Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[dragt]

No, I haven't ridden it and don't know the ridership numbers for that route, but according to the schedule, it looks like there is a bus every 12 - 18 minutes during most of the day. Like I said, I didn't say it was a bad idea. BRT vehicles are usually much larger, and if they can work in a fixed guideway and time the traffic signals, that certainly would be able to accommodate more riders in a faster manner.

I wonder if commuters would use it with a park-n-ride system?

This is, I think, THE burning question! IF it can make it downtown faster and with more capcity, and IF the park-n-ride is convenient, AND IF the fare box is at the stops and NOT ON THE BUS, AND IF the stops are less frequent as surroundings get less dense.... maybe some momentum can be built for future enhancements to the overall system.

BUT the reason, it seemed, that Division is being chosen is becaus it's numbers already justify the upgrade. Increased ridership IMO would result but the line would still be successful even with incremental increases, thus the application to the "very small start" program...

[DwntwnGeo]

This is, I think, THE burning question! IF it can make it downtown faster and with more capcity, and IF the park-n-ride is convenient, AND IF the fare box is at the stops and NOT ON THE BUS, AND IF the stops are less frequent as surroundings get less dense.... maybe some momentum can be built for future enhancements to the overall system.

BUT the reason, it seemed, that Division is being chosen is becaus it's numbers already justify the upgrade. Increased ridership IMO would result but the line would still be successful even with incremental increases, thus the application to the "very small start" program...

I agree, if given an alternative, people would choose the faster/most convient choice for them. In my opinion here is the question/problem: If someone is using transit for commuting, they would want it to be fast and the least number of stops the better. If someone is looking for "local" transit, they would like more frequent stops to get closer to their end destination.

I am wondering if The Rapids chooses one route and one mode of transportation, if they will include a "local" and an "express" line? They do this in the New York Subways, but I don't see why it wouldn't work in GR with busses or whatever mode of transit they choose. Your primary line will be local and basically stops at every half or quarter mile intersection with a train say every 10-15 mins. Also have a secondary line that will be used an "express" route to downtown. The "express" route would only hit all the park and rides along the route and only have very limited stops for transfers to the "local" line.

[Rizzo]

^I like your express and local route idea.

Here's where we will stumble on this BRT or any mode down Division Ave. We expect this bus service to be fast and convenient to court park and riders. Yet, reality of it is that we also want it to not be rapid so that we can serve many stops. How can we expect that a person will park to ride a bus that only does the speed limit, has many stops, and contends with traffic flow. We can't have this both ways can we?

It has been said many a times that this upgrade will be Bus Rapid Transit. The most interesting word in that phrase is "Rapid." That seems to be the first fundamental flaw and contradictory to the reality of running any sort of "rapid" transit in an auto ROW. Isn't the point of rapid bus to have limited stops and faster speed? The "rapid" bus is still going to have to contend with the speed laws, traffic, many of stops etc... If we want a rapid bus we should just drive buses into downtown via US 131. If we want a local bus we should lower the floors and get traffic-signal changers. Surely both of these shouldn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars?

We are mistaken to take this mode down Division Ave as both rapid enough to court park and riders while not being too rapid so it may cater to many stops.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

This is, I think, THE burning question! IF it can make it downtown faster and with more capcity, and IF the park-n-ride is convenient, AND IF the fare box is at the stops and NOT ON THE BUS, AND IF the stops are less frequent as surroundings get less dense.... maybe some momentum can be built for future enhancements to the overall system.

BUT the reason, it seemed, that Division is being chosen is becaus it's numbers already justify the upgrade. Increased ridership IMO would result but the line would still be successful even with incremental increases, thus the application to the "very small start" program...

That's a lot of "ifs". I really don't see BRT and suburban commuter park-n-ride working together, as Rizzo is stating. The only park-n-ride that I can see feasible is using a rail line, DMU or light rail, and having stops no closer than 2 - 3 miles to gain enough speed to make it worthwhile. The perception problem alone will be insurmountable. It won't matter how much redevelopment comes to S. Division, not enough people from Wyoming, Byron Center or Kentwood are going to get off 131, drive a block East, park, and ride a BRT system up Division with multiple stops and average speeds of 45 - 50 mph. You would need an image change campaign of epic proportions to pull that off. However, IF BRT along Division can revitalize and greatly improve transit for the Southeast side, then it would be worth it if funds can be obtained. I just don't think it should try to be something it's not. Make sense?

Rizzo, why would S. Division not work for a BRT ROW?

Geo, How would you do an express with BRT (just curious)? Would it require two lines? Or express service running at alternate times?

