Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[Allison Slater]

the Weslin Report was put out in 1998, almost a decade ago. Hard to believe ain't it?

O_O

You're making me feel old and I'm only 22..

[tracer1138]

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..

It's funny you should mention more restrictions because actually I believe the opposite is true... and that's the best part!

We talk about land use regulations and hold them up as the savior to our problems, but what we don't realize is that the very regulations that can save us can also be used against us... the advocates for sprawl are working within the system to achieve their ends, let me explain.

When sprawl advocates defend suburbia they almost always bring the free market into play. "Let people decide where they want to live" they say, telling government to but out - an affront to all hints of regulation that pop up. The problem is, the free market in these cases isn't functioning at all. The system is already so heavily regulated and sprawl so heavily subsidized that we see the equivalent of a market failure... where people are not privy to the real costs of their actions (apropos in the case of transit - the time plus money costs of travel).

Evidence of the degradation of the free market is most clearly visible in the existence of exclusionary zoning - or in other words, the artificial caps that communities place on densities (usually disguised behind road setbacks and floor to height ratios). There are probably hundreds of examples out there, many I have read about in passing newspaper clips here and there, where developers have wanted higher density than the communities will allow. Now if anyone should be privy to demand in the free market, it should be developers and NOT government, at least that's what libertarians - like myself - and fiscal conservatives should tell you. So clearly there's a inconsistency or, dare I say, hypocrisy in those arguments.

Consider the fascinating case study of Houston vs. Dallas. Dallas uses common zoning laws found throughout the country and especially in the south and Texas where sprawl is king (and yet Dallas still has a quickly expanding transit system). As a result, we see the expected mess of freeways, wasteful single family homes on huge lots and scores and scores of NIMBYs. Houston on the other hand is unique in its position among large cities as it has NO ZONING LAWS whatsoever! Surprisingly, Houston has an interesting mix of density (example, out near University Place) and single family homes (certainly not built on huge lots, but rather close together) which is probably more indicative of what people really want.

Even still sprawl is subsidized in Houston. It takes more than zoning laws to open up the free market, you also have to give people choice in terms of transportation (since, as any economist will tell you, if there is no choice, there's no real competition and there's another market failure for you). There are federal considerations too. Obviously Houston still suffers in density from the burdens placed on it by, what I call, the great housing rape of the 1950s.

btw: here's a fun article about Houston http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/sto...al1.html?page=3

My point is, you don't need to over-regulate, or even regulate more than we already are to get the kind of development we're all talking about and to make transit viable. It just takes the right mix of regulation and right levels of support and understanding at all levels of government. THE FREE MARKET CAN BE YOUR FRIEND.

Did I completely stray away from the point, or does it makes sense what I'm trying to get across here?

Edited February 16, 2007 by tracer1138

[Rizzo]

^Interesting points you make. With an LRT starter line you could zone or eliminate zones for property near each station. Most people would considered 1/4-1/2 mile as 'walkable,' so property within this radius would be subject to that.

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.

The 110,000 was my assumption.... Now that I did the numbers and counting in 3 Miles I revise it to: 229,335 people.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

It's funny you should mention more restrictions because actually I believe the opposite is true... and that's the best part!

We talk about land use regulations and hold them up as the savior to our problems, but what we don't realize is that the very regulations that can save us can also be used against us... the advocates for sprawl are working within the system to achieve their ends, let me explain.

When sprawl advocates defend suburbia they almost always bring the free market into play. "Let people decide where they want to live" they say, telling government to but out - an affront to all hints of regulation that pop up. The problem is, the free market in these cases isn't functioning at all. The system is already so heavily regulated and sprawl so heavily subsidized that we see the equivalent of a market failure... where people are not privy to the real costs of their actions (apropos in the case of transit - the time plus money costs of travel).

Evidence of the degradation of the free market is most clearly visible in the existence of exclusionary zoning - or in other words, the artificial caps that communities place on densities (usually disguised behind road setbacks and floor to height ratios). There are probably hundreds of examples out there, many I have read about in passing newspaper clips here and there, where developers have wanted higher density than the communities will allow. Now if anyone should be privy to demand in the free market, it should be developers and NOT government, at least that's what libertarians - like myself - and fiscal conservatives should tell you. So clearly there's a inconsistency or, dare I say, hypocrisy in those arguments.

