Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[Eridony]

My question that those that say streetcars can't go up Michigan St hill is "why not"? They did in 1924. 2007 technology is worse?

If I remember the newspaper article correctly it said to get up Michigan they would need overhead wires, which I guess isn't in their current plan. I assume the original electric streetcars had these wires. Though I don't understand how the wires help them climb a steeper grade.

[Rizzo]

In the olden days of railroading some narrow gauge locomotives employed a rack and pinion concept to get up and down hills.

I haven't investigated the new technologies of streetcars, so I'm not sure if the modern systems are engineered to that standard.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

If I remember the newspaper article correctly it said to get up Michigan they would need overhead wires, which I guess isn't in their current plan. I assume the original electric streetcars had these wires. Though I don't understand how the wires help them climb a steeper grade.

The article mentioned that they would need cables (similar to San Francisco streetcars) buried in the street to assist the climb. The entire system will need overhead electric wires. i still think they should investigate using Barclay as a connector to Michigan Hill, although I don't know which would be cheaper: going out the way to get up the hill, or putting cables in the street? How would they bury a working cable system in the Michigan Street Division Ave overpass I wonder?

Would you consider going west on 10 Mile Road or 13 Mile Road (14 Mile exit down Edgerton to 13) from 131 to a transit stop on the exisitng rail as opposed to stop & go on 131 from 10 Mile to West River?

$1billion - easy- start with commuter rail up the White Pine Trail, commuter rail down the old interurban to the south, commuter rail following the old interurban to Hudsonville & Holland. Add commuter rail to the west using the old GTW to Marne, Coopersville & Marne to Coopersville and the old ROW to Spring Lake, put back the track to Muskegon down the Muskatowa. Put the original streetcar lines back in GR. All tied together at the west side intermodal center. Actually, just putting back the streetcars and interurban system would be one fantastic system. Have I run out of money yet:)

I guess it would depend on how far off of 131 people would have to drive. If I'm thinking correctly, from 10 Mile and 131, the Sparta rail line crossing is a good 2 - 3 miles West. I don't live in Rockford, Cedar Springs, or Greenville, so I don't know if that would be too far for people to go. But my initial thought is yes, it would be "perceived" as too far.

As far as your plan, I think you'd do OK. Light rail will cost you more to do all that then using more commuter rail.

This might be cheaper:

as opposed to this:

The one nice thing about light rail (the second one) is that I believe (?) you don't have to turn around. It can travel frontward and backward. Still trying to track that info down.

Where does the old interurban to Holland and Hudsonville run? Near Chicago Drive?

[Rizzo]

You can have a commuter do two maneuvers both push and pull. So all the engineer would have to do is push a reverse.

You can get decent commuter equipment (trainsets) for under 1.5 mil... My grandfather could probably round up some qualified folks who would operate, manage, and run the operation..

Edited February 15, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

You can have a commuter do two maneuvers both push and pull. So all the engineer would have to do is push a reverse.

You can get decent commuter equipment (trainsets) for under 1.5 mil... My grandfather could probably round up some qualified folks who would operate, manage, and run the operation..

Thanks for that Rizzo. Do you know if that is true with the Skoda's? Is there a top speed that the commuter version can "push" the cars (slower than pull)?

[Rizzo]

Push/Pull is about the same. On many trains push/pull speed is indiscriminate.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

Push/Pull is about the same. On many trains push/pull speed is indiscriminate.

I did find you can do push/pull on LRT vehicles. There's usually a "cross-over" near the end of the line so that outbound train can then switch to inbound (downtown bound) tracks, like this:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=po...mp;t=h&om=1

[Rizzo]

But....even though West River and 131 may not be far enough out, heading toward Sparta IMO is the wrong direction. Seriously, once you get to Alpine and 6 mile, there's nothing. And, the Sparta area is not growing. The population is growing the other way, toward Rockford, Cedar Springs, Greenville. Wouldn't a park-n-ride station at 131/West River be a good start?