[Rizzo]

That's a lot of "ifs". I really don't see BRT and suburban commuter park-n-ride working together, as Rizzo is stating. The only park-n-ride that I can see feasible is using a rail line, DMU or light rail, and having stops no closer than 2 - 3 miles to gain enough speed to make it worthwhile. The perception problem alone will be insurmountable. It won't matter how much redevelopment comes to S. Division, not enough people from Wyoming, Byron Center or Kentwood are going to get off 131, drive a block East, park, and ride a BRT system up Division with multiple stops and average speeds of 45 - 50 mph. You would need an image change campaign of epic proportions to pull that off. However, IF BRT along Division can revitalize and greatly improve transit for the Southeast side, then it would be worth it if funds can be obtained. I just don't think it should try to be something it's not. Make sense?

Rizzo, why would S. Division not work for a BRT ROW?

Sure, if BRT had its own ROW down Division Ave. Look at it this way, why would a local service serving many stops need its own ROW? a dedicated ROW seems more logical for a commuter. I'm not convinced that a local user would need to go a high rate of speed to just get to a stop a few miles down the road. Besides, as I'm aware that even if its in its own ROW it still needs to follow the speed laws set on Division Ave.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Rizzo

[dragt]

Here's where we will stumble on this BRT or any mode down Division Ave. We expect this bus service to be fast and convenient to court park and riders. Yet, reality of it is that we also want it to not be rapid so that we can serve many stops. How can we expect that a person will park to ride a bus that only does the speed limit, has many stops, and contends with traffic flow. We can't have this both ways can we?

This may very well be the case! but BRT will be faster and more convenient than the current bus service! Even if the only thing you did was take the farebox off the bus and require the fare to be bought at a stop or have daily/monthly passes purchased elsewhere, BRT would be faster! I'm guessing most of you don't ride the bus (I'll be happy if i'm wrong!), but if you did you'd fast realize that lots of time is lost by the farebox. add to that at least some sections of exclusive ROW (where space permits; i.e. not close to DT), streamline signals and axe a few stops and you've got a significant upgrade that is immediately supported by numbers.

THIS IS NOT AN ALL OR NOTHING proposal. Just because the rapid chooses BRT as a solution here does not mean it will be their solution for all future transit enhancements...

[GRDadof3]

More details in the Advance, via rapidgrowthmedia:

The RAPID poised to add rapid service down Division Ave

Definitely read the article, but here are some details about the streetcar proposal:

They must also determine who would use the trolley. Would it be business people, residents of the area, or tourists? Likely, all three would utilize the streetcar system, but the ITP wants to know at what percentages.

A final cost must be determined, and will likely include some form of public/private partnership, Varga said. Sheets said downtown developers may be asked to support the streetcar plan.

It will also include putting infrastructure in place including a rail system and overhead electrical lines to power the streetcar.

and about the BRT line:

The Division Avenue rapid transit route would cover approximately nine miles at an estimated cost of $3 million per mile, Varga said. After funding is secured, the route could be up and running in 18 months, depending on the engineering study.

"It does depend on what type of work needs to be done," Varga said.

The route is slated to run down Division Avenue to 60th Street, the southern border of Wyoming and Kentwood. Possible expansion to 76th Street would depend on population growth and usage. As it approached downtown, it would divert past St. Mary's Medical Center and Spectrum Health Butterworth Campus before heading through downtown to the main transit station.

[dragt]

That's a lot of "ifs".

Yes, and the point is, commuter park-n-ride would be bonus. Likely people looking to reduce their "carbon footprint"... (are we a 'green city' or what ).

look BRT is a pretty wide target and can include a variety of efficiencies. I don't know exactly what the GT2 recommendation is for, but if BRT is compelling enough for the MTA to take a hard look at, I think it's a step in the right direction...

[DwntwnGeo]

Geo, How would you do an express with BRT (just curious)? Would it require two lines? Or express service running at alternate times?

It would depend on how The Rapid lay it out on Division or any street. If there is going to be total seperation between "car lanes" and "bus lanes" than you may have to a dedicated lane just for the "express" service. This is how they do it in NYC. The "local" trains have hte outter rails and the "express" trains have the inner rails. Without complete seperation between "bus" and "car" lanes different arrangements can happen which may or may not speed anything up.

As Rizzo, pointed out the Busses will have to follow speed limits and traffic laws alonge the route. Where things would be quicker is if busses have a dedicated lane and a system where the bus will trigger stop lights to change to keep the busses moving and only stopping at the designated bus stops.

My thought on Division is to have one dedicated bus lane and run both an "express" and "local" service on the one lane. The only way I can think of to make it work is to have all the actual bus stops being a "bump in" off the dedicated lane into the sidewalk. Very similar to on street parking is now. Doing this will allow the express bus to pass any local bus while it is dropping/picking up passengers at one of the local stops.