Consider the fascinating case study of Houston vs. Dallas. Dallas uses common zoning laws found throughout the country and especially in the south and Texas where sprawl is king (and yet Dallas still has a quickly expanding transit system). As a result, we see the expected mess of freeways, wasteful single family homes on huge lots and scores and scores of NIMBYs. Houston on the other hand is unique in its position among large cities as it has NO ZONING LAWS whatsoever! Surprisingly, Houston has an interesting mix of density (example, out near University Place) and single family homes (certainly not built on huge lots, but rather close together) which is probably more indicative of what people really want.

Even still sprawl is subsidized in Houston. It takes more than zoning laws to open up the free market, you also have to give people choice in terms of transportation (since, as any economist will tell you, if there is no choice, there's no real competition and there's another market failure for you). There are federal considerations too. Obviously Houston still suffers in density from the burdens placed on it by, what I call, the great housing rape of the 1950s.

btw: here's a fun article about Houston http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/sto...al1.html?page=3

My point is, you don't need to over-regulate, or even regulate more than we already are to get the kind of development we're all talking about and to make transit viable. It just takes the right mix of regulation and right levels of support and understanding at all levels of government. THE FREE MARKET CAN BE YOUR FRIEND.

Did I completely stray away from the point, or does it makes sense what I'm trying to get across here?

I can see what you're saying. One thing that I think we have going for us here is that we don't have a lot of "sprawl-advocates" like L Brooks Patterson. There are a few on the Kent County Commission, but they're not quite as vocal and fortunately Kent County contains most of Grand Rapids' urban area.

The mere fact that Grand Rapids, Wyoming, Kentwood, Walker, East Grand Rapids, Gaines and Byron Twps, and the Forest Hills area are all contained within Kent County makes this area truly gifted when it comes to future planning. It gives us a common identity, and makes any kind of transit system easier to manage instead of across multiple county lines (like Lansing and Detroit).

I have to agree in a way that I don't think urban growth boundaries are going to work very well, and here's why. The bigger builders/developers in the Grand Rapids area know every speck of land in the county, every farmer/land owner, and when those farmers plan to retire. They know their building formula: land + infrastructure + labor + materials + overhead + margin = target home price that historically sells well in xyz school district. It's actually quite amazing. That's one of the reasons why Pulte Homes didn't do so well here. They were an outsider and were forced to pay top dollar for land, and had to cut on the other end which compromised quality. If a ring of "no build" zone is placed around the Grand Rapids area as it stands currently, these builders/developers will move outward to find available land, not inward. And they will then market those fringe developments as the "low-cost" alternative, and people will frustratingly follow (because they don't have a choice).

You can basically categorize new home buyers (the ones expanding the suburbs) in this area into a few discernible classifications:

a) empty nesters looking for a "different kind of space",

b) families with small children looking for a good school system,

c) families with older children looking for more room (usually in the same school system where kids have established friends),

d) people being transferred to the GR area for a specific job (almost all of which seem have school-aged children),

e) young first-time home buyers, possibly with a new baby

f) people moving to this area just because they've heard good things about it,

g) young professionals (small number in this area currently but growing),

h) an individual recently divorced

Because Grand Rapids has earned a reputation as a "good place to raise a family", groups b, c, d, e are by far the largest chunk. If they have a modest family income of $75 - $95,000 and are shopping for a home in the $200K range, their choices are VERY limited currently. Grand Rapids is out because of GRPS' reputation, and every realtor in town reinforces that to buyers to stay away. Most people cannot afford private school, and/or don't want to send their kids to a Catholic/Christian school (even many Christians). Forest Hills is too expensive at that price point. Byron Center is getting to be higher than that, unless you go South of the High School (84th Street). East Grand Rapids gets you a very small house. Wyoming/Grandville schools has some homes in that price range but the taxes are higher. Georgetown Twp has homes in that price range, but has a stigma. Kentwood is earning a bad reputation. So they move on to the next ring of Caledonia, Rockford, Allendale, Lowell, etc.. Do you see the problem? The current situation we are in has greatly restricted the choices for most middle-income families. You have to stop looking at suburbanites as the "enemy". There are economic and socio-political forces at work.

