Would you ride lightrail?

[Rizzo]

I agree with you there... but there system is historical. We'd have to build a steel structure to get that feel. I would prefer steel over a concrete support system. I think the Chicago L is a heavy rail system and covers the whole figgin street.

[francishsu]

Whichever option they choose, I would hope we can layout the ground work so that the money spent today can be used later when this system may need to be upgraded to light or heavy rail. For example, push to purchase right of way now. I know the cost to purchase right of way is expensive, but I don

[monsoon]

Well that is a heavy rail system and it is very rare for them to have anything but 3rd rail power. As I said earlier this is the only way to have 3rd rail, but there is no way a heavy rail system will be built in GR. In fact the only new heavy rail system built in the USA in the last 20 years is the Red Line in Los Angeles, and the costs were so high they decided to do future expansions in Light Rail. There is simply no need for something with that capacity and you are talking about costs that will go into the billions.

Of the 3rd rail systems out there, I find the one in Chicago the ugliest in terms of how it turns the streets under it into dark tunnels. They should have converted it to a subway and elminated the elevated system decades ago like all the other cities did.

Light rail, electric trolleys, and electric street cars all use overhead catenaries to power the vehicles, because the costs of total grade separation and station design of going to 3rd rail are just too high to stomach. It's really unrealistic to think they would do it any other way.

[Michi]

^ Is the MARTA subway/rail in Atlanta older than 20 years? I don't know when it was built, but by its appearance, assumed it was a bit younger.

[snoogit]

^ Is the MARTA subway/rail in Atlanta older than 20 years? I don't know when it was built, but by its appearance, assumed it was a bit younger.

I think its old lines new cars

[Greedo]

Burying the L would be heresy. It would be like diverting the Grand River through downtown. Plus, you can't have "Chicago by L" architectural tours through the loop if you bury the track.

Chicago L is indeed a heavy rail system, but that goes back 100 years when that's all there was. That being said, an elevated LRT system would have a smaller footprint, as well as be elegant, adding to the charm of downtown transit.

If existing right of way could be used, that would be great, but it's important to get right into the neighborhoods that would use a system like this most.

[GRDadof3]

I couldn't disagree more. You end up with beautiful shots like this:

[

Mmmm... elevated train.

Sorry Greedo, but I find the Chicago L through downtown to be very unattracitve. It disrupts the beautiful facades across the street, and as monsoon stated, it creates ugly dark tunnels down the streets:

One of mine

Not my picture

Lplan, I don't see any anger in the exchanges here. It's healthy to debate which transit options work the best. At least people are discussing the issue.

[francishsu]

I must respectfully disagree with these numbers.

There are several innovative designs of monorail, as well as PRT, that have been estimated to cost on average closer to $30M/m, and in some cases, as low as $15M/m (although that is probably bulls**t from an eager manufacturer).

I don't trust these estimates for proposed monorail projects or figures from a monorail advocacy groups for existing implementations.

Take figures from lightrailnow.org.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_monorail001.htm

Of course, I assume that this LRT group wants to figure the costs in a way that makes monorail look the worst, so I assume the truth lies somewhere between their figures and the monorail.org figures. But what's telling to me is that even lightrailnow.org concedes that elevated LRT costs can approach $100m per mile. Are you telling me that future attempts at monorail are going to be able to be achieved at a third of the cost?

And the failure of the Seattle Monorail project makes me much more skeptical of monorail or elevated LRT being a viable option in Grand Rapids. To be realistic for Grand Rapids, capital costs are going to be critical because the projected rider levels are going to be much lower than what you find in the much larger, denser cities.

Details of Seattle Monorail Project Proposition 1, voted down in 2005:

10 mile monorail (down from the original plan of 14 miles)

Project cost: $1.7 billion (reduction from the original plan of $2.1 billion)

Projected ridership: 42200 riders per day starting in 2010

Debt repayment/interest: estimated $3.9 billion interest over 31 years (original plan called for repayment over 50 years with interest of $11 billion)

According to GVMC in the GT2 study, the projected ridership of all the public transit alternatives considered was in the 4000-7000 range. So let's be realistic as far as what options can seriously be considered, at least for the two proposed transit corridors.

