Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[GRDadof3]

GRDad,

I think your route (south along US131) was studied in the GT2 proposal. I thought it mentioned that the route wouldn't be cost productive because the existing "heavy" rail track lies in the middle of the ROW. It is possible but you would have to relocate the existing track to one side in order to build a new light-rail track in the same ROW. Another option would be to purchase some additional ROW along that stretch

On a side note, wasn't the people conducting the GT2 study suppose to report back to the Rapid this Fall in regards to which route they would pick (between, south division or Eastown?Woodland) and also which type of transit (Streetcar or BRT)? I wonder if they have to look at things again because of the new KROC going on on south Division?

Austin too had to move current rail lines to accommodate their system. I just can't believe with the low costs of Nashville's and Austin's systems, that another look shouldn't be given to the South corridor commuter rail option. According to the GT2 Study, they estimated a cost of DMU on the Norfolk Southern line at $363 Million (???) For how many miles? And with low ROW constraints. Will a BRT line along Division take any traffic off of congested 131? I don't see how. It's just a glorified bus system for a route that is already serviced by the current RAPID system. Will a BRT encourage increased residential development along Division? I don't see that happening.

It's the same with streetcar options through residential/commercial areas. Even in Portland, I believe they are finding these systems are NOT helping to take very many commuter cars off the road compared to a large-scale commuter rail system, like the FastTracks system in Denver. Although streetcars are "cool", I don't think they're impacting the environment and land use patterns very much.

Here's the GT2 Study:

[Rizzo]

Austin too had to move current rail lines to accommodate their system. I just can't believe with the low costs of Nashville's and Austin's systems, that another look shouldn't be given to the South corridor commuter rail option. According to the GT2 Study, they estimated a cost of DMU on the Norfolk Southern line at $363 Million (???) For how many miles? And with low ROW constraints. Will a BRT line along Division take any traffic off of congested 131? I don't see how. It's just a glorified bus system for a route that is already serviced by the current RAPID system. Will a BRT encourage increased residential development along Division? I don't see that happening.

What I don't get is that if ITP was in the game to find an "efficient and cost effective" transit mode why would they even touch BRT? We have a "way" in Metro GR, buy for the longer term... buying into BRT isn't long term. If the ITP was going for efficiency and cost effectiveness they should do is just build a bus lane only and install light changers to make the lane "rapid." Don't even think about buying new articulated novelty train buses or pretty concrete guide ways. I still think that we were "jaded" when a certain transit professional came to town -- I know I'm not the only one thinks this way.

When the idea of rail transit hit the news last year it was a watercooler subject for the entire day.... I can't say the same for BRT.

Edited October 14, 2006 by Rizzo

[DwntwnGeo]

Austin too had to move current rail lines to accommodate their system. I just can't believe with the low costs of Nashville's and Austin's systems, that another look shouldn't be given to the South corridor commuter rail option. According to the GT2 Study, they estimated a cost of DMU on the Norfolk Southern line at $363 Million (???) For how many miles? And with low ROW constraints. Will a BRT line along Division take any traffic off of congested 131? I don't see how. It's just a glorified bus system for a route that is already serviced by the current RAPID system. Will a BRT encourage increased residential development along Division? I don't see that happening.

It's the same with streetcar options through residential/commercial areas. Even in Portland, I believe they are finding these systems are NOT helping to take very many commuter cars off the road compared to a large-scale commuter rail system, like the FastTracks system in Denver. Although streetcars are "cool", I don't think they're impacting the environment and land use patterns very much.

Maybe I am confused or not up on all my transit stuff It sounds like we are talking about two types of systems:

1. A commuter system that will bring people from the further outreaches of the Community/County into a cetnral location. Consisting of Park and Rides and having more of an express route from start to finish. I think this type of system would be great along US131 and would take some passengers off the highway. I agree with you though that it would not spur dense residential/commerical or entertainment along the route.
   
2. A more local transit service that has more stops (like ever block or so) that runs through more dense commerical/entertainment districts. This type of system would connect at a central location with the larger commuter system to get people to and from their destinations. This type of system I think would spur developement along it routes.
   

As I see your points, GRDad, I don't think people will agree to tear up Division or other historical areas to lay the foundations for rail traffic. If we could use the heavy rail tracks that at in place today to bring "long range" commuters to the core and than have a secondary system to transport around to different "districts" would work best IMO.

