Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[MJLO]

I was hoping for articulated busses, but I imagine they will come if the demand is there.   It'd be nice to show case something that looked a little more rapid transit-esque.   Maybe in time

[x99]

[Allison Slater]

What else would they look like?

The rapid has been favoring higher frequency rather than higher capacity to meet demand.  Seems like the best way to go for me.  I don't think we'd see articulated buses until we're filling buses on a 7 minute frequency.  I'd rather 7 minute frequencies with normal buses than 30 minute frequencies with articulated.

[JoeSchmo]

I had a look at the new Silverline schedule.  

 

According to the schedule it shows no improvements in the speed of the route compared to the #1 route.  They both take exactly 14 minutes to get from 44th st and Division to Franklin and Division.

 

https://www.ridetherapid.org/ride/routes/1

https://www.ridetherapid.org/ride/routes/sl

 

Is this correct?

[jas49503]

I would hope that the Silverline can beat a regular bus, otherwise it is a total waste.  I don't see how it can't though as a regular city bus makes a thousand stops and averages 8 miles per hour.  especially if there is any traffic at all. a couple of years ago I went for a jog and could almost keep up with the bus on Lake Dr. between east town and east hills. I am not that fast.  

 

It would seem to me that until they do a few runs with regular passengers, that it would be difficult to accurately predict the travel times. maybe they are being overly cautious in their scheduling.

[organsnyder]

That is strange - it should easily beat the #1 line for the same distance on the same path. Though the #1 should also benefit from the dedicated lanes and offloading of traffic to the SL. I noticed that it does take longer from my house to Central Station on the SL compared to #1, but that makes sense, since the SL loops around Michigan St.

 

I'm also disappointed that the latest departure from Central Station is 9:30pm on Saturdays (it runs until midnight on weekdays). What were they thinking? That makes it useless for going to an event at Devos Hall / Van Andel Arena, out late drinking with friends, etc.

[x99]

I had a look at the new Silverline schedule.  

 

According to the schedule it shows no improvements in the speed of the route compared to the #1 route.  They both take exactly 14 minutes to get from 44th st and Division to Franklin and Division.

 

https://www.ridetherapid.org/ride/routes/1

https://www.ridetherapid.org/ride/routes/sl

 

Is this correct?

 

Continuing with my theme of brilliant, witty, insightful comments about the Silverline:

 

 

 

Ah, seriously though.  They could have saved a lot of scratch with just some pavement paint, traffic light controllers, 2x12s, and deck boards.  Boon-friggin'-doggle.  If this turns out to be accurate, y'all can't seriously continue to debate whether the Silverline was a waste and a veritable con job by its proponents.

Edited August 25, 2014 by x99

[GRDadof3]

I had a look at the new Silverline schedule.  

 

According to the schedule it shows no improvements in the speed of the route compared to the #1 route.  They both take exactly 14 minutes to get from 44th st and Division to Franklin and Division.

 

https://www.ridetherapid.org/ride/routes/1

https://www.ridetherapid.org/ride/routes/sl

 

Is this correct?

 

 

I think you cherry picked your stops there. When you're increasing speed in fractions per stop it takes a few more stops to have it add up. If you go from 54th St Meijer and Franklin and Division on the #1, it takes 23 minutes. 54th Street and Division and Franklin and Division on the Silver Line takes 16 minutes. Light rail on this corridor of Division wouldn't be any faster, unless of course you ran it in the rail ROW closer to 131 with fewer stops.

 

The #1 is 33 minutes end to end, as is the Silver Line. Big difference is that the Silver Line covers more ground in that time period. Now whether it needed to cover all that extra ground is debatable...

[organsnyder]

The #1 is 33 minutes end to end, as is the Silver Line. Big difference is that the Silver Line covers more ground in that time period. Now whether it needed to cover all that extra ground is debatable...

 

It certainly makes the line more useful for me and others south of downtown. Now I can get to the hospitals, DeVos Hall, City Hall, Calder Plaza, etc. without making a transfer or having to walk more than a block or two.

[arcturus]

I'm also disappointed that the latest departure from Central Station is 9:30pm on Saturdays (it runs until midnight on weekdays). What were they thinking? That makes it useless for going to an event at Devos Hall / Van Andel Arena, out late drinking with friends, etc.

