Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[Rizzo]

^I notified an ITP representative who appears to work for Consumers.

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?

If a route down Division would serve a local user then I think a rapid bus would do it justice. I would support a bus that is low floor, stops with raised platforms, and other concepts that will help ITP make its system more accessible. Now if ITP were to use this route as an artery into the city with the purpose of moving commuters neither streetcar or bus will work effectively, that is just my perception on this matter. Especially, when you have preconceived notions of bus working against you.

It's evident by the use of parking lots and limited stops that this route is to serve a commuter. I'm concerned that we aren't utilizing the correct right-of-way for the purpose of moving people between city and suburb. If ITP wants to run BRT down division to serve a local crowed than I am for it 100%. I like the concept even if a "bus is still a bus."

It's not my point to be argumentative with you it wasn't my purpose (if thats how it seems,) but to voice a concern. I voiced my concerns to those who should know and hope to hear my arguments made invalid.

Edited January 22, 2007 by Rizzo

[DwntwnGeo]

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 section that I was thinking/talking about is between 54th and 36th street. It appears the Transmission Towers are built on the Eastern side of the ROW and there is a small paved biking/hiking trail on the Western edge. I was told the biking/hiking trail was added later, but maybe I misunderstood.

[Raildudes dad]

The section that I was thinking/talking about is between 54th and 36th street. It appears the Transmission Towers are built on the Eastern side of the ROW and there is a small paved biking/hiking trail on the Western edge. I was told the biking/hiking trail was added later, but maybe I misunderstood.

Yup, the trail was added a lot later but in the same location of the interurban track Go look at the bridges over the creeks. Definately built for something heavier than a 4w drive trail maintenance pickup. BTW, the interurban went under in 1929 or 30, IIRC, way before my time

[DwntwnGeo]

It's not my point to be argumentative with you it wasn't my purpose (if thats how it seems,) but to voice a concern. I voiced my concerns to those who should know and hope to hear my arguments made invalid.

I agree, I am not trying to argue with any one here and I didn't take your posts that way either. I think we are both on the same page, just had different ways of spelling it out. Hopefully we will know some more details this coming week after the Wednesday Board meeting.

[DwntwnGeo]

Yup, the trail was added a lot later but in the same location of the interurban track Go look at the bridges over the creeks. Definately built for something heavier than a 4w drive trail maintenance pickup. BTW, the interurban went under in 1929 or 30, IIRC, way before my time

I just assumed the location of interurban track was more in the center of ROW, but now that you mentioned the bridges it makes more sense to me.

[Rizzo]

I agree, I am not trying to argue with any one here and I didn't take your posts that way either. I think we are both on the same page, just had different ways of spelling it out. Hopefully we will know some more details this coming week after the Wednesday Board meeting.

Agreed on that one. Just hearing that rumor I was told to be verified about a downtown streetcar feed by rapid transit makes me giddy no matter what questions I raise. I think it means people here give a damn.

[GRDadof3]

Going back to the BRT down Division, I have no problem at all with that proposal. As long as it uses a dedicated lane, traffic light priority, and platforms where (as tdrag so eloquently pointed out) where you can PRE-PAY for passes, I think it will be a big success. There are a few things, however, that I disagree with the ITP on the BRT route:

1) I don't think it will work well for commuter park-n-ride. It will NOT be fast enough to gain enough ridership. I think park-n-ride to serve the South corridor will have to come in some form of limited stop commuter rail at some time in the future, IN ADDITION to the BRT line on Division. The South corridor is the most densely populated and will need a variety of different options, just like any successful city's transit system offers.

2) I don't think they should run the BRT past St. Mary's and Spectrum. I think the streetcar system should serve downtown "hot spots" in a loop around downtown, with shared stations with the other transit nodes for easy transferring. Keep the BRT, LRT and CR out of downtown. Wasn't that the purpose of building the ITP Central Station, as an intermodal central point?

Keep it simple. Something like this (with a few variations in what streets are travelled). I think this should be the ultimate 20 year goal. And if the first two steps are the BRT portion on Division and say 1/2 of the streetcar loop, we'd be well on our way!

North side commuter rail

South side 131 commuter rail, S. Division BRT, and light rail through SE/EGR/Kentwood

West side BRT or light rail

East side commuter rail

If need be, the loop can be extended North to Leonard.

[tamias6]

Here my idea of what a BRT line would look like on S.Division. The center 18 ft of road would be replaced by two BRT fixed guidways. On each side would be an automotive traffic lane with a bike lane on the outside to buffer peds on the sidwalks from the traffic.

[dtown]

Looks pretty good to me!

[Allison Slater]

One problem, that's N. Division. =p

[Veloise]

... I ...hope to hear my arguments made invalid.

Really? You want us to trash your arguements??

You probably mean valid.

[sorry, there's no OFF switch]

[gvsusean]

Here my idea of what a BRT line would look like on S.Division. The center 18 ft of road would be replaced by two BRT fixed guidways. On each side would be an automotive traffic lane with a bike lane on the outside to buffer peds on the sidwalks from the traffic.

would people get off onto oncoming traffic?? i think the lanes should be swsitched so that the bus is next to the sidewalk

[Veloise]

Commuter rail plan to Detroit gets a push

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...1001/BUSINESS05

By the end of '07, it says.

ETA: an editorial about the Detroit mindset:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...69/1068/OPINION

Edited January 22, 2007 by Veloise

[GRDadof3]

I too would think the lines would run along the outside of the street rather than inside. The only BRT's I've seen on the inside are in a boulevard setting where platforms are in the middle. I don't think Division is wide enough for that.