This might need to be moved to the transit thread.

Forget the Weslin Report. Let's start with a blank slate. If you were given a budget of $1 Billion to build a mass transit system in GR, where and what would you build?

A Billion is quite the wiggle room.

I'd start off with locomotives with a few Pullman-Standard cars (both dirt cheap) between Holland-Downtown and Muskegon-Downtown on good rail. I think that is well doable with 100-150 million.

With the remaining 850-900 million I would invest in LRT for North and South. If you keep the LRT off the streets you could save substantially. Even after this your talking about about several 100 or so million left over.

.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

I'm almost certain SLC is still going to seek FTA funds and probably use other federal funds for transit/commuter rail. There are also issues of maintaining/expanding bus service and long term operating/maintenance costs for the entire transit system, besides initial capital costs. Each area/project is different and comparing costs, even among areas of similar size and other characteristics can be tricky. And I'm not sure SLC and GR are that similar.

Also, to clarify my previous statement, Denver and Houston did NOT use federal funds on their initial LRT lines and Denver will seek New Start funds on only 3 of the FasTracks corridors (out of 7 or so). However, other federal funds are available for transit beyond New Starts grants.

Explorer55, couldn't operating costs of the LRT and commuter rail lines also be payed for with a transit sales tax? And keep the millages for the RAPID's bus system?

I'll use an example, of 1% sales tax from 2008 through 2020, $75 Million collected annually, with reserve and expenditures and figuring $5 Million/year for each LRT line operating costs and $2 Million for streetcar operation (forgive my very rough math):

2008 - $75 Million collected, Southern route phase I (to 54th or so) started in 2010 at $250 Million total cost, 2 years construction time, Monroe Streetcar started, $70 Million

2009 - $150 Million collected

2010 - $225 Million balance

2011 - $300 Million balance

2012 - $375 Million balance, Southern line paid for, Monroe Streetcar paid for, $75 Million balance

2013 - $150 Million balance minus $7 Million oper. costs, $143 Million balance, 2nd line started (Northern route), $200 Million, 2 years construction, 2nd streetcar line started (West side) $25 Million

2014 - $218 Million balance

2015 - $285 Million balance, Northern route paid, streetcar paid, ($225 Million total capital) add additional $5 Million LRT oper cost/$2 Million streetcar oper. cost, for $14 Million total, remaining balance around $46 Million

2016 - $121 Million balance, Gaslight Village streetcar started, $80 Million

2017 - $182 Million balance, Michigan St/Healthcare Hill streetcar started, $50 Million

2018 - $243 Million balance, Gaslight Village paid, remaining balance about $160 Million

2019 - $225 Million balance, Michigan St/Healthcare Hill paid, $175 Million total balance

2020 - $230 Million balance, additional phases explored (GVSU)

In 2020, we'd have two light rail lines, and 4 streetcar lines. How astounding would that be?

Or perhaps it'd be more prudent to do 2 sales taxes (like 1/8 cent for operating, 7/8 for capital) so that when renewal is sought down the road, they won't be tied together. AND, this isn't taking into consideration any kind of TIF zone financing or any other philanthropic contributions.

I gotta believe there's a way to structure this so reserves will always be ahead of expenditures, as long as projects come in on budget and on time. Salt Lake Cities TRAX was on time and under budget. I know it's difficult to compare the two cities, but even though they have a larger population (a tad over 1 Million), their urban density is very similar. They also average 62 inches of snow a year, much of it lake effect from the Great Salt Lake, which I was not aware of. Learn something new every day.

[Rizzo]

That budget breakdown really helps out Dad, thanks...

[Rizzo]

http://www.rapidgrowthmedia.com/developmen.../stcar0215.aspx

[Raildudes dad]

If I remember the newspaper article correctly it said to get up Michigan they would need overhead wires, which I guess isn't in their current plan. I assume the original electric streetcars had these wires. Though I don't understand how the wires help them climb a steeper grade.