I believe a transit system (light rail and streetcars) would greatly enhance the image of the city and the neighborhoods, and make it more desirable, hence giving people another reason to choose to live in the city vs. the outer outer rings of no-mans land. It would give people MORE CHOICES. No urban growth boundary would be needed because the builders/developers would stop looking so much in the outer fringes and would be looking at infill opportunities (like some of them are already starting to do a bit more). I can speak firsthand that if we had a transit system in place in Grand Rapids, my family's next home would most assuredly be near a station, hopefully within walking distance. But since we have kids, the schools would still be a big issue.

Perhaps if more middle-class families, black, white, middle-eastern, Asian, Eastern European, decided to live in the city (because it was THE place to live), then it might help stabilize the school system that is predominantly serving single head households and the lower income families. Middle income families, especially those with one partner working from home or staying at home, are MUCH more involved in the school system because they have the time and resources (and more enthusiasm). I can envision it happening almost one school at a time (ie Coit School starts getting a cool reputation, Alger School starts getting a better reputation, etc....)

229,335, even better Rizzo! I think we said what, within 3 miles of the Southern corridor?

[Libertarian]

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.

I completely agree with you on this. It is ridiculous. What I am still having trouble understanding is why we should subsidize the urban sprawl(I am not using this perjoratively, only as a matter of fact) to the north? It seems if you provide rail service to the outlying areas with park/rides you are actually incentivizing this sprawl. For instance, if you run a line to rockford, it would give developers(who are an extremely strong force at the local AND state level) even more impetus to continue building up greenfields with no density what so ever. Residents can live in, say, Pierson and park in rockford on their way to downtown. High profit margins for the developers on this land, while providing big spacious lots. Fantastic. Who then pays for the extra infrastructure such as road widening, police protection et. al. in these outlying communities as the projected 70,000 or so people move to them in the next few years? We do as a state and mostly as a country subsidize this outward growth with publicly funded “freeways.” Isn’t that enough? Unforturnately(sorry for those who may live in outlying areas) I could care less how long it takes to get downtown from Rockford or Coopersville. Lastly, this causes an erosion in the tax base of Grand Rapids. Wouldn’t everyone want to live out there and take the train to work all paid for by the rest of the populace? Rail to outlying areas would only accelerate the development of rural Kent county that GRD has spoke of already.

I think we have a great solution already on the table with the BRT. I realize people are skeptical of this, but it would address the traffic congestion from 28th street to the s-curve. This line would also service Wyoming, which is the second largest municipality in Kent. The best part is is that after several years(or less, who knows) people using park/rides at 48th and 28th would start to see the common sense in possibly moving to a home that is close to stop along the proposed BRT. And of course with the BRTs added throughout the years we can get rid of those parking lots that most of us despise.

[Rizzo]

229,335, even better Rizzo! I think we said what, within 3 miles of the Southern corridor?

You are correct about 229,335.

Great response, BTW.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

I completely agree with you on this. It is ridiculous. What I am still having trouble understanding is why we should subsidize the urban sprawl(I am not using this perjoratively, only as a matter of fact) to the north? It seems if you provide rail service to the outlying areas with park/rides you are actually incentivizing this sprawl. For instance, if you run a line to rockford, it would give developers(who are an extremely strong force at the local AND state level) even more impetus to continue building up greenfields with no density what so ever. Residents can live in, say, Pierson and park in rockford on their way to downtown. High profit margins for the developers on this land, while providing big spacious lots. Fantastic. Who then pays for the extra infrastructure such as road widening, police protection et. al. in these outlying communities as the projected 70,000 or so people move to them in the next few years? We do as a state and mostly as a country subsidize this outward growth with publicly funded

[GRDadof3]

They're looking at running the streetcar feedback letters in Saturday's Press as a "cluster" in the editorial section. Strangely, the lady from the Press said they got letters from outside of Michigan in support of the system, who read about it "online".

[Libertarian]

I truly don't believe people will move for a BRT line. Maybe I say that because I wouldn't. We don't live in the outer fringes, but we also don't live near downtown. I wouldn't invest $200K + in a home near a BRT line that could be moved in the future.

