Someone needs to come up with a brilliant idea of how to sell this to politicians and the community as a whole.

The community and the Feds are all on board, we should be designing the system right now (with the federal dollars designated for the project), but state politics got in the way, or at least that's the short, PC version

[6th Gen local]

Does anyone happen to know the route of the old interurban system?

You can still see parts of it in Wyoming. Beverly street, between Burton and Chicago drive roughly follows its path. There are parts of the old right of way visible between Burlingame and Byron Center Road, North of Porter. it reappears again West of Byron Center road and South of porter. In Grandville you can see the old right of way south of Chicago Drive, roughly right next to 30th street. West of Grandville, it followed the old road to holland.

There is a book around on the GR to Holland interurban.

[gvsusean]

knowing whats coming do you think our "governor" will relook at this and give us our money!?

[Rizzo]

For some reason I think Lightrail has something to do with this....

[monsoon]

I posted this in another section of UrbanPlanet and thought it might be appropriate for this thread. This is a set of definitions of transit options that are commoningly being considered by US cities these days. I've seen a few inaccuracies posted in this thread.

• BRT - Bus Rapid Transit. This is bus on fixed usually out of grade routes. i.e. They travel down roads built to only be used by the buses, no cars allowed. This is what differentiates it from regular city bus service. BRTs may have to cross normal roads however. There are also stations and the buses resemble futurestic trains instead of city buses. Of couse parts of this can be dropped to save money, but the more this is done, the less "rapid" it becomes. Because the unique roads, BRT routes are not normally changed. This could be an option for GR but most people don't prefer this option.

• LRT - Light Rail Transit. There are a lot of definitions of this but generally these are electric trains that provide service along fixed routes. They have stations and the trains normally hold between 75 seated to 250 people standing. Some cities, like Houston, have placed these trains at grade to save money, but this means it they have to deal with traffic. Other cities have LRT on dedicated ROW which is more effective. It is a trade off of between cost and utility where the tracks are placed. Electric Streetcars/Trolleys are sometimes referred to as light rail, but I tend to want to put them in their own category. This option would only be cost effective within the city. It would be too expensive and inefficient to be used as a connector for nearby cities.

• Commuter Rail - This is rail that is used to being people in from the suburbs into the center city or or other work locations and as its name suggests is setup primiarly to move commuters. Typically the timing of the trains is such that many trains will head into the city during the morning, out of the city in the evenings, and service is greatly reduced outside working hours. It's primary purpose is to help with traffic congestion on highways by getting cars off the road. Commuter rail resembles Amtrak locomotives pulling passenger carriages, though there is a newer technology out called DMU (diesel multiple units) that more resemble a light rail train. These trains often utilize freight routes to move people and many times share these lines with freight traffic.

• HRT - Heavy Rail Transit This is the high capacity, high speed, short stop electric trains that you see in the major cities, often in subway tunnels. The NYC subway, DC Metro, and Atlanta's Marta are examples of heavy rail. It is very expensive to build so you only see it being built in the USA in very few locations. The last new Heavy Rail system built in the USA was the Los Angeles Red line in the late 80s early 90s. Since then the city has permanently placed on hold further expansions and is now going the LRT/BRT route. Miami may be expanding its heavy rail line as it passed a local transit tax to pay for the line. This would not be an option for Grand Rapids.

There are certainly other ways to describe transit, but most people on this and other forums go with these definitions. I hope this helps with the discussion. The key to getting transit off the ground is local support.

[Michi]

knowing whats coming do you think our "governor" will relook at this and give us our money!?

Anyone know what Dick DeVoss might say about mass transit systems in MI? I'm just curious if anyone has heard anything.