Electric powered street cars or interurbans for that matter need either electified 3rd rail (not very safe in urban areas) or overhead wires. The old interurbans used both and the streetcars in GR the overhead system. Look at the old photos - pretty ugly overhead on Monroe. The wires have nothing to do with how steep the grade was. Since none of us want to look at overhead wires and the 3rd rail is out for safety reasons, how about a diesel electric like this http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/Camden-Trenton/

Edited February 15, 2007 by Raildudes dad

[GRDadof3]

Electric powered street cars or interurbans for that matter need either electified 3rd rail (not very safe in urban areas) or overhead wires. The old interurbans used both and the streetcars in GR the overhead system. Look at the old photos - pretty ugly overhead on Monroe. The wires have nothing to do with how steep the grade was. Since none of us want to look at overhead wires and the 3rd rail is out for safety reasons, how about a diesel electric like this http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/Camden-Trenton/

Those are cool RDD, but it says they can't mix with traffic in the U.S. because they don't meet "crashworthiness" standards, so as streetcars they'd be out. You could only use them in their own ROW. They'd make great commuter trains though along the Southern 131 corridor, and maybe the Northern corridor (although you'd have to cordone off part of Seward for rail only). That road doesn't get that much traffic, so maybe not that big o deal.

edit, never mind, they're not allowed to run on the same tracks as normal rail. They would just have to have their own rail. They can mix with traffic. Very cool!

Wonder how much they cost?

[Rizzo]

I don't think today's electrification is as obtrusive as yesterday's.... With double trackage its merely just lamp post and bracket... nothing like the South Shore, etc..

Edited February 15, 2007 by Rizzo

[Raildudes dad]

The article mentioned that they would need cables (similar to San Francisco streetcars) buried in the street to assist the climb. The entire system will need overhead electric wires. i still think they should investigate using Barclay as a connector to Michigan Hill, although I don't know which would be cheaper: going out the way to get up the hill, or putting cables in the street? How would they bury a working cable system in the Michigan Street Division Ave overpass I wonder?

I guess it would depend on how far off of 131 people would have to drive. If I'm thinking correctly, from 10 Mile and 131, the Sparta rail line crossing is a good 2 - 3 miles West. I don't live in Rockford, Cedar Springs, or Greenville, so I don't know if that would be too far for people to go. But my initial thought is yes, it would be "perceived" as too far.

Where does the old interurban to Holland and Hudsonville run? Near Chicago Drive?

See my last post - diesel electic, no overhead wires, no cables

I think "we" have to entice the commuters that want to avoid congestion and and parking issues and work / go to school downtown. The commuters will be coming from Howard City, Big Rapids, Reed City, Spatra, Kent City Grant, Newaygo. They won't be walking to the transit stop

When Chicago Drive was widened in the 30's it removed the interurban. Just like the widening of Leonard NW and Remembrance in 1930 removed all traces of the interurban except for the brick stations / substations.

[Raildudes dad]

Those are cool RDD, but it says they can't mix with traffic in the U.S. because they don't meet "crashworthiness" standards, so as streetcars they'd be out. You could only use them in their own ROW. They'd make great commuter trains though along the Southern 131 corridor, and maybe the Northern corridor (although you'd have to cordone off part of Seward for rail only). That road doesn't get that much traffic, so maybe not that big o deal.

edit, never mind, they're not allowed to run on the same tracks as normal rail. They would just have to have their own rail. They can mix with traffic. Very cool!

[Wonder how much they cost?

If you read further, they can be used on freight tracks if the traffic is not co-mingled. The tracks north could be for freight 9PM to 4AM, plenty of time for the 2 -4 trains. The same could be done south. If NS had to have 24 hour access to GM, new track could be installed on the old interurban from the yard to 44th Street.