The current BRT proposal has far too many stops to it between 28th and downtown to draw commuters off the highway. It's madness:

It's why people don't ride Greyhound. It takes you 4x the amount of time to get to your destination. If I board at 54th Street and work at Fifth Third Bank, I've got to sit through 15 separate stops before I get anywhere near work?? And why would I voluntarily subject myself to that? I'm afraid the South Division BRT is trying to be all things to all people, and it will fail to inspire anyone to make any changes. And it's being done with a less desirable vehicle on top of all that (busses). And even with traffic-light priority, it won't go nearly as fast as 131 traffic (even crawling along at 15 mph on 131).

My only thought about the park-n-rides is that despite every effort, there are still going to be people who want to live in the outer areas, putting pressure on the State and Federal government to subsidize additional freeway lanes. At least if they had an alternative, that pressure could be greatly alleviated, and would be healthier for the environment as well.

But my idea for a metro-wide system would be initially two light rail lines serving North and South, a possible BRT line to GVSU Allendale, and 4 streetcar lines like ITP showed (downtown circulator, Gaslight Village, West side, Healthcare Hill). Offering different solutions that address multiple issues would get more Kent County voters on board, IMO. If you look at any light rail system (Portland, Denver, Minneapolis), they all serve the suburban areas.

GT2 Study group's response? "We can't get federal funding for any of those systems". Insert Transit Sales Tax Here

I do agree that the current proposed route is madness. A straight shot up and down division would be ideal. Obviously more debate and community input is needed on the route. I still believe that communter rail is just that, though, useful for commuters. It does not add any vibrancy/density to the inner core and only gives incentive to move further away. When 5:00 rolls around it would be back to Sparta, just like it is now. For instance, if there is a park and ride in Coopersville, then Ravenna probably becomes even more viable as a bedroom community. What goes along with that is increased demand on the greater public to provide services to those communities than what is already being provided.

What those three cities, which you have mentioned, all have in common is that their commuter lines already connect (Portland, Minneapolis) to legitimate international airports. Denver will supposedly be adding a connection to their airport by 2016. Those three cities are also international tourist destinations save for Minneapolis. But Minn. still has a much greater draw than say Grand Rapids. Those are major differences that may not appear so, but in fact they really are. Tourist love easy transportation, at least I do. Most of the areas that their commuter/light rail lines serve are areas that are by and large already built up and will not fuel mass development of greenfields. Park and rides in Coopersville, Allendale, or even in Rockford will no doubt do that. You even mentioned, and I agree completely, that our beloved, so called developers(that is a debatable term in this instance), will be more than happy to build out from the park and rides. It is my opinion that the orchards/farms by Coopersville are some of the most scenic areas in Kent county. They are a true asset. I would hate to see them tore up. And, again, it is the taxpayer who is footing the bill on the negative externalities that would come with this type of system in our area.

Obviously I am not going to persuade you GRD, but I believe that our goals our the same, it is our means to that end which is different. We both want a vibrant urban core. I have read your posts and admired your photos for over a year so I am somewhat sure we can agree on this. I just believe we need everyone to get behind a system that actually builds up downtown and the adjacent areas, instead of developing an area like Coopersville or beyond.

[GRDadof3]

I do agree that the current proposed route is madness. A straight shot up and down division would be ideal. Obviously more debate and community input is needed on the route. I still believe that communter rail is just that, though, useful for commuters. It does not add any vibrancy/density to the inner core and only gives incentive to move further away. When 5:00 rolls around it would be back to Sparta, just like it is now. For instance, if there is a park and ride in Coopersville, then Ravenna probably becomes even more viable as a bedroom community. What goes along with that is increased demand on the greater public to provide services to those communities than what is already being provided.

What those three cities, which you have mentioned, all have in common is that their commuter lines already connect (Portland, Minneapolis) to legitimate international airports. Denver will supposedly be adding a connection to their airport by 2016. Those three cities are also international tourist destinations save for Minneapolis. But Minn. still has a much greater draw than say Grand Rapids. Those are major differences that may not appear so, but in fact they really are. Tourist love easy transportation, at least I do. Most of the areas that their commuter/light rail lines serve are areas that are by and large already built up and will not fuel mass development of greenfields. Park and rides in Coopersville, Allendale, or even in Rockford will no doubt do that. You even mentioned, and I agree completely, that our beloved, so called developers(that is a debatable term in this instance), will be more than happy to build out from the park and rides. It is my opinion that the orchards/farms by Coopersville are some of the most scenic areas in Kent county. They are a true asset. I would hate to see them tore up. And, again, it is the taxpayer who is footing the bill on the negative externalities that would come with this type of system in our area.

