Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[ryternrezdence]

quote name='Veloise' date='Dec 18 2006, 01:24 PM' post='646503']

And the parades, fireworks, activities DT, workday lunch hours, weekends...I found a mention that the PM is in the top 20-ranked "things to do."

As a sometime rider (perhaps 5 times ever?), it's really cool to be elevated above the streets and see all the interesting vistas. One curve by Cobo swings out over the river and convinces you to check for your PFD. During the holiday lighting season the ride is especially neat. (They will leave the lights up through the Auto Show in January. If you have never been, that might be a good time to visit.) Also, the PM stations are beautiful. Special artwork in each one, all done by local artists. I did not find the PM useful for commuting, but the nodes weren't convenient for me.

With all the elevated infrastructure, the city and the agency have a strong committment to keeping it going. Streetcar tracks would cost a lot, but not as much as a PM, and if the ruling hands got tired of them, just repave and they are gone. (That'll happen when we all have our personal hovercraft with remote-controlled free air space parking.)

Edited December 18, 2006 by ryternrezdence

[FilmMaker]

Alas, we have once again become distracted from the most burning transportation issue in GR: parking for all the people who travel TO/FROM the core.

A few things have been mentioned in recent posts that bear repeating:

Ridership of the existing bus and DASH systems has been studied and is predicted to increase only incrementally. Transforming these systems (or small parts of them) to rail is not going to increase ridership significantly - and will never justify the expense of rail infrastructure.

The ITP and many other groups have long struggled to justify the expense of any sort of rail given its inflexibility and inability to adapt to changes in development and demand. The Feds know this - and have used it as their reason to deny funding of rail in a huge number of cases.

Several comments here have pondered how folks inside the core might use a system to travel WITHIN the core. Quite simply, there are not enough people traveling inside the core to justify the expense. Downtown residency is going to have to increase tremendously before we'll see the kind of numbers that will justify rail to move these people around inside a 1 mile radius.

If these arguments aren't enough to dissuade us from downtown rail, the following should: The fact remains (and GRDad's maps bear this out) that we have a handful of specific destinations that are generating tremendous numbers of daily trips TO/FROM the core (not within it). GVSU, Pill Hill, GRCC, St Marys and a bit less frequently the Arena and Conv Center are easily the transit/parking crises we need most to solve near term. I am a big fan of rail in all its potential uses, but we risk making a HUGE mistake if we ignore the current crises in pursuit of rail for its novelty.

In my mind, we need to simply keep the rail conversation alive (but sleeping) on the back burner while we aggressively pursue solutions to these critical areas of immediate need.

The appropriate strategy would seem to be:

1. Get the parties involved (GVSU, Spectrum, GRCC, etc) as well as the "players" who visited Portland to the table and get them all committed to being part of the solution to THEIR parking problems (and to the corresponding benefits of a transit related solution). My sources tell me that some of the "players" have been reluctant to spend their own money - and this needs to change. They have huge financial incentives to invest their own money - and it's time those who will benefit most solved something in GR without the taxpayers carrying most of the burden.

2. This group then needs to figure out a way to stop building parking ramps downtown and implement park-and-ride solutions for the huge numbers of people they are attracting to the core (as highlighted on GRDad's map).

3. We need to change the City's current development application and review process to REQUIRE every proposed development inside the core to provide a legitimate plan for how mass transit (of any sort) might be implemented in/on/adjacent to the applicant's parcel (both now and in the future). This could be a simple as planning for rail/streetcar right-of-ways, future dedicated bus/transit lanes or even simple bus stops outside of their normal sidewalk locations. Had we done this on Michigan Hill, it would be alot easier to be pondering solutions up there right now!

4. We need to change the current zoning and parking requirements inside the core to diminish the parking requirements and to force developers to engage in the mass transit conversation. Quite frankly, developers would love to spend their money on buildings instead of parking ramps (at $20k per space). A collective change of direction here would benefit everyone at the table - including the City who would receive more revenue from buildings full of downtown workers (and transit riders) versus parking ramps full of cars.

Again, I don't mean to bash rail (I am a big, big fan of the idea when we and the population are ready), but the immediate parking crises at GVSU, Pill Hill and GRCC dwarf our metro core's long term need for rail transit. Solve these problems and rail will become the logical and inarguable next step.

The real conversation will commence when we stop pondering elaborate ways to incrementally improve an already successful bus system - and start discussing ways to solve the obvious crises we currently face right now. While many of us bristle at first when we hear it, this is why BRT may prove to be a cost-effective interim solution if only due to its inherent flexibility.

At its simplest, park-and-ride solutions will help further educate and convince a reluctant public of the value of mass transit (including rail solutions in the future). And... if the park-and-ride numbers start to get huge, this will greatly help us to solicit funding for rail and other grander plans down the road.

[monsoon]

^Very nice.

One point about Portland. Transit works there because they have enacted some of the toughest growth ordinances in the entire country. Any comparisons to their transit system has to consider this aspect of their planning and be ready to do the same thing locally.

