Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[Rizzo]

David Bulkowski over at Disability Advocates of Kent County says get involved:

Your opportunities to have your voice heard are many:

(1) The Rapid

[dan326]

What kind of rapid transit is Grand Rapids trying to get (bus,rail,etc.)?

[Rizzo]

It's up in the air. According to some folks, the agency was expected to hear on recommendations for which route and what mode. I'm sure the end result will be bus or what others will say as bus rapid transit. Unfortunately, the concept will be sharing road with all the other traffic so it isn't really 'rapid.'

[DwntwnGeo]

An article in today's Rapid Growth talks about the recent trip to Portland. Sounds like it must have gone well.

"local leaders are now planning a second, larger expedition to Portland later this year to continue to build local interest, particularly among developers, in the streetcar revolution."

The complete article can be read here:

http://www.rapidgrowthmedia.com/features/pland36.aspx

[GRDadof3]

An article in today's Rapid Growth talks about the recent trip to Portland. Sounds like it must have gone well.

"local leaders are now planning a second, larger expedition to Portland later this year to continue to build local interest, particularly among developers, in the streetcar revolution."

The complete article can be read here:

http://www.rapidgrowthmedia.com/features/pland36.aspx

Wow, great find Geo! With a list of names like that (GR Chamber, former Mayor Logie, Rick Chapla of The Right Place, Kent County, ITP, and Wege Foundation) I'm very encouraged that they'll come up with a plan to put this into motion. It would be nice to see Grand Action involved too, or maybe they already are.

I want to make the trip with them later this year.

[DwntwnGeo]

I want to make the trip with them later this year.

I would love to go myself

[Rizzo]

I wonder if this is why we haven't heard on the decision for route and mode?

[FilmMaker]

As encouraging as all this appears to be, I'm still struggling to see how this is going to solve the parking problems we've identified on Pill Hill, at GRCC and GVSU - unless the system is going to somehow reach far enough to provide a park-n-ride function from the perimeter of the core. At some of the prices quoted in the article, I don't see us building miles and miles of track, at least not at the outset.

Still, it is nice to see that more and better thought seems to be going into this issue.

[DwntwnGeo]

As encouraging as all this appears to be, I'm still struggling to see how this is going to solve the parking problems we've identified on Pill Hill, at GRCC and GVSU - unless the system is going to somehow reach far enough to provide a park-n-ride function from the perimeter of the core. At some of the prices quoted in the article, I don't see us building miles and miles of track, at least not at the outset.

Still, it is nice to see that more and better thought seems to be going into this issue.

I see your point. From what I have read on the net, it sounds like there will be two systems, the downtown circular street car and more of a commuter system that The Rapid will choose from the Great Transit Grand Tomorrows study group. One system will help people get around the core area while the other will help bring people to and from the core area.

For example: If The Rapids decides the route will be down Division, they could construct/build Park and Rides at various stops that have access to US131 (ie: Divsion & 36th or Division & 44th or Divsion &54th or somewhere by the US131/M6 interchange). Doing this may help with some of the congestion for parking/driving downtown for people coming from the South.

[GRDadof3]

I was going to say that it would be nice to do this in chunks: one section of LRT/streetcar line, one section of commuter service (even if it's an express bus or BRT commuter service). That way it would appeal to a broader populace of urbanites and suburbanites, and would be more likely to receive support and funding.

[GRDadof3]

Cities rediscover allure of streetcars

"It's an inexpensive way of providing transit," Poticha says. "It expands the reach of pedestrians in a community without having to build an expensive infrastructure. It can be built quickly, inexpensively, right into the street to get around without a car more easily."

Streetcars aren't a total solution to transit needs because they can't carry vast numbers of commuters, according to Street Smart, a new book published by Reconnecting America and other mass-transit advocates. But they can augment other forms of transit.

"Streetcars have sex appeal," says Len Brandrup, director of transportation in Kenosha, Wis., which opened a 1.9-mile line in 2000. "It resonates with folks.

[Veloise]

Freep: Detroit-A2 rail line

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007701140553

[dtown]

Hopefully they do the Detroit-A2 line. It would pave they way for further rail lines in Detroit, and all of Michigan.