When talking with somone at one of the transit meetings at the Rapid this summer, I asked about the possibliity for "Light Rail" As everyone would like it and it has proven to spur more developement, the Federal government guidlines wouldn't allow us funding for an investment this large. We just don't have the ridership/population density to convince the Feds at this point in time. A BRT system, though it is still busses, will purhase the ROW and lanes required for upgrades to LTR when the numbers are there.

Now if we could find someone to privately fund the transit project than we don't have to follow the Federal rules. As Metro.m mentioned several times on here before, there are several cities that are applying for federal funding and the administration is still lowering the monies each year. The Feds are only going to pick systems that will produce the best bang for their buck.

Edited October 14, 2006 by DwntwnGeo

[Rizzo]

Maybe I am confused or not up on all my transit stuff It sounds like we are talking about two types of systems:

1. A commuter system that will bring people from the further outreaches of the Community/County into a cetnral location. Consisting of Park and Rides and having more of an express route from start to finish. I think this type of system would be great along US131 and would take some passengers off the highway. I agree with you though that it would not spur dense residential/commerical or entertainment along the route.
   
2. A more local transit service that has more stops (like ever block or so) that runs through more dense commerical/entertainment districts. This type of system would connect at a central location with the larger commuter system to get people to and from their destinations. This type of system I think would spur developement along it routes.
   

As I see your points, GRDad, I don't think people will agree to tear up Division or other historical areas to lay the foundations for rail traffic. If we could use the heavy rail tracks that at in place today to bring "long range" commuters to the core and than have a secondary system to transport around to different "districts" would work best IMO.

When talking with somone at one of the transit meetings at the Rapid this summer, I asked about the possibliity for "Light Rail" As everyone would like it and it has proven to spur more developement, the Federal government guidlines wouldn't allow us funding for an investment this large. We just don't have the ridership/population density to convince the Feds at this point in time. A BRT system, though it is still busses, will purhase the ROW and lanes required for upgrades to LTR when the numbers are there.

Now if we could find someone to privately fund the transit project than we don't have to follow the Federal rules. As Metro.m mentioned several times on here before, there are several cities that are applying for federal funding and the administration is still lowering the monies each year. The Feds are only going to pick systems that will produce the best bang for their buck.

Whether we like it or not if the southern or eastern corridors get chosen there will be tearing up of the street. LRT or BRT it will be fixed guide way. After seeing the concepts of fixed BRT it appears to be more of an obstruction to the motorist then anything... how you would implement the extruding concrete barrier to guide the bus on a busy street is beyond me.

I think if we use the term rail its pretty much an umbrella for both concepts. We would be using the term commuter rail for 131, Holland, or Muskegon while LRT for short line distance and more stop intervals than commuter.

[GRDadof3]

Maybe I am confused or not up on all my transit stuff It sounds like we are talking about two types of systems:

1. A commuter system that will bring people from the further outreaches of the Community/County into a cetnral location. Consisting of Park and Rides and having more of an express route from start to finish. I think this type of system would be great along US131 and would take some passengers off the highway. I agree with you though that it would not spur dense residential/commerical or entertainment along the route.
   
2. A more local transit service that has more stops (like ever block or so) that runs through more dense commerical/entertainment districts. This type of system would connect at a central location with the larger commuter system to get people to and from their destinations. This type of system I think would spur developement along it routes.
   

As I see your points, GRDad, I don't think people will agree to tear up Division or other historical areas to lay the foundations for rail traffic. If we could use the heavy rail tracks that at in place today to bring "long range" commuters to the core and than have a secondary system to transport around to different "districts" would work best IMO.

When talking with somone at one of the transit meetings at the Rapid this summer, I asked about the possibliity for "Light Rail" As everyone would like it and it has proven to spur more developement, the Federal government guidlines wouldn't allow us funding for an investment this large. We just don't have the ridership/population density to convince the Feds at this point in time. A BRT system, though it is still busses, will purhase the ROW and lanes required for upgrades to LTR when the numbers are there.

Now if we could find someone to privately fund the transit project than we don't have to follow the Federal rules. As Metro.m mentioned several times on here before, there are several cities that are applying for federal funding and the administration is still lowering the monies each year. The Feds are only going to pick systems that will produce the best bang for their buck.