[GRDadof3]

Alas, we have once again become distracted from the most burning transportation issue in GR: parking for all the people who travel TO/FROM the core.

A few things have been mentioned in recent posts that bear repeating:

At its simplest, park-and-ride solutions will help further educate and convince a reluctant public of the value of mass transit (including rail solutions in the future). And... if the park-and-ride numbers start to get huge, this will greatly help us to solicit funding for rail and other grander plans down the road.

Thanks FilmMaker for getting my head back in the game. You're right. How we do facilitate getting all of these parties together? (If it's part of our calling).

[AlexPKeaton]

Well said. I do like the idea of a street car looping around downtown, but there isn't a good case for it I suppose. So we have specific destinations downtown that will draw thousands of people daily then that really just gives us a good idea where to place stops. But the people will have to come from outside the core rather than within.

Easy answer: GVSU Allendale to GVSU downtown continuing up (somehow) to Michigan Hill. That city in West Virginia had a ridiculous number of riders because of the student population. Well, also have overstuffed busses on the GVSU route. And, GVSU students often need to travel up Michigan because of their building there.

Now where's my outrageous consulting fee for solving all our cities transit problems?!

[grcitydog]

One other thing to keep in mind: Portland implemented its streetcars only after it had a very successful light rail system. The streetcars there were meant to augment the public transportation system, not to BE the system, which not only includes the light rail and streetcars, but also busses. I think that in order for streetcars to work here, we have to first have a light rail line or two to get people into the downtown area, then when there are enough people, use a street car to get around the downtown area.

[Allison Slater]

This has been the one element that always remains a factor, as early as the transit meeting we had a few months ago. Whatever happens, medical hill will be an important key spot, as well as GVSU. A GVSU route is long though, and may not be best to start with.

[AlexPKeaton]

True, but about half the distance to GVSU is undeveloped, or not very densely developed. With growth picking up on the west side of the city it may be good to get something going now.

[Rizzo]

I wish we can be cohesive about the true situation of parking downtown. Apparently, we either think there's too much parking or not enough of it. How can we solidify our answer of rail when we can't even agree on one of the real motivators for it?

I'm not going to discount a downtown circulatory, why? Because if there is someone proposing one it shows they have initiative in this matter. I won't hinder their initiative -- I'll let the feasibility studies do that (if they even do.) Who knows this might be the brain child of some deep pockets. Maybe it will kick start a real discussion of moving people in and out of downtown.

Our interests in this matter shouldn't be to critique, but to motivate parties to connect. Connect the right parties and you have an answer.

Edited December 19, 2006 by Rizzo

[AlexPKeaton]

The thing a circulator route would really accomplish is move people from parking lots to their offices. We have that now with DASH busses. Steetcars might be cool, but it'll cost a lot of money for little benefit.

[GRDadof3]

The thing a circulator route would really accomplish is move people from parking lots to their offices. We have that now with DASH busses. Steetcars might be cool, but it'll cost a lot of money for little benefit.

And there is no telling where the DASH lots may be 5, 10, 20 years from now, especially with increased pressure on developing surface lots. A streetcar circulator takes a lot of that flexibility out of the equation if used as a DASH on steroids. I'm bummed too, because I think I figured out a way to get rail up to Michigan Hill. A route such as this could run from the ITP station, through Heartside, past St. Mary's, and the North up Jefferson to Fulton to Barclay. The property to the East of GRCC is a cul-de-sac, parking, and some utility areas, so a cross-country cut-through could go right up and relink with Barclay by the Meijer Heart Center.

It would serve several functions: move people from ITP to Michigan Hill, which if ITP were served by commuter rail or light rail, would make a great layover. Secondly, to move staff/researchers/students from St. Mary's to MSU/Michigan Hill. And perhaps, it might get GRCC students to ride the bus and then transfer to the streetcar at ITP, alleviating the need for so much parking on their campus.

Since there is one GRCC building that it would "cut through", with a little renovations, the Barclay area could look and feel like the Portland streetcar looks going through Portland State University's campus:

Plus a reconnected Barclay would help reconnect the two ends of the East side. The rail could have walking/biking trails alongside it. Oh well...

[GRDadof3]

Add in GVSU to the mix:

[Rizzo]

Edited December 19, 2006 by Rizzo

[Allison Slater]

How about instead of a GVSU line running all along Fulton, have it turn off Fulton and go south down Ottawa to the ITP... use GVSU and the Hill as two ends, with Central Station serving as a middle point

[Raildudes dad]

Maybe there is something more to this.... they(MDOT etc) are going to rebuild Michigan Street starting next year. Maybe they can build something that will work with a transit system the city (and others) are looking at in Portland. Whether it be partially underground or changing the slope somehow to make it work. Maybe the section of the loop along Michigan will be a cable car? Do they make an interchangable street & cable car? (ok, back to reality).