[Raildudes dad]

Those are cool RDD, but it says they can't mix with traffic in the U.S. because they don't meet "crashworthiness" standards, so as streetcars they'd be out. You could only use them in their own ROW. They'd make great commuter trains though along the Southern 131 corridor, and maybe the Northern corridor (although you'd have to cordone off part of Seward for rail only). That road doesn't get that much traffic, so maybe not that big o deal.

edit, never mind, they're not allowed to run on the same tracks as normal rail. They would just have to have their own rail. They can mix with traffic. Very cool!

Wonder how much they cost?

If you read the article, they are used on freight tracks. The freights are resticted to night time only. That would work here as well on the line north to Sparta and the line south to BC. Freight service 8PM to 4AM. If NS needed to access GM 24/7, relay a passenger track from the yard to 44th Street on the old interurban route.

PS: How do I become the consultant to make this work?

Edited February 15, 2007 by Raildudes dad

[GRDadof3]

See my last post - diesel electic, no overhead wires, no cables

I think "we" have to entice the commuters that want to avoid congestion and and parking issues and work / go to school downtown. The commuters will be coming from Howard City, Big Rapids, Reed City, Spatra, Kent City Grant, Newaygo. They won't be walking to the transit stop

When Chicago Drive was widened in the 30's it removed the interurban. Just like the widening of Leonard NW and Remembrance in 1930 removed all traces of the interurban except for the brick stations / substations.

No, I know they won't be walking. I'm just thinking that if I'm on 131 headed to downtown, and have to get off 131 and head West a couple of miles, I don't know. Like I said, I don't live up there so I don't know how backed up it gets in the morning.

I think this is what you're talking about, right? It looks like it's about 4 miles over to the rail line from 131/10 Mile:

I also put in a Coopersville Park-n-ride on that map. I'm always in human psychology mode. How convenient can it be made for people to use it? Using the White Pine Trail would be the best possible scenario, but I think you'd have an uprising of protest from Rockfordites.

I also found this comparison between light rail vehicles and DMU/DEMU vehicles. The capital costs seem to be a lot lower (probably saving on the electric transformers, poles, wiring, etc..

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Nyt4H...cd=14&gl=us

PS: How do I become the consultant to make this work?

I don't know. I'm having so much fun, I'm wondering how I can get involved too.

[Libertarian]

I am still trying to figure out if the talk of multiple light rail lines and street car lines is serious or not. Don't get me wrong I would be all for a comprehensive transportation plan, but light rail by 2020 does not seem rational. For instance, Kent county has 671 people per square mile, Salt Lake county has1,219ppsm, and Multnomah county(Portland, OR) has1,518ppsm. That is just a few examples of where rail is succeeding faster than originally thought. We are too spread out and I have rarely seen traffic back-ups on any of the freeways. It takes maybe 15 to 20 minutes to go from Rockford to downtown? Even with the construction a year and a half ago it maybe took 25-30 minutes. Is there really a population boom on the horizon to change that figure by much that would then merit park and rides/light rail?

It seems to me that establishing urban growth boundaries, like a Portland, OR, would be the very first step(with many more steps to come) in any march towards light rail. And that would take a sea change in the mind set of most Grand Rapidians, not to mention several years.

Don’t get me wrong, if I had to live in the burbs I would love to relax and read the newspaper on my way to work. I just feel the nature of Grand Rapids and the extant transportation system for moving between burbia and downtown is sufficient. I also enjoy the enthusiasim of this thread because I used to live in D.C. and I know the merits of a fine mass transit system, but maybe we should put more effort forth in the way of realizing what really ails Grand Rapids and its potential success.

[DwntwnGeo]

We are too spread out and I have rarely seen traffic back-ups on any of the freeways. It takes maybe 15 to 20 minutes to go from Rockford to downtown? Even with the construction a year and a half ago it maybe took 25-30 minutes.

First thing: Welcome to the Forum!