Obviously I am not going to persuade you GRD, but I believe that our goals our the same, it is our means to that end which is different. We both want a vibrant urban core. I have read your posts and admired your photos for over a year so I am somewhat sure we can agree on this. I just believe we need everyone to get behind a system that actually builds up downtown and the adjacent areas, instead of developing an area like Coopersville or beyond.

I see what you're saying, and I am persuadable. I'm just thinking of where people are living and where they are going. It'd be interesting to poll all the downtown area employers, and the downtown campuses, and have them list what zip codes they're employees and students are coming from, and plot it out. Since downtown mainly employs white collar, middle management, professors and medical professionals, I'd bet you'd get big hits for Forest Hills, Rockford, East Grand Rapids, Heritage Hill, Plainfield Twp, Byron Center, Wyoming, Grandville, and Hudsonville. Suburbs with easy highway access to downtown. A lot of students are probably near downtown, but also the big apartment areas like Grandville, Kentwood, and Alpine.

My belief is that those areas are already developing rapidly, because land is cheap, taxes are low, shopping aplenty, and schools are decent. I don't think a park-n-ride at West River and 131 is going to persuade anyone to move to that area, but it might get people already moving to that area out of their cars.

Here's an idea, what if the lines to Rockford and Coopersville stopped in their downtowns? The White Pine Trail goes right though downtown Rockford, and the Coopersville/Marne railway comes pretty darned close to downtown Coopersville. Would a downtown station provide incentive for people to live in these small downtowns (more sustainable)? Sort of a mini-urban setting? Perhaps for empty nesters who don't want maintenance of a single-family home but aren't thrilled about a semi big city lifestyle in downtown GR? Just a thought.

I believe if a Transit Sales Tax were presented to Kent County voters, 1/2 of the voters (who don't live downtown or near downtown) would not support a system which ONLY serves the downtown and near-downtown neighborhoods. I'm afraid it would go down in flames. They support the RAPID because it's inexpensive and they feel it fills a vital role for the poor and disabled, and gets low-income workers to their jobs. Like it or not, that's the perception. But light rail and streetcars are another class altogether. They require a much bigger investment.

The more I write about it, the more I think it could work in this area, with a few champions and some good "dance partners" (as Kib calls them).

Thanks for the compliment BTW. I just write what my overactive brain is thinking hoping it connects with someone out there.

[Rizzo]

I would agree that having rail extended beyond the fringe would possible produce more sprawl, that is if there were additional stations in between. If you view rail in the context of sprawl inducing than you must acknowledge the fact that the only reason why rail is providing for sprawl is because of the entry node (station.) So the point of the station would act as a on/off ramp. One way I could see this project from not inducing the sprawl you speak of is only providing point to point access with limited stations in between (or none) until you get in to the Urbanized area of Grand Rapids.

I would hope that the agency who could operate this rail system would be strict to only provide stations in urban areas. Say a commuter line from Muskegon to Downtown would only be serviced as point to point. This would negate the excuse for rail induced sprawl in between Downtown and Muskegon.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

I would agree that having rail extended beyond the fringe would possible produce more sprawl, that is if there were additional stations in between. If you view rail in the context of spraw inducing than you must acknowledge the fact that the only reason why rail is providing for spraw is because of the entry node (station.) So the point of the station would act as a on/off ramp. One way I could see this project from not inducing the sprawl you speak of is only providing point to point access with limited stations in between (or non) until you get in to the Urbanized area of Grand Rapids.

I would hope that the agency who could operate this rail system would be strict to only provide stations in urban areas. Say a commuter line from Muskegon to Downtown would only be serviced as point to point. This would negate the excuse for rail induced sprawl in between Downtown and Muskegon.

I could get onboard with that Rizzo. Strictly prohibit stations in greenfield areas, and honestly I don't know that serving Coopersville or 10 Mile and 131 area is in the cards in my 2020 plan. My Northern run only put stations at West River/131 (which could also give people a fun train ride to baseball games from downtown or the South end of town), Turner and Ann St (already urbanized), Leonard and Seward (extremely dense), maybe Seward and 4th or 5th Street (undergoing a lot of revitalization), and a Seward Station at Lake Michigan Drive.