 

Maybe they looked at the crime stats for S Division on that night.

[x99]

It certainly makes the line more useful for me and others south of downtown. Now I can get to the hospitals, DeVos Hall, City Hall, Calder Plaza, etc. without making a transfer or having to walk more than a block or two.

 

I had a good post here, but decided to delete most of it.  The Silverline simply isn't worth the time.  Most seem to recognize that it has already or will shortly fail.  Unless, of course, the Rapid inflates ridership and revenues with more crafty accounting tricks and sleight of hand as they've arguably done in the past.  The mLive comments re: Silverline are just vicious, and the line is being almost universally panned.  http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/08/striking_gold_with_silver_line.html.  So how did this thing ever get approved?  Did the Rapid put every hippie within a 20 miles radius on a bus and drive them to a polling place?

 

Sorry, but this was a stupid idea.  I don't care where it gets you.  Another bus route would have done the same job.  When this thing falls flat on its face, it will put any real mass transit progress back decades.

 

MLive article, quoting Suzanne Schultz, who is apparently the planning director:

 

“Given that Grand Rapids is a regional employer, we have about 50,000 people who are either employees or visitors within a square mile,” she said. “Having everyone drive their own vehicle is not going to be the answer if we’re going to have economic development.  If we did not do some sort of improvement for transit, bikes and pedestrians, everything comes to a stop."

 

No, Suzie, YOU are stopping traffic on purpose.  Our ramps are not nearly at capacity, and our streets are not that full--many of the jams are self-created messes because planners refuse (like Schultz) to build for cars because they hate them.  Bike and bus lanes are creating a clog where previously there was none.  Ironically, though, the parking system runs at a profit and surplus.  The bus system runs ten of millions of dollars in annual taxpayer-subsidized losses.  The Silverline millage alone would be enough to fund construction of a new 700 space ramp annually, and lower parking costs in said ramp to merely enough to cover maintenance and upkeep.  Ponder that one.  Instead of making it easier to come downtown, we're making it more difficult and expensive!

 

The question to me is whether this 6 community millage can be defunded.  Can it?  Because I think people are finally starting to make up to how fiscally irresponsible mass transit has been implemented and managed in Grand Rapids.  What sort of trouble is the Rapid in if this project is such a massive boondoggle that it results in another proposal which revokes the millage and a significant amount of Rapid funding?  When this fails, that will be the next push.  Light rail may have always been a fantasy, but it would not surprise me if the Silverline was the final nail in its coffin.

Edited August 26, 2014 by x99

[GRDadof3]

I had a good post here, but decided to delete most of it.  The Silverline simply isn't worth the time.  Most seem to recognize that it has already or will shortly fail.  Unless, of course, the Rapid inflates ridership and revenues with more crafty accounting tricks and sleight of hand as they've arguably done in the past.  The mLive comments re: Silverline are just vicious, and the line is being almost universally panned.  http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/08/striking_gold_with_silver_line.html.  So how did this thing ever get approved?  Did the Rapid put every hippie within a 20 miles radius on a bus and drive them to a polling place?

 

Sorry, but this was a stupid idea.  I don't care where it gets you.  Another bus route would have done the same job.  When this thing falls flat on its face, it will put any real mass transit progress back decades.

 

MLive article, quoting Suzanne Schultz, who is apparently the planning director:

 

“Given that Grand Rapids is a regional employer, we have about 50,000 people who are either employees or visitors within a square mile,” she said. “Having everyone drive their own vehicle is not going to be the answer if we’re going to have economic development.  If we did not do some sort of improvement for transit, bikes and pedestrians, everything comes to a stop."

 

No, Suzie, YOU are stopping traffic on purpose.  Our ramps are not nearly at capacity, and our streets are not that full--many of the jams are self-created messes because planners refuse (like Schultz) to build for cars because they hate them.  Bike and bus lanes are creating a clog where previously there was none.  Ironically, though, the parking system runs at a profit and surplus.  The bus system runs ten of millions of dollars in annual taxpayer-subsidized losses.  The Silverline millage alone would be enough to fund construction of a new 700 space ramp annually, and lower parking costs in said ramp to merely enough to cover maintenance and upkeep.  Ponder that one.  Instead of making it easier to come downtown, we're making it more difficult and expensive!

