Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[Veloise]

That is interesting, and since you have a vested interest in Plainfield Twp and Rockford, what do you think of a light rail line sharing the ROW with the White Pine Trail? ...

At this link, you can see a bus rapid transit line sharing a bike trail:

http://www.nc3d.com/gallery/ltdbrt/123_03_24?full=1

That rendering looks to be about 2-3x as wide as the WPT right-of-way. And it lacks separation (or a railing) between the cycling platform and the train tracks.

[GRDadof3]

That rendering looks to be about 2-3x as wide as the WPT right-of-way. And it lacks separation (or a railing) between the cycling platform and the train tracks.

The picture shown is a two-way system, whereas I pictured any initial system here to be a one-way system (back and forth). I don't know that there is enough volume in the near future for a two-way system?

I agree for safety reasons that some sort of a railing would be necessary, especially with the amount of young ones on the WPT. It was just speculatin anyway.

[Rizzo]

http://www.wmeac.org/rail/rail.html

[tamias6]

That is interesting, and since you have a vested interest in Plainfield Twp and Rockford, what do you think of a light rail line sharing the ROW with the White Pine Trail? I know that people who live in Rockford (especially East Rockford) just hate the commute to Grand Rapids. 10 Mile Rd is a nightmare and going to get worse, and Northland Drive is just as bad. If there was a light rail line that terminated in downtown Rockford, or maybe even in Belmont, that could definitely alleviate a lot of the traffic going to Grand Rapids.

Or people in Grand Rapids could load up their bikes and ride the train up to Rockford for a day of biking and shopping.

At this link, you can see a bus rapid transit line sharing a bike trail:

http://www.nc3d.com/gallery/ltdbrt/123_03_24?full=1

Just a thought.

I've just got done visiting this site. I think somthing like what is depicted in the renderings would easily fit into the streets of GR. Doing a BRT system would be as simple as puting existing Rapid buses on dedicated lanes, coupled with traffic light overrides, and some additional street furniture, making it very inexpensive.

[GRDadof3]

http://www.wmeac.org/rail/rail.html

I've looked at that report before Rizzo. It is interesting, but they would have gained a lot more credibility in my mind if they didn't have that picture of a Logan's Run monorail on the cover.

[Rizzo]

Edit:

I look at that saying "eww," but the concept is laid out and a lot of study has been done...

Edited October 5, 2006 by Rizzo

[FilmMaker]

I made the following comments in a separate thread regarding the proposed Orchard Hills development in Walker. They seem relevant to this discussion as well. Simply offered as food for thought as we ponder non-automotive transportation alternatives. Here goes:

Allow me to offer one item for thought which we in Plainfield Township have recently been pondering as we update our Master Plan: utilities all run through easements or right-of-ways that typically prevent any structures from being built over or under them. They also typically run relatively direct routes through and between communities. Alas, what if we used these right-of-ways for bike paths and other means of non-automotive transportation? Aside from the construction cost, it could be relatively cheap because we'd save the tremendous cost of securing right-of-way rights - we'd simply need to pave or otherwise make the route travel-able. Furthermore, the routes created would be delightfully direct... and would connect areas that are not currently connected by pedestrian, bike or other non-automotive routes. All this is a pretty interesting notion which we are still exploring in our area. I'd be interested to see what others think about this concept on a broader scale.

(perhaps this notion is worth consideration for the placement of light rail - - or how bike paths, etc can be connected to light rail or bus routes?)

[GRDadof3]

I made the following comments in a separate thread regarding the proposed Orchard Hills development in Walker. They seem relevant to this discussion as well. Simply offered as food for thought as we ponder non-automotive transportation alternatives. Here goes:

Allow me to offer one item for thought which we in Plainfield Township have recently been pondering as we update our Master Plan: utilities all run through easements or right-of-ways that typically prevent any structures from being built over or under them. They also typically run relatively direct routes through and between communities. Alas, what if we used these right-of-ways for bike paths and other means of non-automotive transportation? Aside from the construction cost, it could be relatively cheap because we'd save the tremendous cost of securing right-of-way rights - we'd simply need to pave or otherwise make the route travel-able. Furthermore, the routes created would be delightfully direct... and would connect areas that are not currently connected by pedestrian, bike or other non-automotive routes. All this is a pretty interesting notion which we are still exploring in our area. I'd be interested to see what others think about this concept on a broader scale.

(perhaps this notion is worth consideration for the placement of light rail - - or how bike paths, etc can be connected to light rail or bus routes?)

Initially I would say that's an excellent idea. A lot obviously would depend on where these utilities ran, and how they would connect with the bigger "transportation picture", but obtaining ROW's for light rail is a HUGE chunk of the cost. Depending on where these utilities are, you may also get a lot of opposition from adjacent property owners. I think I've even heard people complain about rail trails going near their homes (like bicyclists breed crime or something ).

[CK1]

I think I've even heard people complain about rail trails going near their homes (like bicyclists breed crime or something ).