The South route is pretty urbanized and dense almost all the way to the South Belt now. The fringes extend out beyond 84th.

Our airport is not busy enough yet to serve with a downtown run.

[Libertarian]

I see what you're saying, and I am persuadable. I'm just thinking of where people are living and where they are going. It'd be interesting to poll all the downtown area employers, and the downtown campuses, and have them list what zip codes they're employees and students are coming from, and plot it out. Since downtown mainly employs white collar, middle management, professors and medical professionals, I'd bet you'd get big hits for Forest Hills, Rockford, East Grand Rapids, Heritage Hill, Plainfield Twp, Byron Center, Wyoming, Grandville, and Hudsonville. Suburbs with easy highway access to downtown. A lot of students are probably near downtown, but also the big apartment areas like Grandville, Kentwood, and Alpine.

My belief is that those areas are already developing rapidly, because land is cheap, taxes are low, shopping aplenty, and schools are decent. I don't think a park-n-ride at West River and 131 is going to persuade anyone to move to that area, but it might get people already moving to that area out of their cars.

Here's an idea, what if the lines to Rockford and Coopersville stopped in their downtowns? The White Pine Trail goes right though downtown Rockford, and the Coopersville/Marne railway comes pretty darned close to downtown Coopersville. Would a downtown station provide incentive for people to live in these small downtowns (more sustainable)? Sort of a mini-urban setting? Perhaps for empty nesters who don't want maintenance of a single-family home but aren't thrilled about a semi big city lifestyle in downtown GR? Just a thought.

I believe if a Transit Sales Tax were presented to Kent County voters, 1/2 of the voters (who don't live downtown or near downtown) would not support a system which ONLY serves the downtown and near-downtown neighborhoods. I'm afraid it would go down in flames. They support the RAPID because it's inexpensive and they feel it fills a vital role for the poor and disabled, and gets low-income workers to their jobs. Like it or not, that's the perception. But light rail and streetcars are another class altogether. They require a much bigger investment.

The more I write about it, the more I think it could work in this area, with a few champions and some good "dance partners" (as Kib calls them).

Thanks for the compliment BTW. I just write what my overactive brain is thinking hoping it connects with someone out there.

I could go for, and I would assume many more people as well, a rail corridor that would be similar to the Howell/Detroit setup. The Nashville example that you have cited is another great example, but with both instances we really don’t have much data as to whether they are successful. I really believe we need to use existing infrastructure. In addition, we should stay away from park and rides in areas that would have overzealous “developers” licking their chops waiting to profit on the backs of taxpayers. Don’t get me wrong I believe truly great communities have fixed guide way systems, what ever that may entail. Just like you said, people will only make investments in areas if they see tangible evidence that one of their main sources of transportation is going to be around for awhile.

My suggestions for a 2025 vision to shoot for are below. This thread moves so fast that sometimes it is hard to keep up, so if I cover something that has been addressed I apologize in advance. Also, I know that sharing rail rights, if tracks need upgrading, et. al. have been discussed in some detail, so my suggestions may be somewhat repetitive.

In light of Nashville and the Howell/Detroit line:

First priority would be to turn m-6 into a toll road. I am really tired of “free rides” on the “freeway.” This is the only expressway in Kent where it would be possible to add tolls because to the best of my knowledge it is not federally funded. 2)Utilize the CSX rail line from the airport to downtown for passenger service (given the willingness of CSX to do so). Park and ride/fly at the airport with stops near the Woodland Mall, Burton Street, Division Street and of course downtown. Visitors would be instantly impressed as well. 3)Utilize the Norfolk Southern line from Cutlerville to downtown with several stops along the way. Park and ride at Cutlerville 4)Utilize the CSX line from Grandville to downtown with a park and ride in Grandville. 4)I am listing streetcars last, but they can fall anywhere in the process. I would like to see a somewhat comprehensive system serving the downtown and adjacent areas. If BRT can help fill the void by reducing cost they should be used. The Whitepine trail and the Allendale lines, in my mind, would be far too expensive and they would not serve enough people to justify their costs. Yes, I have seen the figures being thrown around and I trust Rizzo’s computations, but again I do not think that they could be cost effective. Laying new track seems to always promulgate in the worst ways the fears of critics, i.e. costs.