[Lplan]

My point about anger was not about this board... in fact, I enjoy UP in large part due to posters' open mind and healthy debate. I feel that there is very little agreement, though, in the transit advocacy community as a whole. Perhaps that is the way it must be, since there are so many different modes of transit, but basically just one mode of automobile.

I agree that it's pretty expensive for any mode, any way you cut it. The numbers are so widely disproportionate between different advocacy groups, and understandably so. Like you said, the monorail folks will gripe about the costs of light or heavy, the light rail will prove that the monorails are more expensive than proposed, the ____ people sit and say why they're the best, etc. etc.

Meanwhile, the highways get the funding, and the lanes keep getting added.

[GRDadof3]

My point about anger was not about this board... in fact, I enjoy UP in large part due to posters' open mind and healthy debate. I feel that there is very little agreement, though, in the transit advocacy community as a whole. Perhaps that is the way it must be, since there are so many different modes of transit, but basically just one mode of automobile.

I agree that it's pretty expensive for any mode, any way you cut it. The numbers are so widely disproportionate between different advocacy groups, and understandably so. Like you said, the monorail folks will gripe about the costs of light or heavy, the light rail will prove that the monorails are more expensive than proposed, the ____ people sit and say why they're the best, etc. etc.

Meanwhile, the highways get the funding, and the lanes keep getting added.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I totally agree. There's a lot of back-biting going on between the different groups. Although, there's somewhat of a similar dynamic between the asphalt and concrete companies, even though they both keep getting fat on paving contracts.

[DwntwnGeo]

This might be a dumb question, but here it goes.

What is the difference between Light Rail and Heavy Rail in regards to their tracks? I can understand that Heavy Rail is set up more for frieght and heavy traffic volumes. My question is more along the lines of "Can a Light Rail Car ride on both Light Rail tracks and Heave Rail tracks?"

If this is possible it would be nice if we could try and incorporate any exisiting tracks (that are likely Heavy Rail) into a new Light Rail system for the city. Basically trying to use what we might already have around the city to help lower the cost.

If Light and Heavy Rail tracks are not interchangable, than this wouldn't be an option.

[francishsu]

This might be a dumb question, but here it goes.

What is the difference between Light Rail and Heavy Rail in regards to their tracks? I can understand that Heavy Rail is set up more for frieght and heavy traffic volumes. My question is more along the lines of "Can a Light Rail Car ride on both Light Rail tracks and Heave Rail tracks?"

If this is possible it would be nice if we could try and incorporate any exisiting tracks (that are likely Heavy Rail) into a new Light Rail system for the city. Basically trying to use what we might already have around the city to help lower the cost.

If Light and Heavy Rail tracks are not interchangable, than this wouldn't be an option.

Apparantly it is technically feasible for light rail to use freight rail tracks and has been done in Europe. I think the challenges of that here are the logistical aspects:

http://www.railwayage.com/dec99/intransit.html

But even having a separate track basically running close to a freight rail track should make it easier and cheaper to obtain right of way and lower capital costs. At least that's what I figured until I read the GT2 study which basically showed little savings in capital costs of making the LRT routes follow the existing railroads vs. along streets. However, they did show a substantial savings in operating costs.

[DwntwnGeo]

Is there a way that I can obtain a copy of the GT2 study? I would be interested in reading it. I know someone had posted something a while back about it, but it seemed more like an overview or summary. Is there an online version or PDF of the complete study and results?

Thanks

[monsoon]

In terms of passenger rail, Heavy rail is not the same as Freight trains.

Heavy rail is characterized by large heavy trains that are designed to carry up to thosands on a a trainset, they are always electrified, and they operate on their on dedicated rails. The stations are designed with people traps and other devices to insure that people pay a fare before they can access the system and the stations are the only way to get onto a train. This type of transit system is very expensive because it is designed to handle thousands of people ever few minutes. In most cities heavy rail is also buried in tunnels. Heavy rail does not share tracks with anything else due to safety concerns.

Light rail is very similar to heavy rail except it is designed to handle far fewer people and the stations may be nothing more than a platform. Many light rail system simply use the honor system for ticketing and the occasional transit cop will check to see if you have purchased a ticket. The trainsets at most will handle only a couple of hundred people at a time and that is only if they stand. Light rail will often cross highways and may even travel in the highway ROW though this reduces its effectiveness. In the USA Light rail cannot share tracks with freight traffic. There are too many safety concerns with that.