Almost everyone wants progress, as long as it doesn't affect them in any way that they don't want or cost them a dime.

[FilmMaker]

Initially I would say that's an excellent idea. A lot obviously would depend on where these utilities ran, and how they would connect with the bigger "transportation picture", but obtaining ROW's for light rail is a HUGE chunk of the cost. Depending on where these utilities are, you may also get a lot of opposition from adjacent property owners. I think I've even heard people complain about rail trails going near their homes (like bicyclists breed crime or something ).

Then again (speaking a bit tongue-in-cheek now), if someone already has a huge high voltage tower in their back yard, what difference is it going to make if some friendly folks are biking/skating/walking by? Although I am giggling at my sarcasm here, it strikes me that a bike trail might actually be their only chance to actually INCREASE their property given its value as is (with a power tower in the backyard). If gas prices hit 5 bucks, everyone is going to be willing to pay to live near light rail or a bike trail (perhaps even with voltage lines nearby?).

On a serious note, obviously I am not proposing we plop trails down every right-of-way easement in the county, but the careful selection of prime opportunities is something for which I am still looking to find the fatal flaw (or flaws). It seems more attractive than simply paving wider roads and painting a white stripe between the cars and bikes...

Edited October 6, 2006 by FilmMaker

[grcitydog]

While I agree that existing power line ROW's would be a readily available rail line, the question has to be would this rail line service the highest number of people in the most efficient way? My initial guess would be probably not, since the fact that there is a power line there means people generally don't want to live there; at least not right now. However, I can see that in the future, as the area becomes more populated and the prime real estate is developed, the land near the power lines will be as well. Once the population is situated alone the route, then it would make more financial sense to build something.

[FilmMaker]

While I agree that existing power line ROW's would be a readily available rail line, the question has to be would this rail line service the highest number of people in the most efficient way? My initial guess would be probably not, since the fact that there is a power line there means people generally don't want to live there; at least not right now. However, I can see that in the future, as the area becomes more populated and the prime real estate is developed, the land near the power lines will be as well. Once the population is situated alone the route, then it would make more financial sense to build something.

I would agree whole heartedly regarding light rail. Rails should be first and foremost placed where they are going to best serve and encourage ridership.

Bike trails on the other hand seem a pretty plausible opportunity - especially when, in our case, Plainfield Township has the White Pine Trail dissecting the township from SW to NE. Connectivity to that major asset seems a very worthwhile goal, especially if it diminishes the number of cars crossing bridges over the river.

Edited October 6, 2006 by FilmMaker

[Veloise]

Initially I would say that's an excellent idea. A lot obviously would depend on where these utilities ran, and how they would connect with the bigger "transportation picture", but obtaining ROW's for light rail is a HUGE chunk of the cost. Depending on where these utilities are, you may also get a lot of opposition from adjacent property owners. I think I've even heard people complain about rail trails going near their homes (like bicyclists breed crime or something ).

What Jeff wrote. The national Rails to Trails group has some interesting refutations on their websites; sad that this is needed.

Nearby example: rail-trail connecting orchard Lake-Keego Harbor-West Bloomfield-other ritzy suburb with --HORRORS!!! Pontiac!! From the discussion, you'd think that anyone riding a bicycle is also an expert at balancing a stolen large-format TV on the h'bars...or has a pesky urinary infection with the resulting symptoms.

[GRDadof3]

I noticed in the DDA Agenda that the ITP is requesting to exercise an option they hold on the DASH lot just South of the ITP station, hopefully it's to bring the new Amtrak station closer to reality.

In other news, Nashville has just recently opened their first commuter rail line. The Music City Star stretches 31.2 miles from downtown out into the Eastern suburbs.

Part of a long-range plan by Nashville to serve multiple exurb areas:

They refurbished old Amtrak trains and commuter cars from Metra in Chicago. You can see a slideshow HERE.

It is one of the least expensive commuter rail lines built in the country at a measly $41 Million, with an annual operating budget of $3.5 Million. That's only about $1 Million/mile, far less than highways at $20 - $50 Million/mile, and light rail at $30 - $50 Million/mile. It was built in only two years (2004 - 2006). Only $6 Million was needed from the Federal Transit Authority.

Some images of the Music City Star pulling into the newly built riverfront station, which can be seen in the UP main photo thread.

[GaryP]

That

[GRDadof3]

That

[DwntwnGeo]

Wow! That is great. I wish we could build something like this in the near future. The cost is low and seems like it would be a great start. I could only hope that something like that is in the works for Grand Rapids

[Greedo]

Those are the same trains and passenger cars the Metra in Chicago are running. The balcony seats are highly uncomfortable.

[FilmMaker]

It is one of the least expensive commuter rail lines built in the country at a measly $41 Million, with an annual operating budget of $3.5 Million. That's only about $1 Million/mile, far less than highways at $20 - $50 Million/mile, and light rail at $30 - $50 Million/mile. It was built in only two years (2004 - 2006). Only $6 Million was needed from the Federal Transit Authority.