There shouldn't be any problem running rail up Michigan and / or Lyon Street. If you go to michiganrailroads.com, click on the history board and seach "grand rapids trackage" you will find a map of the 1924 Interurban / Street car map which shows street cars on both streets. Both streets were double track, at least on the hills If they could do it then, we certainly can today with modern technology The map was taken from the August 1996 "Waybill" which is on file at the Grand Rapids Public Library.

PS: Tried to link it but couldn't make it work

Edited December 20, 2006 by Raildudes dad

[Rizzo]

n/m

Edited December 20, 2006 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

Mainly for Rizzo, but certainly for anyone else's consumption who is interested. This Barclay route is very intriguing. It's an extremely underutilized street and area of GRCC, yet links GRCC, Michigan Hill, Heritage Hill and the Southern end of downtown. And the slope up the hill is much more spread out.

Looking North near Barclay and Fulton

Looking North from behind Spectrum theater across Fountain

Looking back South in that cul-de-sac

A utility entrance for the ATC at GRCC

The other side of that utility area

The same angle looking South, pulled back a bit

Looking North up Barclay across Lyon

Approaching Meijer Heart Center on Barclay

Looking back South from Meijer Heart Center area.

It would make an excellent light rail or streetcar link to the shuttle lots on the South end of downtown, and could greatly alleviate the need to add more parking for the 10 - 15,000 workers on Michigan Hill.

[FilmMaker]

Mainly for Rizzo, but certainly for anyone else's consumption who is interested. This Barclay route is very intriguing. It's an extremely underutilized street and area of GRCC, yet links GRCC, Michigan Hill, Heritage Hill and the Southern end of downtown. And the slope up the hill is much more spread out.

Looking North near Barclay and Fulton

Looking North from behind Spectrum theater across Fountain

Looking back South in that cul-de-sac

A utility entrance for the ATC at GRCC

The other side of that utility area

The same angle looking South, pulled back a bit

Looking North up Barclay across Lyon

Approaching Meijer Heart Center on Barclay

Looking back South from Meijer Heart Center area.

It would make an excellent light rail or streetcar link to the shuttle lots on the South end of downtown, and could greatly alleviate the need to add more parking for the 10 - 15,000 workers on Michigan Hill.

Pretty darn intriguing stuff Dad!! Nice detective work! I hope our friends at GVMC and ITP are lurking on this thread.

[Rizzo]

It's pretty neat to see the concept interact with the built environment and the pedestrian.

Portland Streetcar movies:

http://www.tucsontransitstudy.com/media/streetcar_movie.wmv

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=66...tland+streetcar

[tamias6]

Portlands street car system looks awsome. I'd love to see somthing similar installed in DT.

It's pretty neat to see the concept interact with the built environment and the pedestrian.

Portland Streetcar movies:

http://www.tucsontransitstudy.com/media/streetcar_movie.wmv

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=66...tland+streetcar

[monsoon]

Keep in mind that Portland is able to support those streetcars because they have established an urban growth boundry that keeps sprawl from occurring. For any transit plan to succeed, it has to be accompanied by a zoning and land use plan that "encourages" development along the transit corridor and limits it elsewhere. Often that is not very popular with land owners.

[dtown]

How exactly does an urban growth boundary work?

Wouldnt that violate land owners rights?

or does it just prevent big box and strip type developments?

PS- how bout an sub grade station under the hill, like san diego has. This way, the tunnel could have a better slope for the train.

Edited January 3, 2007 by dtown

[AlexPKeaton]

In addition to the question about urban growth boundaries, what other solutions exist to limit sprawl? I know some areas have bought development rights to farms in the area.

What if property taxes were based on density? Denser developments would likely pay more taxes because they're more valuable, but perhaps at a lower rate so as to encourage dense development. I could see this being applied all the way down to the residential level where houses built closer together on small lots would be rewarded with lower taxes than their McMansion on an acre and a half neighbors.

[monsoon]

Yes, urban growth boundaries do affect property rights. Basically it draws a line on the map and on one side development of some level can occur, and on the other side it can't. It's difficult to pull off because people here in the USA in many cases put greater priority on property rights vs good urban planning. It's very common in Europe and other parts of the world however. Note this isn't much different from zoning restrictions, but its done on a wider scale and can include un-incorporated areas. State laws will greatly affect that can and can't occur.

[tamias6]

Here is a layout of my idea for an electric streetcar system to which in its starter form as shown here serves the major draws of DT. It is divided into two lines, the Red line serving the Dash Lots and GVSV DT and the west half of DT and the Blue line serving the east half of DT. Notice how to two lines over lap on Monroe Ave. and the Van Andel Arena to provide more frequent service to, Devos Place, the Hotels, the new GRAM and Van Andel Arena as well as to the Grand Terminal to provide a connections to the RAPID bus system.

Idealy the system would be expanded over time to serve Westside, North Monroe, Leonard Street, Michigan St. to Plymouth Ave., Eastown, the St. Mary Hospital Area, Burton Heights Business District, and Grandville Ave.