 

The question to me is whether this 6 community millage can be defunded.  Can it?  Because I think people are finally starting to make up to how fiscally irresponsible mass transit has been implemented and managed in Grand Rapids.  What sort of trouble is the Rapid in if this project is such a massive boondoggle that it results in another proposal which revokes the millage and a significant amount of Rapid funding?  When this fails, that will be the next push.  Light rail may have always been a fantasy, but it would not surprise me if the Silverline was the final nail in its coffin.

 

Oh well, if the Mlive commenters are against it, then it must really be bad.

 

Whether something could be put on the ballot to revoke the millage is questionable. But the FTA has already invested quite a bit into this project and I think a lot of the business community is behind it. Multiple efforts have been tried around the country to revoke funding for light rail lines, to no avail. I think it's way too soon to deem whether this is a failure or not. 

 

You didn't know Suzanne Schulz was the planning director? I thought you were a "man in the know." Everybody knows Suzanne.

[JoeSchmo]

I think you cherry picked your stops there. When you're increasing speed in fractions per stop it takes a few more stops to have it add up. If you go from 54th St Meijer and Franklin and Division on the #1, it takes 23 minutes. 54th Street and Division and Franklin and Division on the Silver Line takes 16 minutes. Light rail on this corridor of Division wouldn't be any faster, unless of course you ran it in the rail ROW closer to 131 with fewer stops.

 

The #1 is 33 minutes end to end, as is the Silver Line. Big difference is that the Silver Line covers more ground in that time period. Now whether it needed to cover all that extra ground is debatable...

 

If looking for the 2 farthest stops on the schedule where the routes overlap is cherry picking.  Then yes I cherry picked - trying to objectively look at the speed performance of the Silverline.  The distance between these 2 stops takes up just over 40% of each route  (14min of the 33min route) and covers 4.5 miles of Division.  I would say that is pretty significant.

 

The #1's 54th St Meijer stop is on Clyde Park and is 1 mile away from the Silverline's 54th and Division stop.  With that, of course the #1 is going to take longer.  So that comment doesnt seem to really align.  On that point though, the SIlverline only takes 4 minutes to get to 44th from 60th - while the #1 takes 1 minute longer to cover a shorter distance 54th (and Division) to 44th St.  So an improvement for the Silverline.

 

The Silverline does appear to travel 20% faster per mile in the downtown area north of Franklin.  But from the evidence it appears it did not make up much speed along the majority of Division.

[x99]

You didn't know Suzanne Schulz was the planning director? I thought you were a "man in the know." Everybody knows Suzanne.

 

[...] I think it's way too soon to deem whether this is a failure or not.

 

Mea culpa.  Bad sarcasm.

 

It would have been exciting to see a real transit or infrastructure project that would actually benefit people or move the ball forward.  Instead, we got a $40 million bus route.  Some planning.

 

Too soon to deem it a failure?  The "40% reduction in time" that sold this was a fiction, and always was.  The initial ridership projections were a fiction, and have been revised downward significantly.  The buses look like, well, boring old buses with green paint.  The idea that this could ever drive enough new investment to justify a $40 million bus route is laughable and has been soundly debunked.  And really?  A parking lot at 60th so you can park your car and take a bus a few miles into town?  How about "tragic comedy" instead of "failure"?

Edited August 26, 2014 by x99

[organsnyder]

x99, the thought of you advocating for an even bigger transit project than this one is just ludicrous to me (unless I'm completely misreading you). Could you describe what kind of project you would have preferred to see?

 

It's a good thing that we'll get real data to back up (or refute) these claims. Until then, making any claims - of success or failure - are nothing more than blowing smoke. However, we have to wait for the dust to settle. I'm not going to claim success based on this week's numbers (90 cars in the park and ride lot yesterday, according to our own John E), and you shouldn't claim that it's a failure because property values didn't jump 20% overnight. Let's wait a reasonable amount of time to see what the data reveal.

 

I'll be interested to see on-time rates for the #1 compared to the SL. I couldn't find any historical route-specific figures on the Rapid's website.

[organsnyder]

Maybe they looked at the crime stats for S Division on that night.

 

[x99]

x99, the thought of you advocating for an even bigger transit project than this one is just ludicrous to me (unless I'm completely misreading you). Could you describe what kind of project you would have preferred to see?