Correct. Austin has decided to forego federal funding and go it alone. The current congress in Washington is pretty much anti-mass-transit, so they have greatly reduced funding for these projects and have considerably increased the requirements needed to get federal funding. As I saw monsoon mention in another thread, $45 Billion was sought this year by communities all over the country for mass transit initiatives, and $1.5 Billion was awarded.

The entire GT2 study was looked at from a standpoint of "what options do we stand the most chance of getting funding from the federal government?". Maybe now the question and options need to be amended to "What systems can the GR area develop on its own with very little or NO federal funding."

I found a story similar to this:

Lessens from Orlando - How switching from light rail to commuter rail won the deal

(Orlando did get federal funding)

Central Florida Rail info video

With a little more research, I did find that Austin's and Nashville's systems were so inexpensive because the transit authority (city) already owned the rail corridor. Austin's would have been in the "$ hundred of millions" if they had to purchase from CSX.

[FilmMaker]

Can I just say that I LOVE that this topic is important enough to merit being a permanent thread on UP? I am simply geeked that there is clearly enough energy around this to take a good hard run at re-examining the GVMC plan - and perhaps take it to the next level with a slightly more local focus (i.e. do what is best for HERE versus doing what the Feds tell us we should do?)

Sorry for the abbreviated enthusiasm - its lat Sat night and I'm sitting in the woods drinking wine with the Mrs - and even she is excited as I share all this with her.

Have we figured out a time to gather face-to-face on this yet?

[Rizzo]

Can I just say that I LOVE that this topic is important enough to merit being a permanent thread on UP? I am simply geeked that there is clearly enough energy around this to take a good hard run at re-examining the GVMC plan - and perhaps take it to the next level with a slightly more local focus (i.e. do what is best for HERE versus doing what the Feds tell us we should do?)

Sorry for the abbreviated enthusiasm - its lat Sat night and I'm sitting in the woods drinking wine with the Mrs - and even she is excited as I share all this with her.

Have we figured out a time to gather face-to-face on this yet?

That's the beautiful thing we aren't the only ones with the enthusiasm. I've been showing this thread to some family, the girlfriend, and nothing but excitement... It's to bad we can't generate buzz on this issue in the community, maybe The Geha should covered it?

Edited October 15, 2006 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

Can I just say that I LOVE that this topic is important enough to merit being a permanent thread on UP? I am simply geeked that there is clearly enough energy around this to take a good hard run at re-examining the GVMC plan - and perhaps take it to the next level with a slightly more local focus (i.e. do what is best for HERE versus doing what the Feds tell us we should do?)

Sorry for the abbreviated enthusiasm - its lat Sat night and I'm sitting in the woods drinking wine with the Mrs - and even she is excited as I share all this with her.

Have we figured out a time to gather face-to-face on this yet?

I'm thinking this Thursday or Friday. Check your inbox. Once we settle on a day and time, I'll post it here.

[monsoon]

A few notes based on the conversations above.

• This November, the city of Kalamazoo (not sure how close this is to GR) has a ballot measure to raise the tax rate by 0.45-mill to pay for local transit projects. This would seem to indicate that it is possible in Michigan for localities to raise their own funds for transit. Local funding seems to be a key element to getting a successful transit project off the ground as the places that do this are the ones building systems. In my own county, the residents voted in a 1/2 cent sales tax that goes towards expanding the bus system and building light rail.
  
• Modern streetcars and historic trolleys, which are going up in a few places, are not good forms of alternative transit. Historic trolleys simply are not competant transit. I would rank them more in the amusement ride category. Streetcars, because they operate in the same ROW as automobiles are not much better than the standard bus. The lack of stations and predictable schedule make them inefficient given their cost.
  
• BRT isn't worth the cost to implement compared to LRT. Most of the theory on BRT is based on a system that was built in Curritiba, Brazil. That system was homegrown and claimed to be built with little money and operates in the black. What was missed by that was that system operates in conditions that would be unacceptable in the USA. GR should stick to either commuter rail or light rail. Unfortunately the FTA has been beseiged by years of anti-transit politicians that push technologies that continue to put more vehicles onto the highways. BRT is one of those as there isn't any system that I know of that doesn't use at least part of an existing roadway.
  
• Before starting any project to bring rail to GR the two questions have to be answered, "What problem are we trying to solve with transit?" and "What happens if we don't built it?". These will be the first questions that anyone being asked to pay for the system will ask and if the supporters don't know, then that doesn't bode well for the prospects of getting something built. The answer to these questions will also dictate the type of technology and routes.
  