[DwntwnGeo]

Freep: Detroit-A2 rail line

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007701140553

"So teaming up with Amtrak for a demonstration rail project -- using existing track, stations and renovated passengers cars -- makes the most sense. SEMCOG is negotiating with Amtrak to provide several limited-stop daily round trips between Detroit and Ann Arbor. Stops might include Ypsilanti, Metro Airport and Dearborn."

"Building a light-rail system from Detroit to Ann Arbor would cost an estimated $3 billion. By contrast, the Amtrak demonstration project includes no direct start-up costs and perhaps $5 million a year to operate. Money would most likely come from state grants, local communities and counties that benefit from new service for students, commuters, airline passengers, sports fans and entertainment seekers."

If sharing track/stations with Amtrak works out for SE Michigan maybe they can do something simular on the SW side. Wouldn't it be great if share the Amtrak line between Grand Rapids and Holland for commuters? Or to create a route between Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo with stops in Wayland (future Casino?), Plainwell and Kalamazoo. If things were timed right, people from Grand Rapids area could take a commuter train to Kalamazoo and transfer to one of the four Chicago bound Amtrak trains.

[DwntwnGeo]

David Bulkowski over at Disability Advocates of Kent County says get involved:

Is anyone planning on attending the:

2) The Rapid

[GRDadof3]

Is anyone planning on attending the:

2) The Rapid

[Rizzo]

I'm voicing my concerns through the means I have. I can't be there personally, but my letters should have the same influence.

I think the next step is to not just urge ITP, but urge the local philanthropic, business, and civilian base.

[Allison Slater]

As much as I would LOVE to see a line between GR and KZoo with a stop in Wayland, I think such a thing is a long ways off. The only track left remaining running through here is the freight line, and from what I remember, raildude's dad said the corporation who owns the ROW for those tracks is generally uncooperative. Plus the tracks still see freight use frequently (either daily or very near it. Maybe even several times a day. Hard to tell since I don't live within earshot of it as I did 6 years ago.)

There's the option of the old Interurban ROW which is primarily owned by the power company, but small sections here and there have been built atop of, (esp. near 100th st.) and such a line would have to zig zag around them.

[Rizzo]

Interesting, I forgot about ROW owned by the power companies. I wonder if there are maps showing land held by the power company?

[Allison Slater]

No idea. The old Interurban bridges along the power lines are still intact. Whether or not they're structurally sound enough to handle rail traffic I have no idea. The ROW is mostly power lines with a two-track along the actual former rail line, but the two-track itself is in horrible condition between Moline and 142nd St. in Allegan County. The entire route would have to be filled in with a lot of dirt and probably some drainage pipes crossing beneath. Even during the driest days of summer, parts of the route can be completely flooded. Makes for interesting bike rides.

Then there's also the issue of the car place south of 100th St. having their lot plopped right on top of the ROW, and 131 crossing over with no bridge twice... once being the entire 131/100ths st. interchange, and the other being further north (not exactly sure where.) North of that I have no idea what shape the ROW is in, but I followed it on Google Earth once and I think there was a few buildings/lots here and there plopped on top. I'm also not sure of the condition south of Wayland.

In short, to use the powerline ROW, you're looking at a huge start-up cost, but likely less than to establish a completely new ROW.

[FilmMaker]

Not certain yet, but I hope to attend the Jan 17 mtg.

[DwntwnGeo]

I understand that the current rail line is owned by frieght, but Amtrak doesn't own their rail lines either, they share/lease them with freight, right? I was just mentioning that if a trial works over on the East side of Michigan where Amtrak, frieght, and passenger can share the same rail, than maybe it would/could be an option here on the West side of the State. Would it be a perferct, probably not, because they wouldn't own the rails, but maybe it would spur more interest into rail transit increasing ridership and showing the Feds that it would be a good investment to give us Federal monies to build our own dedicated lines. As the Detroit article mentions, it would cost $3Billion to build a dedicated system, but only $5Million/year to share/lease with Amtrak/frieght. The $5Million being something more managable by local & state governments. It will be interesting to see if they can get something like this to work or not.