 

Okay, here goes.  I would like to see: 

• A project that involves a massive new parking ramp that the City would agree to build for free in exchange for a developer putting in an adjoining legitimate retail development of significant size and scope, located in the former urban renewal area (likely on Calder Plaza);
• Significant improvements to reduce vehicular congestion on Division instead of the current program of intentionally increasing it;
• Analysis and implementation of solutions for existing and anticipated downtown automobile congestion that don't involve the words "bus" or "rail";
• Trial balloon bus routes that run from Hudsonville or other exurbs running into the downtown area, keyed to 9-5 workers picking up and dropping off at existing park and ride lots, and running at break even pricing;
• 2 hours free parking in all City ramps after 6PM, with free validation;
• Trial balloon a two-way street program--Ann Arbor did this with significant success as I recall;
• Traffic circles--lots and lots of traffic circles;
• Significant increases in van and small bus service to ferry people in need to and from places of employment on their own schedules;
• Taxicab vouchers replacing underutilized bus routes, and discontinuance of said routes;
• High speed aerial gondolas combined with a golf cart/bike/moped share to reach final destination; and
• Conversion of the Dash buses into cool looking open air trolleys (because, hey, why not).

I would like to see downtown become an attractive enough place to be so there is an ability to get the existing buses to a point where fares cover at least 60-70% of the cost But population realistically needs to increase substantially to get close to that.  The existing bus infrastructure is already excessive for the ridership, and turning downtown in a "car hostile" environment is not the way to get more people to it in the near-term.  The whole "build it any they will come approach" or the "screw up the roads and parking so they have to use the buses" leaves me scratching my head. 

 

Mass transit ought to be answer to a legitimate need.  As a method to transport those who can't afford cars, it can work, although the giant bus model isn't very good or cost-effective.  As a method to transport those who have cars, it's an answer to a problem that does not yet exist.  Unfortunately, the Silverline's proponents were so blinded by love of mass transit that they failed to recognize that and, I fear, may have done serious damage by making the City even less car-friendly.  Getting rid of the Silverline lanes and some injudicious bike lanes ASAP before people start fleeing because of the traffic disaster should be job one.

Edited August 26, 2014 by x99

[GR_Urbanist]

Okay, here goes.  I would like to see: 

• A project that involves a massive new parking ramp that the City would agree to build for free in exchange for a developer putting in an adjoining legitimate retail development of significant size and scope, located in the former urban renewal area (likely on Calder Plaza);
• Significant improvements to reduce vehicular congestion on Division instead of the current program of intentionally increasing it;
• Analysis and implementation of solutions for existing and anticipated downtown automobile congestion that don't involve the words "bus" or "rail";
• Trial balloon bus routes that run from Hudsonville or other exurbs running into the downtown area, keyed to 9-5 workers picking up and dropping off at existing park and ride lots, and running at break even pricing;
• 2 hours free parking in all City ramps after 6PM, with free validation;
• Trial balloon a two-way street program--Ann Arbor did this with significant success as I recall;
• Traffic circles--lots and lots of traffic circles;
• Significant increases in van and small bus service to ferry people in need to and from places of employment on their own schedules;
• Taxicab vouchers replacing underutilized bus routes, and discontinuance of said routes;
• High speed aerial gondolas combined with a golf cart/bike/moped share to reach final destination; and
• Conversion of the Dash buses into cool looking open air trolleys (because, hey, why not).

I would like to see downtown become an attractive enough place to be so there is an ability to get the existing buses to a point where fares cover at least 60-70% of the cost But population realistically needs to increase substantially to get close to that.  The existing bus infrastructure is already excessive for the ridership, and turning downtown in a "car hostile" environment is not the way to get more people to it in the near-term.  The whole "build it any they will come approach" or the "screw up the roads and parking so they have to use the buses" leaves me scratching my head. 

 

Mass transit ought to be answer to a legitimate need.  As a method to transport those who can't afford cars, it can work, although the giant bus model isn't very good or cost-effective.  As a method to transport those who have cars, it's an answer to a problem that does not yet exist.  Unfortunately, the Silverline's proponents were so blinded by love of mass transit that they failed to recognize that and, I fear, may have done serious damage by making the City even less car-friendly.  Getting rid of the Silverline lanes and some injudicious bike lanes ASAP before people start fleeing because of the traffic disaster should be job one.