[Rizzo]

A few notes based on the conversations above.

• This November, the city of Kalamazoo (not sure how close this is to GR) has a ballot measure to raise the tax rate by 0.45-mill to pay for local transit projects. This would seem to indicate that it is possible in Michigan for localities to raise their own funds for transit. Local funding seems to be a key element to getting a successful transit project off the ground as the places that do this are the ones building systems. In my own county, the residents voted in a 1/2 cent sales tax that goes towards expanding the bus system and building light rail.
  
• Modern streetcars and historic trolleys, which are going up in a few places, are not good forms of alternative transit. Historic trolleys simply are not competant transit. I would rank them more in the amusement ride category. Streetcars, because they operate in the same ROW as automobiles are not much better than the standard bus. The lack of stations and predictable schedule make them inefficient given their cost.
  
• BRT isn't worth the cost to implement compared to LRT. Most of the theory on BRT is based on a system that was built in Curritiba, Brazil. That system was homegrown and claimed to be built with little money and operates in the black. What was missed by that was that system operates in conditions that would be unacceptable in the USA. GR should stick to either commuter rail or light rail. Unfortunately the FTA has been beseiged by years of anti-transit politicians that push technologies that continue to put more vehicles onto the highways. BRT is one of those as there isn't any system that I know of that doesn't use at least part of an existing roadway.
  
• Before starting any project to bring rail to GR the two questions have to be answered, "What problem are we trying to solve with transit?" and "What happens if we don't built it?". These will be the first questions that anyone being asked to pay for the system will ask and if the supporters don't know, then that doesn't bode well for the prospects of getting something built. The answer to these questions will also dictate the type of technology and routes.
  

1. We are trying to solve a few problems. The current transit competing for shared space on roads isn't a great idea. How will our transit be rapid if it must compete against existing traffic while that same amount of traffic is increasing substantially every year? We know that our system is growing fast. We know that one of the main reasons the majority of car users don't use transit because it's not rapid enough. We are also trying to solve economic and social injustice that lack of transit can exhibit on a community. We must think connecting talent with jobs -- rapidly. Not simply getting you there is acceptable, its got to be getting you there fast. It is literally breaking down barriers by providing a diversified transportation system. It simply isn't a "subsidised social service for poor folks," but a well spent connection between opportunity.

2. If we can choose not to build a diverse transit system it will let the increasing demand for more fast transit translate into more cars on the road. A study was done a few years ago that predicted a 1000% increase in traffic in the next 15 years for Metro GR. IT will increase, but it WILL increase substantially if there isn't a viable alternative to moving people. If we don't build this will widen the gap between oppertunity and talent. How can we continue on paving ourselves into oblivion and yet expect ourselves to be a leader in economic and environmental sustainability!?

BRT and Streetcar will never be rapid in GR -- it must compete against already existing traffic.

Edited October 15, 2006 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

A few notes based on the conversations above.

• This November, the city of Kalamazoo (not sure how close this is to GR) has a ballot measure to raise the tax rate by 0.45-mill to pay for local transit projects. This would seem to indicate that it is possible in Michigan for localities to raise their own funds for transit. Local funding seems to be a key element to getting a successful transit project off the ground as the places that do this are the ones building systems. In my own county, the residents voted in a 1/2 cent sales tax that goes towards expanding the bus system and building light rail.
  
• Modern streetcars and historic trolleys, which are going up in a few places, are not good forms of alternative transit. Historic trolleys simply are not competant transit. I would rank them more in the amusement ride category. Streetcars, because they operate in the same ROW as automobiles are not much better than the standard bus. The lack of stations and predictable schedule make them inefficient given their cost.
  
• BRT isn't worth the cost to implement compared to LRT. Most of the theory on BRT is based on a system that was built in Curritiba, Brazil. That system was homegrown and claimed to be built with little money and operates in the black. What was missed by that was that system operates in conditions that would be unacceptable in the USA. GR should stick to either commuter rail or light rail. Unfortunately the FTA has been beseiged by years of anti-transit politicians that push technologies that continue to put more vehicles onto the highways. BRT is one of those as there isn't any system that I know of that doesn't use at least part of an existing roadway.
  