[DwntwnGeo]

Metro,

Thanks for the clarification. You learn something new every day

[Sunlover38]

Can Grand Rapids even sustain the cost of a project like this? Would it be used enough? I'd hate to see something mamoth and ugly like the "L" come in and not even get used. Have there been studies done for the feasability of this or is this wishful thinking? In theory, it is a nice idea if people use it vs driving . . . but I don't see traffic reduced in areas like Chicago that have this type of system . . .traffic is a nightmare. Just curious . . . .and since there are 7 pages on here, if this has been addressed previously please forgive. . .

[Rizzo]

The 'L' works in Chicago not just because it serves its purpose as a transit mode, but because it is a historical marker for the City of Chicago. It is in context with its urban streetscape because it is historically centered and viewed useful among the City's visitors. Maybe I am wrong, but I think: Yah, it obstructs your view, but you live with it. Not only does it give you a ride to pretty much everywhere, but it creates an ambience. The system is a fiber in the fabric of the urban core.

[francishsu]

Is there a way that I can obtain a copy of the GT2 study? I would be interested in reading it. I know someone had posted something a while back about it, but it seemed more like an overview or summary. Is there an online version or PDF of the complete study and results?

Thanks

I've only seen the summary myself. I don't know if the complete up-to-date copy of the research is available online, and the study is not finished.

[snoogit]

the 14 million that was earmarked is for a different study am I right?

[Rizzo]

I believe so, and on top of that the possible study to be taken up by the Kent County Commishes.

[francishsu]

According to the GR Press

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ss...5310.xml&coll=6

The Grand Rapids project -- whether light rail or street car or similar service -- is in its early stages. U.S. Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, obtained a $14.4 million federal grant for planning. To be eligible for the money, all Grand Rapids had to do was get a small change in state law to make possible a long-term, voter-approved local millage.

[GRDadof3]

the 14 million that was earmarked is for a different study am I right?

The $14 million is to begin doing engineering work, which has not been done yet. I imagine that means Title searches for ROW possibilities, surveys, topography, etc..

Sunlover, imagine what Chicago would be like if it didn't have a transit system. It is another transportation "tool" that relieves some of the pressure on the road systems and having to keep expanding them. Especially in this part of the country where maintenance of the highway system is so expensive due to weather conditions, it seems to make the most sense. And yet, Michigan has no mass transit systems to speak of.

It is also more environmentally friendly and energy friendy in that most light rail systems are electric powered, thus cutting down on emissions and gas usage.

Will everyone take mass transit? Of course not. But even if it takes 10 - 20% of the commuters out of their cars, it's worth it, IMO. It means fewer vehicles on the road and reduced need to endlessly provide parking for everyone downtown and in other commercial areas.

Here's a recent article showing increased interest in mass transit in Michigan:

MLUI - Fix a road, finance a mass transit system

[GRDadof3]

Here's another report put out by the MLUI, Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce, Faith in Motion, WMEA, the Grand Valley Metro Council and a host of other organizations expressing a unified front to move toward greater mass transit in the metro area:

Getting There Together (pdf)

And another resource here at the Alliance for a New Transportation Charter for those looking to get more involved:

ANTC - Michigan

[AlexPKeaton]

I doubt Chicago could have been built nearly as dense as it is without it's rail system. Besides the L, which I would compare to a subway, they also have the Metra commuter trains which stretch far out into the suburbs.

I think a hybrid approach would be nice in GR, if not realistic. Think heavy rail connecting the airpot to downtown, and downtown to Muskegon, Holland, and GVSU. Then have light rail running all around Grand Rapids and it's immediate suburbs.

-nb

[snoogit]

I doubt Chicago could have been built nearly as dense as it is without it's rail system. Besides the L, which I would compare to a subway, they also have the Metra commuter trains which stretch far out into the suburbs.

I think a hybrid approach would be nice in GR, if not realistic. Think heavy rail connecting the airpot to downtown, and downtown to Muskegon, Holland, and GVSU. Then have light rail running all around Grand Rapids and it's immediate suburbs.

-nb

I dont even think you need Heavy rail to get to GVSU, when Light rail would do it.

now a heavy line from DT to the airport would make sense. As would DT to Muskegon, and Holland (with a stop in Grand Haven along the way)