 

 

I just got back from Seattle, x99, and lots of what you say here is a major part of the transportation landscape there. In fact, the city is not remotely unfavorable to automobiles, nor did they create a mass-transit infrastructure that had as part of it's purpose to make it harder to drive. It is quite the opposite, and it rocked my world to see how all of it worked so perfectly. I will (once I recover from all of the travel) do  a write-up on all of what I saw. I think everyone here will be surprised at how much transit advocates are missing the big picture, and totally blowing it.

 

In short, seeing what they have out there and coming back to the Silverline, is like seeing a masterwork and then looking at pure amateur hour. it is frankly embarrassing.

[jas49503]

 

 

I'll be interested to see on-time rates for the #1 compared to the SL. I couldn't find any historical route-specific figures on the Rapid's website.

 

listing an on-time rate would imply that at some point it had actually been on time.  that's probably why you don't see it. 

[GRDadof3]

I just got back from Seattle, x99, and lots of what you say here is a major part of the transportation landscape there. In fact, the city is not remotely unfavorable to automobiles, nor did they create a mass-transit infrastructure that had as part of it's purpose to make it harder to drive. It is quite the opposite, and it rocked my world to see how all of it worked so perfectly. I will (once I recover from all of the travel) do  a write-up on all of what I saw. I think everyone here will be surprised at how much transit advocates are missing the big picture, and totally blowing it.

 

In short, seeing what they have out there and coming back to the Silverline, is like seeing a masterwork and then looking at pure amateur hour. it is frankly embarrassing.

 

Not that I'm in love with the Silverline, but there are very specific FTA requirements that need to be met to qualify for funding at different levels. Based on the amount of ridership in The Rapid corridors, the Division one was the most used and DID qualify for a Very Small Starts federal grant to build the Silverline. I believe Very Small Starts maxes out at $30 Million? To qualify for the higher round of "Small Starts" funding, which goes up to $250 Million or so, the ridership had to be substantially higher, also in an already existing transit corridor. The FTA won't fund much of anything major that doesn't already have a transit ridership base.

 

I disagree that the Silver Line will do "damage" to the transit efforts in the area. And I also think that upgrading the Laker Line to BRT will enhance the experience for GVSU students and others who live in the GR to Allendale corridor.

[Veloise]

I just got back from Seattle, x99, and lots of what you say here is a major part of the transportation landscape there. In fact, the city is not remotely unfavorable to automobiles, nor did they create a mass-transit infrastructure that had as part of it's purpose to make it harder to drive. It is quite the opposite, and it rocked my world to see how all of it worked so perfectly. I will (once I recover from all of the travel) do  a write-up on all of what I saw. I think everyone here will be surprised at how much transit advocates are missing the big picture, and totally blowing it.

 

In short, seeing what they have out there and coming back to the Silverline, is like seeing a masterwork and then looking at pure amateur hour. it is frankly embarrassing.

We have to start somewhere. As a reminder, our fair state lacks a mass transit system. (Thank you GM, Henry Ford, et al.)

 

In the best of all possible worlds, Blendon’s Landing would still be a cornfield. source

Edited August 27, 2014 by Veloise

[organsnyder]

My wife and I took the SL to Founders for our date night last night. My thoughts:

 

1. The stations are very nice - the seating, and ticket vending (in theory - since rides are free this week, I didn't have to use it) were great. Boarding the bus does feel a lot like boarding a train - more-so than I expected.

 

2. Once you're on the bus, it feels like any other bus, albeit a bit nicer (new, and the seats are a bit plusher).

 

3. Unlike regular routes, there were no automated stop announcements; since this is likely an ADA requirement, I'm assuming that this just isn't operable yet (there was a screen in front, but it was blank).

 

4. While the buses appeared to be equipped for pull cords (the sensor box and eyelets were there), there were no actual cords. This meant that the driver had to stop at every station. This would be fine during rush hour, but in the evening it slowed us down (at least half the stops had nobody getting on or off).