Interesting, I forgot about ROW owned by the power companies. I wonder if there are maps showing land held by the power company?

I know plat maps show land/ROW owned by power companies for their main transmission lines. You can buy them on a county by county basis. It would be great if there was an online version...

[dragt]

I understand that the current rail line is owned by frieght, but Amtrak doesn't own their rail lines either, they share/lease them with freight, right? I was just mentioning that if a trial works over on the East side of Michigan where Amtrak, frieght, and passenger can share the same rail, than maybe it would/could be an option here on the West side of the State. Would it be a perferct, probably not, because they wouldn't own the rails, but maybe it would spur more interest into rail transit increasing ridership and showing the Feds that it would be a good investment to give us Federal monies to build our own dedicated lines. As the Detroit article mentions, it would cost $3Billion to build a dedicated system, but only $5Million/year to share/lease with Amtrak/frieght. The $5Million being something more managable by local & state governments. It will be interesting to see if they can get something like this to work or not.

I know plat maps show land/ROW owned by power companies for their main transmission lines. You can buy them on a county by county basis. It would be great if there was an online version...

I used Amtrak to get back and forth from GR to Holland one day a week for a couple of months last fall... I thought it'd be great. Only 5 bucks each way and time to read and work (they even have outlets for my laptop). A BIG PROBLEM WITH AMTRAK is that they are completely unreliable! I blamed them until I learned that delays were almost always a result of the freight companies jerking their schedules around. Sometimes we'd have to sit and wait for a frieght train to do it's thing and a 25 mile trip would take over an hour and a half and I'd miss the last bus home...

I understand the monetary efficiency of sharing track but if service sucks this bad no one will be able to depend on it and thus adopt it into their lifestyle (which is a reason amtrak struggles so...)

[Rizzo]

I was looking at how many plausible routes into the city from the south there is. You have two obvious routes, but of course both have advantages and disadvantages:

1. The Norfolk Southern route running along side US 131. This is route was deemed too and low ridership (due to the industrial/warehouses that align this route) as a consequence it was quickly discontinued of further discussion.
   
   
2. Division Ave. This route would be perfect, expect the streetcar must share the road with existing traffic. At the cost of remaining purely a street vehicle the consequence is conforming to traffic laws and congestion.
   

I can't believe this hasn't been discussed, but here goes.

By chance I was reviewing maps of Kent County and also paging over a historical book of Grand Rapids. I remember the Interurban! This once railed route is now a grassy tract of land running through the heart of Southside for a good eight miles (to about 68th st). Upon investigating, the ownership of this tract appears to be Consumers' Power. It looks to be primarily used for the transmission of electricity.

This has got to be the most obvious route we should put energy into investigating. The route is cleared, mostly continuous, and best of all runs through the heart of the urban and suburban area. I can't help, but think this route is the best of choice for making any chance of transit in GR as 'Rapid.' This route is a dedicated, electrified, and easily accessible by just being a block or so away from busy thoroughfares.

One point that could hinge its viability is the cost/task of securing a small portion of this land. Seeing how there is already a paved route in some lengths lends me to believe municipalities along the route may have relationships established with Consumers'.

Has anyone every considered this route?

Edited January 17, 2007 by Rizzo

[DwntwnGeo]

• Division Ave. This route would be perfect, expect the streetcar must share the road with existing traffic. At the cost of remaining purely a street vehicle the consequence is conforming to traffic laws and congestion.
  

Most all of Division south of downtown is at least 4 lanes wide (two lanes of traffic each direction)and 5 in some places. What if the City were to dedicate one lane in each direction for tansit (LTR or BRT)? Wouldn't it be possible for the City to "curb" off this transit lane so drivers could not jump lanes? This would create a dedicated ROW for a tranist system. There are additional services that Cities have put on BRT to "adjust or change" stop lights on cross streets to make the transit lane more effient and on time by not having to stop at each and every light. Of course the major down side to this plan would be the adjustment required by drivers to have one lane in each direction instead of two. Another option in some areas where street side parking is available is to loose the parking lane verses the driving lane. Maybe the frustration of driving on only one lane would encourage additional users of the transit system? or maybe it would encourage them not to go downtown?