What time of day do you drive between Downtown and Rockford? Personally I don't live on the Nothern end of town, but have driven to friends in the Rockford/Cedar Springs area many times. Just about everytime I go there are some kind of hold ups on US131 Northbound between I-96/West River Drive all the way to 10/14Mile Road exits. Sure there are moments when you can get back up to speed, but then you have to slam on your brakes because everyone is now stopped. Now during work hours, I have had to drive to Cedar Springs and Rockford along with other cities, and I would agree at certain times of the day, there isn't really a problem (mostly after morning rush hour until early afternoon 10am-2pm).

Edited February 15, 2007 by DwntwnGeo

[GRDadof3]

When we first moved here about 10 years ago, I had the pleasure of driving from the Alpine area to the South end of town near RB Chaffee and 44th. It would take a good 50 - 60 minutes drive time if you didn't time it just perfectly (in other words, get up way earlier than you needed to). I can only imagine it's worse now. 131 from the South coming into downtown is frequently stop-n-go now from 28th Street to the S-Curve. It wasn't that way 10 years ago. Rockford to downtown is 30 - 40 minutes in rush hour from what I hear.

From 1995 - 2005, the area added over 70,000 people, and that takes into account the recession from 2001 - 2004. I think we'll see at least 100 - 150,000 more people by 2020. In addition, as things are going now, I don't see our densities getting any greater, I see them getting worse (ie mini metro Detroit), unless something is done to make city living more attractive (better schools, better transit, better amenities, vibrant neighborhood centers, continued focus on downtown). And a more spread out metro will be more difficult to serve with transit, IMO. Look at Detroit now. Each light rail line they're looking at is $1 - $2 Billion because they're so damned spread out and starting from scratch. I know it seems like we might be putting the cart before the horse, but I think we stand at a crossroads today.

You also have to compare urbanized area to urbanized area. Yes, Salt Lake County is more dense than Kent County is. However, Kent County is still pretty rural in much of it,, which skews the urbanized area downward. It is 856 square miles, on which there are 574,335 residents (or a density of 671 people/sq mi), but much of those 575,000 people live in a small area of about 20% of Kent County, so the density of the urbanized area is closer to 3000 people/sq mi. The city of Grand Rapids has 197,000 people in 45 square miles (or a density of over 4300/sq mi) Salt Lake has a city population of 181,000, with a land area of 110 square miles (density of 1645 people/sq mi). I've seen the GR area's density compared to Memphis and Denver. But the important thing to look at is density along the proposed routes, specifically within walking distance and within easy driving distance (for park-n-rides).

Rizzo did some computations, and on the Southern LRT line we're talking about on the old Interurban (or the abandoned rail line a little closer to 131), there are over 50,000 people within walking distance of the line. There are over 110,000 people within 3 miles of that line. That's why it's our first pick.

In looking at SLC's 2015 Plan, based on the aerials, the only line they're proposing that runs through an area as dense as Southern Grand Rapids is the Mid-Jordan Line, and perhaps the Draper Extension. Of course, that's just me eye-balling it.

http://www.nwc.cog.co.us/Rural%20Resort%20...eve%20Meyer.pdf

I'm serious about this. Just trying to build momentum and build a case.

Thanks for joining us Libertarian.

[Raildudes dad]

I am still trying to figure out if the talk of multiple light rail lines and street car lines is serious or not. Don't get me wrong I would be all for a comprehensive transportation plan, but light rail by 2020 does not seem rational. For instance, Kent county has 671 people per square mile, Salt Lake county has1,219ppsm, and Multnomah county(Portland, OR) has1,518ppsm. That is just a few examples of where rail is succeeding faster than originally thought. We are too spread out and I have rarely seen traffic back-ups on any of the freeways. It takes maybe 15 to 20 minutes to go from Rockford to downtown? Even with the construction a year and a half ago it maybe took 25-30 minutes. Is there really a population boom on the horizon to change that figure by much that would then merit park and rides/light rail?