 

5. They have some scheduling issues to work out. We got to the station (Burton) at around 6:05, planning to sit and wait until the 6:20 (we left early because we didn't want to interfere with our kids' bedtime). However, a bus pulled up at 6:10, and there was another bus just a minute or so behind it. As we approached downtown, we saw the same thing happening in the other direction: One bus seemed fairly full, while another mostly empty bus was only a few car-lengths behind. It reminded me of when I've tried to build bus routes in the Transport Tycoon computer game.

 

6. It definitely moved quicker than standard bus - stops, which are fewer to begin with, were much shorter. However, the trek through downtown was cumbersome, especially looping around Medical Mile. I still like the additional destinations it provides, but it's not exactly "rapid". We bumped curbs on at least three occasions (for those wondering why we don't have articulated buses, that's likely part of the answer).

 

7. Kudos to Founders for locating across the street from the transit station - a very responsible move (and a very good business decision, I'm sure).

listing an on-time rate would imply that at some point it had actually been on time.  that's probably why you don't see it. 

 

I found an overall figure (80%, IIRC), but it wasn't broken it down by route.

Edited August 27, 2014 by organsnyder

[x99]

Couple of articles on the Silver Line's ridership numbers:

 

MLive: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/09/whos_riding_silver_line_the_ra.html

Fox17:  http://fox17online.com/2014/09/16/whos-riding-the-rapids-new-silver-line/

 

Both of these are for the FREE week.  MLive published that same week.  Fox 17 is still publishing those same numbers yesterday.  They aren't that impressive for something they were handing out for free.  I couldn't find anything for ridership figures when you actually had to pay.  Of course, that might be hard to come by since they apparently couldn't figure out how to make credit cards work, so they kept giving away free rides for an extra week.  I wonder when we'll ever see the actual ridership figure touted in the media, or if they're simply that embarrassing. 

 

I found this article from Capital Confidential (Mackinaw Center) far more interesting:  http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/20495

 

Double the time it takes via car, and two second difference vs the existing Route 1.  The second week--when it was still free because of the card SNAFU--ridership capped around 2300 a day. 

 

Here's where some rough math makes the impact of the Silver Line really interesting.  Since I love to fuss around with numbers and all.  Assuming the Silver Line pillaged around 600 Route 1 customers, it moved no more than 1700 "new" riders a day, operating for free.  And that still ignores pillaging from other routes, which almost certainly happened.  I counted about 68 departures from 60th, so that puts a maximum of around 25 people on each bus round trip, assuming each person went from 60th to the end of the route and vice-versa.   Assuming equal travel both way, that puts about 12 people on a bus one way, 12 back the other.  So the buses aren't full, even for free.  Not even close.  At about 5 miles a gallon, the environment isn't exactly loving the buses either.  A Prius getting 50mpg consumes .02 gallons per mile.  The bus consumes .2 gallons per mile.  To be equivalent, it needs to carry 10 times as many people.  Right now, it doesn't do that.  It averages about 3 times as many people.  On a one way journey, it does about as well as a truck getting 16 miles a gallon carrying 4 people (about .063 gallons per mile, times 3 to get to 12 people). Of course, this doesn't count all the time the bus spends idling, driving to and from the bus garage, or running around with far fewer people at various points along its route.  I would bet that makes it's mileage on a per person per mile basis drop through the floor. 

 

Someone feel free to correct me if my math is way off.  So far as I can discern, though, the net environmental benefits of running the bus are nil. 

 

Okay.. did a random Google search and found that I'm probably not far off:  http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/02/do-buses-save-gas/  His math is a lot better than mine, but it's surprising that we independently reached about the same conclusion:  The bus will not save gas, and by extension, is not really very "green" at all.  Not that I'm sure that was the point of the Silver Line, but it's interesting.  Takes twice as long, saves no gas, is basically redundant, and cannot even fill its seats in its first week giving them away for free.  Thanks, ITP.

 

P.S.  Yes, I know, this flies in the face of typical concerned urban ecocitizen orthodoxy.  Sorry.  I just don't think this is exactly the mass transit of the future.  So few people ride it even for free that it is about as good as driving a Hummer around town with your buddy.  Ugh.

 

P.P.S. Yes, I also know that all of the math falls apart if more people actually ride the bus.  That was supposed to be the whole point of the Silver Line.  But even for free, it isn't shifting behavior enough to provide a net environmental benefit.  This also makes it very difficult to see any net economic benefits (since I've previously shown how much more expensive it is to operate a fairly empty bus versus a decent used car).  They gambit was that enough people would flock to it to justify it, and they just haven't done it.