[AlexPKeaton]

So what of BRT used the power line ROW that Rizzo pointed out earlier in the thread? That could be upgraded to rail in the future if required because it would have dedicated ROW, and it would be close enough to Division Ave to be useful. I like the idea of establishing corridors now even if they're not fully built out with light rail yet so we don't have to deal with land acquisition costs again in the future. I also had no idea how busy the Division Ave line was. I really only rode the bus while I was a GVSU student, though I'd consider riding it again if I worked downtown.

[dragt]

More details in the Advance, via rapidgrowthmedia:

The RAPID poised to add rapid service down Division Ave

Good Eye GRDad! here's what I found interesting:

Possible stops on the line include Burton, 28th, 44th, and 60th streets. Each would forego existing bus stops and have a dedicated station. The buses would travel at a higher speed in a dedicated lane at peak travel times.

They would have traffic-signal priority and the stations would post arrival times of the next bus for patrons.

Looks like most of those "if's" I mentioned are part of the plan. Which could make it a very attractive alternative to parking a car downtown...

I wonder... would they keep traditional bus service along side of BRT? No one seems to mention it...

[dragt]

found this on the faq of the MTA's BRT page that i linked to above:

What will happen to my local bus and local bus stop?

BRT service will be an “overlay” or an addition to current local bus routes. With the introduction of BRT, local bus service will continue to serve all bus stops.

Edited January 19, 2007 by dragt

[Allison Slater]

I know there's a 28th St. Bus route, but are there routes for 44th and 60th as well? I'd think a more local bus route reaching out in both directions from each of these BRT stations, treating the BRT Stations as the other routes treat the Central Station, ridership could be greatly enhanced.

[Veloise]

Rapid CEO on WGVU TV, 9:30 pm tonight.

[dragt]

I know there's a 28th St. Bus route, but are there routes for 44th and 60th as well? I'd think a more local bus route reaching out in both directions from each of these BRT stations, treating the BRT Stations as the other routes treat the Central Station, ridership could be greatly enhanced.

there is currently a 44th street route but no 60th... I assume the 60th would be the main park-n-ride.

[Rizzo]

After studying the sat images of the Consumer Powers/Interurban route I see ROW access. I don't know if this was studied by ITP, but I can't help noticing the access to downtown via this route. For whatever reason it wasn't considered.

My concerns are the idea that this is a precursor to trains or a stepping stone. What happens when we can sustain a train line? What makes us think Division Ave will be the perfect ROW for a train in 10 years or even a sustainable one? What about grade crossing protection and route separation for the rail line? What about speed laws? I feel like were going down a wrong path just so we can get federal monies. What I'm trying to get at is BRT might work on Division Ave, but will rail?

I won't be anticipating any BRT, Streetcar, or LRT here for years. I don't exactly trust the feds with money so....

There maybe opposition to my questions, but I give ITP and everyone working together to bring new transit options to Grand Rapids my full support and blessing. Reading that article instilled even more confidence in the progress. Hey look, if the mayor of Wyoming looks at it with interest you know something good is happening! That should be a blessing in itself.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Rizzo

[tamias6]

I just got done watching WGVU's "West Michigan Week" show who interviewed the head of the Rapid. The short term plan is to seek a millage increase to improve routes and add new ones and the long term plan (within 10 years) is to do a BRT route on the S. Division corridor.

[dtown]

Do you know if theres an online version of this report?

[tamias6]

I didn't find any transcripts online. However I'd advise contacting WGVU and request a transcript.

Link to their website.

Do you know if theres an online version of this report?

Edited January 20, 2007 by tamias6

[dtown]

ok, thanks.

[Rizzo]

Anyone have some photos of the Consumers Power Right-of-way in the Wyoming area?

Edited January 22, 2007 by Rizzo

[Veloise]

I didn't find any transcripts online. However I'd advise contacting WGVU and request a transcript.

Link to their website.

Also, contact the radio station (um, WGVU-FM and AM). They often broadcast audio from the TV stuff.

[DwntwnGeo]

My concerns are the idea that this is a precursor to trains or a stepping stone. What happens when we can sustain a train line? What makes us think Division Ave will be the perfect ROW for a train in 10 years or even a sustainable one? What about grade crossing protection and route separation for the rail line? What about speed laws? I feel like were going down a wrong path just so we can get federal monies. What I'm trying to get at is BRT might work on Division Ave, but will rail?

I agree that Light Rail right on Division will probably not work well in today's environment and probably even worse in years to come because of lack of grade sepeation and speed constraints. I do think that BRT is a decent choice at this time and possibly upgrade to street cars in the future if the transit demand increases? I just don't think our first choice of transit after busses has to be Light Rail. Looking at both NYC and Portland transit systems, they both multiple levels of tranist. New York has regular busses, a BRT system, the subways, and heavy rail for commuters. Portland has busses, a downtown street car loop and Light Rail for faster/longer commuter transit.