• Before starting any project to bring rail to GR the two questions have to be answered, "What problem are we trying to solve with transit?" and "What happens if we don't built it?". These will be the first questions that anyone being asked to pay for the system will ask and if the supporters don't know, then that doesn't bode well for the prospects of getting something built. The answer to these questions will also dictate the type of technology and routes.
  

Good points monsoon. I've been thinking too about the two questions you brought up, which is why I'm now leaning more toward commuter rail. In just the past five years, the Grand Rapids area has spent well over $1 Billion on new highway projects, including a new Southern bypass and added lanes to 131. And now there is another $500 Million+ project in the works on the East side to add one more lane in each direction to 196. Is any of this going to alleviate commuter congestion in the long run, or just bandage the problem for future generations to try and fix?

Suburban development is going to happen, but it certainly can have less of an impact on the environment and future land use by implementing a better mass transit system. Plus, as I've said on this board before, something's wrong with the picture where 1/3 of downtown land has to be set aside for parking lots and structures. It creates artificial scarcity of the remaining parcels, pushing their values higher and higher and making them less viable as development opportunities. Plus, a parking ramp adds nothing to a downtown's vitality, especially when it doesn't have any ground-floor retail. Underground parking is also too expensive, so the bottom floors of all future buildings will have to be reserved for hard-to-aesthetically-design parking structures. Yuck.

Much of this has been studied by a coalition of local transit and community agencies in 2004-05, and I believe their decision to settle on two BRT (or possible streetcar) routes is not the answer. I don't see how that $100 - $258 Million is well spent in fixing the problems.

Kalamazoo is only about 45 miles away. Grand Rapids voters overwhelmingly supported a transit millage back in 2003, which was a renewal of an existing transit millage and additional .20 mills onto that for service expansion for the current bus system. The vote was 2 to 1 in favor, even in fairly conservative suburban districts, so transit support is there.

[monsoon]

I should have been more clear on the "what problem are we trying to solve" question. The answers to that question need to be very specific to Grand Rapids.

For example, is the goal to make it easier for people to come into the city to work, or is it to concentrate development into a "transit corridor" so people can give up their automobiles. Building a transit line does not mean that automobile congestion is going away just because a line was built. There has to be a comprehensive plan that requires transit to achieve this goal.

[Rizzo]

I should have been more clear on the "what problem are we trying to solve" question. The answers to that question need to be very specific to Grand Rapids.

For example, is the goal to make it easier for people to come into the city to work, or is it to concentrate development into a "transit corridor" so people can give up their automobiles. Building a transit line does not mean that automobile congestion is going away just because a line was built. There has to be a comprehensive plan that requires transit to achieve this goal.

Medical Mile will be a work center of over 10,000 people in the next 5-8 years. What happens if we explode with even more development and opportunity to attract even more workers Downtown? Why should we waste money and space downtown that could otherwise work to fund more research on Medical Mile? A rail line servicing the north and south corridor of US 131 alongside other entry points on the eastern and Western sides of the Metro could alleviate the need for parking space downtown.

It doesn't make sense to pay for parking with precious space and money that could otherwise be used to fund an affordable system. A system that will bring them in and out fast while leaving space for better use -- like when our bio-tech market explodes and the need for space downtown grows again.

To me its an issue of how much easier it is to scale a train then it is to build more space to park downtown.

Edited October 15, 2006 by Rizzo

[DwntwnGeo]

BRT and Streetcar will never be rapid in GR -- it must compete against already existing traffic.

What if they had a dedicated lane for the BRT? I know it doesn't sound much/any better and you will run along side auto traffic. When I heard of this the first time, I thought the same thing, how is this going to be any better than the bus running down the street now. Looking at some of the examples posted on the site there are ways to section off BRT from the main street. Cities build curbs and sometimes line them with trees etc. At the last meeting I was at with the Rapid, I asked about this particular question. There response was very simular to the examples we have seen on here. For example, along the Divsion route, where there are 4 lanes and one turning lane in the middle, they would more than likely, because we cannot move buildings etc, reduce the lanes to two and possible still have a turning lane in some areas. This would all depend on how much "stuff" (trees, shurbs, benches etc) we would like along the sidewalks and route. Another option would be to loose the "on stree" parking along division. They mentioned there would be some protests about the parking lose. To keep the flow of traffic with the BRT in order to make them faster and more relieable on time, the busses would be equiped with electronics to control street lights along their routes, so they wouldn't have to stop unless there was a need to. I guess my point is that there is more to a BRT system than just putting another bus on the road.