Edited September 17, 2014 by x99

[GRDadof3]

Couple of articles on the Silver Line's ridership numbers:

 

MLive: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/09/whos_riding_silver_line_the_ra.html

Fox17:  http://fox17online.com/2014/09/16/whos-riding-the-rapids-new-silver-line/

 

Both of these are for the FREE week.  MLive published that same week.  Fox 17 is still publishing those same numbers yesterday.  They aren't that impressive for something they were handing out for free.  I couldn't find anything for ridership figures when you actually had to pay.  Of course, that might be hard to come by since they apparently couldn't figure out how to make credit cards work, so they kept giving away free rides for an extra week.  I wonder when we'll ever see the actual ridership figure touted in the media, or if they're simply that embarrassing. 

 

I found this article from Capital Confidential (Mackinaw Center) far more interesting:  http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/20495

 

Double the time it takes via car, and two second difference vs the existing Route 1.  The second week--when it was still free because of the card SNAFU--ridership capped around 2300 a day. 

 

Here's where some rough math makes the impact of the Silver Line really interesting.  Since I love to fuss around with numbers and all.  Assuming the Silver Line pillaged around 600 Route 1 customers, it moved no more than 1700 "new" riders a day, operating for free.  And that still ignores pillaging from other routes, which almost certainly happened.  I counted about 68 departures from 60th, so that puts a maximum of around 25 people on each bus round trip, assuming each person went from 60th to the end of the route and vice-versa.   Assuming equal travel both way, that puts about 12 people on a bus one way, 12 back the other.  So the buses aren't full, even for free.  Not even close.  At about 5 miles a gallon, the environment isn't exactly loving the buses either.  A Prius getting 50mpg consumes .02 gallons per mile.  The bus consumes .2 gallons per mile.  To be equivalent, it needs to carry 10 times as many people.  Right now, it doesn't do that.  It averages about 3 times as many people.  On a one way journey, it does about as well as a truck getting 16 miles a gallon carrying 4 people (about .063 gallons per mile, times 3 to get to 12 people). Of course, this doesn't count all the time the bus spends idling, driving to and from the bus garage, or running around with far fewer people at various points along its route.  I would bet that makes it's mileage on a per person per mile basis drop through the floor. 

 

Someone feel free to correct me if my math is way off.  So far as I can discern, though, the net environmental benefits of running the bus are nil. 

 

Okay.. did a random Google search and found that I'm probably not far off:  http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/02/do-buses-save-gas/  His math is a lot better than mine, but it's surprising that we independently reached about the same conclusion:  The bus will not save gas, and by extension, is not really very "green" at all.  Not that I'm sure that was the point of the Silver Line, but it's interesting.  Takes twice as long, saves no gas, is basically redundant, and cannot even fill its seats in its first week giving them away for free.  Thanks, ITP.

 

P.S.  Yes, I know, this flies in the face of typical concerned urban ecocitizen orthodoxy.  Sorry.  I just don't think this is exactly the mass transit of the future.  So few people ride it even for free that it is about as good as driving a Hummer around town with your buddy.  Ugh.

 

P.P.S. Yes, I also know that all of the math falls apart if more people actually ride the bus.  That was supposed to be the whole point of the Silver Line.  But even for free, it isn't shifting behavior enough to provide a net environmental benefit.  This also makes it very difficult to see any net economic benefits (since I've previously shown how much more expensive it is to operate a fairly empty bus versus a decent used car).  They gambit was that enough people would flock to it to justify it, and they just haven't done it.

 

I don't understand what this obsession is with breaking down bus financing to the n-th decimal place. The Kent County crackpot payers do it, everyone seems to be doing it lately. It it because buses can be seen so visibly every day so they're an easy target? Do people break down what it costs per vehicle mile to plow streets every year? How much gas is burned in city owned lawnmowers? What a one mile stretch of 131 costs the average taxpayer? My Mother used to say that the tigher you squeeze your money, the more slips through your fingers.

[arcturus]

Amtrak is supposed to start using the new station later this month, right?  Or will it be delayed again?