In other related news:

The RAPID goes green

Mentioned here a while ago, the RAPID will introduce five hybrid electric buses to its fleet. They're going to experiment with them in different routes to see if routes with more "stop-n-go" will be more beneficial. Hybrids generally get better gas mileage in the city because the electric motor kicks in more frequently.

[Veloise]

Was there a RAPID meeting on the 24th, or was that just a deadline?

[GRDadof3]

Was there a RAPID meeting on the 24th, or was that just a deadline?

24th is Wednesday.

http://www.ridetherapid.org/about/board/

I finished the report and I'm just waiting on a call-back.

ETA: an editorial about the Detroit mindset:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...69/1068/OPINION

Oyyy! "If they could only get the parking lot at work and my driveway to connect, that would be perfect!" That guy's right, that's where we need to be investing our money, and let's quote the libertarians while we're at it.

[AlexPKeaton]

He quotes a libertarian group on their statistics, but what about their ideology? I think the libertarian solution would be to add more tolls and other taxes to pay for the roads and (and cut income taxes appropriately) and let the market decide which mode of transportation is most efficient. We all like to drive, but would we all pay for the privilege?

This quote really got me as well:

So we can build a bus-rail system that will, around here, be forever underused and subsidized by taxpayers who drive, but does it make more sense to add a few lanes to some of freeways that will be filled with traffic the day they open?

So, we should just open more lanes that will immediately be as congested as the rest?

[Rizzo]

Really? You want us to trash your arguements??

You probably mean valid.

[sorry, there's no OFF switch]

No, I mean invalid. I hope that ITP et al. have studied this issue further than I have. It's my hope they know whats going on -- its my assumption.

[Allison Slater]

Most of the people I've talked to here in GR don't think about adding more lanes and such, they really seem excited about BRT. In a sense, having lanes on the road with that little white diamond is a sign of us starting to hit the big time, and a symbol of us moving forward, and everybody really seems to like that.

[tamias6]

I too would think the lines would run along the outside of the street rather than inside. The only BRT's I've seen on the inside are in a boulevard setting where platforms are in the middle. I don't think Division is wide enough for that.

You seem to have a good urban design eye, GRDad. Following your lead, I reconfigured my sketchup file. I like the BRT lines on the outside far better than the last version. The lines themselves would act as a far better buffer between autos and peds than bike lanes. Division would still have to be brought down to two automotive traffic lanes to make room for the BRT guideways. However this would have a good effect for peds as the nerrower road would have traffic calming effects and shorter and safer road crossing distances. Bikes would also benefit too if the speed limit atleast in the urban core stretch of Division were reduced to 25 mph.

Edited January 22, 2007 by tamias6

[GR8-town]

Most of the people I've talked to here in GR don't think about adding more lanes and such, they really seem excited about BRT. In a sense, having lanes on the road with that little white diamond is a sign of us starting to hit the big time, and a symbol of us moving forward, and everybody really seems to like that.

The best transit system is one that is simple and easy to use.

A light rail design is cool, however very expensive.

The things that people like about this type of public transportation

(light rail).

Is that they run on a short loop and travel in one direction (simple).

This could easily be replicated using say two bus routes. One that runs

north along Monroe, from say as south as wealthy street to north as Boardwalk condos,

than continue clockwise and east to GVSU (life-science)on Michigan street, then south to

civic theater/heritage hill to St Marys then west to Grandville av.

Then you do a similar route going south on Monroe to

Wealthy,west to John Ball back to GVSU (Devos-ctr) to stock bridge area back across the river to Board walk then south onto Monroe again.

Two clockwise loops running simultaneously with say 3 or 4 buses on each route.

Then you paint the north bound buses red and the south bound buses blue to easily reconise the two routes.

Now you have red buses running north and clockwise at 5 min. intervals,and blue buses running south and clockwise doing the same.

With blue and red bus stop signs thought the city.

The two routes would parallel each other along Monroe but in opposite directions for easy transfers.

And if you really wanted to get carried away you could paint dashed colored lines (red-blue) at the curbs to mark the route.

Now something like this would be so easy to follow and understand that

my grandmother who has never been on a bus would be able to figure it out or

say a traveler/conventioner who has no clue.

Or me!

Edited January 22, 2007 by GR8-town

[NorthEnder]

I haven't read through most of this, but with DET seeming "sure" on having mass-transit, how far away are we?

I realize our governer loves S.E. michigan, but we're the more progressive thinkers, and have the money and resources to get it done.

Will they put through lite rail before we do?

[GRDadof3]

I haven't read through most of this, but with DET seeming "sure" on having mass-transit, how far away are we?

I realize our governer loves S.E. michigan, but we're the more progressive thinkers, and have the money and resources to get it done.

Will they put through lite rail before we do?

Here's the best article recently about the RAPID's plans (BRT down S. Division and streetcar/light rail loop downtown)

http://www.mlive.com/news/advancenewspaper...&thispage=1

[dtown]

I realize our governer loves S.E. michigan, but we're the more progressive thinkers, and have the money and resources to get it done.

I dont really think you have the right to say that GR has more progresive thinkers than SE MI. And i really dont think GR has more resources than Detroit. It has so many more people, especially in the metro area, that it can have acess to a lot more federal funds, and alot more local tax money.

And GR8-Town, light rail doesnt always run in a short loop, just look at Minneapolis' Hiawatha light rail line.

[Rizzo]

I'm going to say this just because it's getting really annoying. Can we please refrain from mentioning any transit outside of Metro Grand Rapids?! It's been going on as of late and the thread title speaks for itself.

Edited January 23, 2007 by Rizzo