[Rizzo]

But in reality that is what we would be doing: putting another bus on the road. It will always have to negotiate with traffic unless a BRT or Streetcar is above grade or running on its own dedicated right of way. If we put a BRT on a concrete track in the median how are motorists going to negotiate this when turning into business alongside Division? Are we going to have to break up this barrier ever couple hundred feet so that cars can turn onto the other side of this "line." What happens when a car is turning left at this break in the line and can't move because uncomming traffic is to heavy? I'm not possing these questions to you, but BRT really gets me thinking. It just seems that the whole concept of BRT and Streetcar is being blanket labeled as rapid is far from the truth when in fact it's not really rapid at all. I can see today ITP installing signal changers and basically calling it a BRT -- and it would be accepted as rapid.

I see your point though, and upon researching on the issue I can hardly find anything on BRT being "fixed guide way" and the only place that seems to be promoting it is the Federal Govt. (And there's hardly anything on this sort of BRT) I guess if the Feds are promoting it that means it's a good thing...

Edited October 15, 2006 by metro.m

[Allison Slater]

I'm thinking this Thursday or Friday. Check your inbox. Once we settle on a day and time, I'll post it here.

That's something I'd love to get in on. I usually work nights on both those days, should I call and request to open (10-7 rather than 4-midnight) if at all possible, or would I likely still be unable to make any of the times you're thinking of?

[dtown]

i was looking at photos of Tacoma on a different thread, and it kinda reminds me of GR(with the exeption of the mountains), it has 195,000 people, not that many tall buildings, but a lot of midrise/lowrises. It has light rail, so i dont see why GR couldnt support it. take a look at the thread in the photo section of the UP main page.

[GRDadof3]

i was looking at photos of Tacoma on a different thread, and it kinda reminds me of GR(with the exeption of the mountains), it has 195,000 people, not that many tall buildings, but a lot of midrise/lowrises. It has light rail, so i dont see why GR couldnt support it. take a look at the thread in the photo section of the UP main page.

Yeah, I saw those dtown. I found an article about it and that 1.6 mile line had a cost of $81 Million dollars in 2003. It basically takes people from the main commuter station in Tacoma (that services the Seattle area), and connects it with downtown and the convention center. At $55 Million/mile (in 2003 dollars), that to me sounds extremely wasteful, when it could have been accomplished with nice shuttle buses. Maybe I'm wrong.

[AlexPKeaton]

I'll jump on the street cars or other on-street transit sucks bandwagon. No, it doesn't suck, and I'd like to see street cars in over busses, but nobody is going to use them for commuting more than short distances. Would you rather zoom up 131 at 55-70MPH or take a street car up Division stopping every block and never exceeding 35MPH? At least with dedicated rail the speeds reached can be much more competitive with the highway and the stops can be a little less frequent. People will sacrifice some car convienience for savings in the form of gas and parking, I'm sure. Street cars might make great feeder transit, but that could be served by our existing busses and isn't a necessary step right now.

I don't see us getting heavy commuter rail unless it reaches out to Holland, Muskegon, and maybe Kalamazoo. Our urban area doesn't cover enough land to justify such a system. But a light dedicated rail system would fit our situation nicely.

-nb

[dtown]

i agree with you.

[GRDadof3]

New lot helps GVSU commuters

That's a pretty cool idea. And the park-n-ride concept fits in well with what we are talking about.

[GRDadof3]

We're going to shoot for Thursday evening next week. I'll post more details here for those interested.

[Rizzo]

We're going to shoot for Thursday evening next week. I'll post more details here for those interested.

Sounds good.

There's a few railroaders and enthusiats that might be looking at this thread -- I think if we're going to do this we should have an open meeting of sorts.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Rizzo

[Rizzo]

A little update on the mass transit study by The County. I was informed today by a Commish that he expects the sub-committee should be reporting back to the Board before years end.

[GRDadof3]

A little update on the mass transit study by The County. I was informed today by a Commish that he expects the sub-committee should be reporting back to the Board before years end.

Thanks Rizzo. It seems like there are a lot of different groups working on transit (the RAPID, GVMC, Kent County). It's quite confusing.

We're going to have a little get together at Graydon's next Thursday (26th) at around 6:30 - 7:00. Anyone interested in helping to throw around transit ideas, please come. It's casual, and it will be just UP'ers.