I guess my question is, would it that bad if GR has BRT down the southern route of Division Ave. with a street car system downtown and a Light Rail system on another route going out of the City in another ten years? As cities grow their transit systems can too. I believe it was the GT2 study that showed future routes along the rail lines going to Holland, along US131 and along Seward North out of the City to Comstock and Sparta/Rockford.

Personally I feel that there needs to be two methods of transit systems in GR. One will need to be a FAST or "express" commuter rail service to get people in and out downtown GR. These routes would possibly follow the existing rail lines to Holland, along US131 and North along Seward and I am sure there are others too. To me the main goal of these routes would be to get people in and out of the City core as fast as possile. The second method is more of a "local" method that should run along business corridors and should have multiple stops ever couple of blocks etc. The "local" method is more of getting people around business & retail locations and not really as a means to express cummuters in and out of the city core. I think a lot of frustration comes from trying to combine these two transit methods into one.

I guess my point is having a BRT system down Division would be a good choice for a more "local" type of transit. Because of the speed constrainst and not having grade seperation I do not feel this is a good choice for an "express" commuter line. Does any of this make sense, or am I just out in left feild?

[DwntwnGeo]

After studying the sat images of the Consumer Powers/Interurban route I see ROW access. I don't know if this was studied by ITP, but I can't help noticing the access to downtown via this route. For whatever reason it wasn't considered.

I talked with a college friend of mine that works for Consumers Energy about some of our questions/concerns. Please understand he is not high enough on the coporate ladder to make these types of decisions, but he was willing to talk to me about it. Consumers Energy does own the ROW lines along there. It is one of their main transmission power feeds into the Southern part of the City (Rather large Sub-station on SE corner of US131 & 28th St) and also into downtown. This is a transmission line with 347,000+ volts and not a normal distribution line (7200 volts) that runs down our streets to businesses and homes. I don't see Conusmers letting anyone use/buy the ROW. They have in the past allowed bike/walking trails along their cooridors. This wasn't a large investment (compaired to a rail line) that the city had to invest to pave a trail and it also gave Consumers enough room to bring their large equipment when repairs and maintence is/was needed. You are correct in that the current transmission line is more on one side than the other, this is because this line is one of Consumers route to build an additional transmission line to bring more power to the GR core area when it is needed in the future. What I have mentioned here, doesn't mean that something couldn't change in the future. We all know that when companies have large pressures from local and State levels, weird things can occur, but on the flip side, as our City grows we will need additional power and sub-stations and their are limited ROW that these can be built on.

Anyone have some photos of the Consumers Power Right-of-way in the Wyoming area?

I don't have any personally, but I could take a few at the intersections of 36th Street and 54th Street if you would like me to. Currently the area will be all snow covered though....

[Raildudes dad]

I talked with a college friend of mine that works for Consumers Energy about some of our questions/concerns. Please understand he is not high enough on the coporate ladder to make these types of decisions, but he was willing to talk to me about it. Consumers Energy does own the ROW lines along there. It is one of their main transmission power feeds into the Southern part of the City (Rather large Sub-station on SE corner of US131 & 28th St) and also into downtown. This is a transmission line with 347,000+ volts and not a normal distribution line (7200 volts) that runs down our streets to businesses and homes. I don't see Conusmers letting anyone use/buy the ROW. They have in the past allowed bike/walking trails along their cooridors. This wasn't a large investment (compaired to a rail line) that the city had to invest to pave a trail and it also gave Consumers enough room to bring their large equipment when repairs and maintence is/was needed. You are correct in that the current transmission line is more on one side than the other, this is because this line is one of Consumers route to build an additional transmission line to bring more power to the GR core area when it is needed in the future. What I have mentioned here, doesn't mean that something couldn't change in the future. We all know that when companies have large pressures from local and State levels, weird things can occur, but on the flip side, as our City grows we will need additional power and sub-stations and their are limited ROW that these can be built on.

I don't have any personally, but I could take a few at the intersections of 36th Street and 54th Street if you would like me to. Currently the area will be all snow covered though....

Consumers leases/ buys easements from railroads for new powerlines. It's easier to deal with one RR real estate person than multiple home owners I know they constructed a 137 Kva line a number of years ago along the GRE / MMRR alongside Pannell Road NW east to the Grand River and continuing east to College Ave. Some of those poles are within 15 feet of the tracks. It can be done. I'm not sure exactly where your talking about the towers being offset and having a trail but some of those ROW's had rail in the olden days The ROW that parallels the Norfolk Southern south of Burton Street is the interurban ROW. Consumers predecessor bought a number of the interurban ROW's for power line routes. When the interurban was removed, the old road bed was used for an access road to construct & maintain the power line. It didn't make sense to put the towers on the roadbed and then build a new access road.

Edited January 22, 2007 by Raildudes dad