Some images of the Music City Star pulling into the newly built riverfront station, which can be seen in the UP main photo thread.

This is what I'm saying!!! Great research GRDad!! Like my thoughts earlier in this thread, it even runs adjacent to a river and has a terminal by their baseball stadium!! (heck, y'all, we got us a river and a ballpark too!!!))

And they built it for less than folks are projecting the city will spend to move itself off of "services island"???!!!???!!!

Has anyone put this in front of Andy Bowman or others at GVMC? Sheesh! This seems like exactly the model for what we ought to be pondering in West Mich!! Info from this project ought to find its way into the recent report on West MI transit initiatives!

[CK1]

After reading through the Nashville business proposal, a few things stick out:

One, the rail line is over 30 miles long. That would be from what, GR to Holland or Grand Haven? I would guess that GR would be looking for a system that initially would much shorter than this, perhaps running to downtown from Rockford, the airport, Caledonia/Byron Center area, or Hudsonville/Grandville area.

The include 6 total stations, or one every appx. 5 miles. Wouldn't GR be looking more at more density than that?

Ridership is only expected at less than 1,500 persons per day on the line. Seems like slim pickings. I would anticipate a well-placed system in GR to be almost double that, if not more.

Fares EACH WAY start at $4.00, and are higher for further out stations. I would think fares would have to be less ($2.00 - $2.50 range) for it to really attract people here, and include free transfers to the bus system / DASH vehicles.

Even in 10 years, operations cost recovery expected to be under 50%. A much higher rate would be needed here, as I think there would be some backlash for a locally-subsidized system from those that don't / wouldn't use it.

Just my two cents...I think the gist of the system is great, and the business plan could be easily tweaked to make it work in GR.

[GRDadof3]

This is what I'm saying!!! Great research GRDad!! Like my thoughts earlier in this thread, it even runs adjacent to a river and has a terminal by their baseball stadium!! (heck, y'all, we got us a river and a ballpark too!!!))

And they built it for less than folks are projecting the city will spend to move itself off of "services island"???!!!???!!!

Has anyone put this in front of Andy Bowman or others at GVMC? Sheesh! This seems like exactly the model for what we ought to be pondering in West Mich!! Info from this project ought to find its way into the recent report on West MI transit initiatives!

I thought you would like this FilmMaker! Here's a boatload of images of different portions of the system:

A train yard before the MCS bypass rail went in:

and after (far left new rail)

A typical park-n-ride lot and shelter (clean, attractive and functional, ADA compliant)

Refurbished METRA locomotive and passenger cars

Lebanon Station (East end of line) layover area during construction

Lebanon Station layover completed

Riverfront Station downtown (simple, attractive, functional)

Outdoor loading area

You're right on CK1. Ours could be 1/2 the size and would probably generate more ridership. I've heard that Nashville is pretty "sprawly", moreso than GR.

FilmMaker, on GVMC's website under the transportatoin planning, it shows an email contact of [email protected]. Do you know if this is still the right person to contact to get involved or to send this idea to? They definitely should make a trip to Nashville to check this out, as I'm sure every mid-sized growing city in the country will be doing as well.

GVMC Transportation - Getting involved in the process

[GaryP]

Could we run a single train on the route that GRDad mentioned earlier? The train would run about five miles and stop maybe three times (park and ride lot, Michigan and Fuller, and the hill).

It would be 80% existing track. The price would probably be at least somewhat similar to Nashville's in total, which I'm sure is less than the extra lane of highway would cost.

I can't think of reason to not at least look into this.

[GRDadof3]

Gary, I was also thinking they could put a station in Ada as well. That's where this line leads out to. Maybe even to Lowell. There are a lot of housing developments being built in Ada.

[DwntwnGeo]

I can't think of reason to not at least look into this.

I agree it would be something to look into. As Rizzo mentioned he thought/heard the tracks were passenger ready, but how much does it cost to make tracks passenger ready? It would be a lot cheaper than laying new track, right? I hope someone from the Medical Hill is reading this topic also.

[GRDadof3]

I agree it would be something to look into. As Rizzo mentioned he thought/heard the tracks were passenger ready, but how much does it cost to make tracks passenger ready? It would be a lot cheaper than laying new track, right? I hope someone from the Medical Hill is reading this topic also.

The Nashville system laid 30 miles of new track, built new bridges, new stations, added new crossing signals, and much more on an existing line for only $1 Million/mile. You can't beat that. The current track would have to be rebuilt I'm sure. I just wish there was a way to get around that Michigan Hill and into downtown, or at least close enough to put in a station with DASH busses to downtown. I can't see a giant locomotive going down the middle of the street. And new Siemens Light rail trains run $20 Million/apiece AND need overhead electrical lines.

Perhaps the Southern 131 corridor would be a better start?