It seems to me that establishing urban growth boundaries, like a Portland, OR, would be the very first step(with many more steps to come) in any march towards light rail. And that would take a sea change in the mind set of most Grand Rapidians, not to mention several years.

Don

[GRDadof3]

In reality, I have to agree with you. I don't think there's enough density or traffic delay to get enough people to use commuter rail of any type. That's why I'm going to watch the Howell - AA commuter run this summer & next to see what that ridership is. If US 23 traffic is basically walking speed all summer due to construction, will commuters take the train? It should be interesting to watch.

Part of that would be as each line was added, the city would sell off existing DASH lots (in other words, people would have little choice if they worked downtown). And not at the overinflated prices they have been asking for recently. There is no reason that the city should be providing daily storage spaces for 10,000 cars, 9500 of which sit in those spaces for 8 hours a day doing nothing to add to the vibrancy of downtown.

[tracer1138]

In reality, I have to agree with you. I don't think there's enough density or traffic delay to get enough people to use commuter rail of any type. That's why I'm going to watch the Howell - AA commuter run this summer & next to see what that ridership is. If US 23 traffic is basically walking speed all summer due to construction, will commuters take the train? It should be interesting to watch.

The Catch22 is, you're not going to get good density without good transit (it's constantly going to be pushed down by parking needs) and by your argument, we shouldn't build good transit without good density.

I can assure you that Grand Rapids is plenty dense for good transit. The only problem with commuter rail along the 131 corridor is distance. Commuter rail tends to run over distances of over 15-20 miles. It would be more ideal along a route running from Holland or Muskegon. That's why bus rapid transit or light rail make more sense along that corridor. But I assure you, the area has enough density to support it - especially if you enact land use regulations to support it on top of that.

I've lived in New Jersey where they have commuter rail covering the whole state into and between both New York City and Philadelphia and some of those lines literally seem to run out into the middle of nowhere. Many communities out there wouldn't exist without them.

If you build it, they will come! (If you enact the right mix of zoning laws to go with it!)

[GRDadof3]

The Catch22 is, you're not going to get good density without good transit (it's constantly going to be pushed down by parking needs) and by your argument, we shouldn't build good transit without good density.

I can assure you that Grand Rapids is plenty dense for good transit. The only problem with commuter rail along the 131 corridor is distance. Commuter rail tends to run over distances of over 15-20 miles. It would be more ideal along a route running from Holland or Muskegon. That's why bus rapid transit or light rail make more sense along that corridor. But I assure you, the area has enough density to support it - especially if you enact land use regulations to support it on top of that.

I've lived in New Jersey where they have commuter rail covering the whole state into and between both New York City and Philadelphia and some of those lines literally seem to run out into the middle of nowhere. Many communities out there wouldn't exist without them.

If you build it, they will come! (If you enact the right mix of zoning laws to go with it!)

Here, here tracer1138!!

RDD's intentions are good, we just have to help him see the light! BTW Raildude'sDad, the Weslin Report was put out in 1998, almost a decade ago. Hard to believe ain't it?

As far as land use regulations, it might not be that hard of a fight:

- Many of the surrounding townships would probably love to have more restrictions on development. They are under tremendous pressure from developers, but they don't have the funding to fight it out in court. Especially Algoma, Cannon, Plainfield, Vergennes, Lowell, etc..

- Kent County has the PDR program that is currently not being funded adequately, that would set aside quite a bit of rural farmland around Kent County. It was heavily supported by Kent County residents. There's basically one Kent County Commissioner holding up the whole thing.

http://www.accesskent.com/YourGovernment/B...serve_Areas.pdf

- Kent County voters overwhelmingly defeated a plan to move the zoo out to Grand Rapids Township, and keep it in the city of GR, even though the land was going to be donated.

- Virtually every transit millage has been passed by Kent County voters

- Virtually every master plan put out recently in surrounding townships, residents have been begging for greenspace preservation and restrictions on further development