The best part, at least for me a Libertarian, is that you don’t need to have the government tell people where they can and cannot live/commute from. This is achieved through subtle incentives such as keeping the park and rides, for the most part, inside the man/woman-made growth boundaries that are the expressways ringing the city. I believe that this is also a cost-effective plan because you don’t have to lay rail lines. The infrastructure is already there.

[Libertarian]

I could get onboard with that Rizzo. Strictly prohibit stations in greenfield areas, and honestly I don't know that serving Coopersville or 10 Mile and 131 area is in the cards in my 2020 plan. My Northern run only put stations at West River/131 (which could also give people a fun train ride to baseball games from downtown or the South end of town), Turner and Ann St (already urbanized), Leonard and Seward (extremely dense), maybe Seward and 4th or 5th Street (undergoing a lot of revitalization), and a Seward Station at Lake Michigan Drive.

The South route is pretty urbanized and dense almost all the way to the South Belt now. The fringes extend out beyond 84th.

Our airport is not busy enough yet to serve with a downtown run.

I like this proposal for the north end, especially because it ends in Comstock Park.

[GRDadof3]

I like this proposal for the north end, especially because it ends in Comstock Park. I have always thought that CP has alot of potential and is actually quite "funky" in a good, hip way. Of course to go along with it I would need to see it utilize the CSX route, except for the last leg to the ball park. Hard to tell from the renderings. Does it use the CSX?

I only thought of the North end to give a big North South axis, and 131 is the most heavily traveled thoroughfare in the area, both North and South.

Here's a full-size version of that image:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/3859407...46af18dfa_o.jpg

This section completes the link to Seward. It all looks abandoned. In addition, several groups have big visionary plans for the old Lear Plant area that this runs through, called GrandWalk.

There is an old ROW that runs along the existing railway, and is quite wide. Full double-wide viaducts under I-96. Part of it is owned by Norfolk Southern, part owned by Consolidated Railways out of West Virginia, and from Comstock Park to 131 is already owned by the State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and serves as sort of an extension of the White Pine Trail. I think they originally were going to run the White Pine Trail down that direction but changed course and it now runs along the river and crosses the North Park Bridge to Monroe.

I even have pictures of the ROW. Start HERE at West River and 131, and click on the images to the right as it carries you toward downtown.

Rizzo's figures were for the Southern route on the Norfolk Southern down to Cutleville as you mentioned.

I think your plan is great. Where do I sign?

[Libertarian]

I only thought of the North end to give a big North South axis, and 131 is the most heavily traveled thoroughfare in the area, both North and South.

There is an old ROW that runs along the existing railway, and is quite wide. Full double-wide viaducts under I-96. Part of it is owned by Norfolk Southern, part owned by Consolidated Railways out of West Virginia, and from Comstock Park to 131 is already owned by the State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and serves as sort of an extension of the White Pine Trail. I think they originally were going to run the White Pine Trail down that direction but changed course and it now runs along the river and crosses the North Park Bridge to Monroe.

I even have pictures of the ROW. Start HERE at West River and 131, and click on the images to the right as it carries you toward downtown.

Rizzo's figures were for the Southern route on the Norfolk Southern down to Cutleville as you mentioned.

I think your plan is great. Where do I sign?

Hey, if it only costs in the neighborhood of 2.4 million for the service on the Howell line this does seem pretty feasible. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007702110610

I am sure many have seen the above link, but it is interesting nonetheless. For less than $100 million(maybe even far less) we could really put ourselves on the map… the UrbanRail.Net map that isJ But, it still seems that on the Comstock route there would be completely new rail lines added, which of course would increase my guesstimate materially.

On another note, I was at http://www.musiccitystar.org/eqimages.html , and it was pretty neat seeing the happy commuters enjoy their ride on the train. And finally, for those of you with a NYT Select login, here is an interesting article http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...DAB0994DE404482 . I could only see it now, enjoying a round with fellow UPers as we ride out to see the Whitecaps play or on the way home from a long day at work. Okay, well maybe not, but the thought is pretty funny. Too bad they are thinking of cancelling it on the LIRR, seems pretty popular.

[GRDadof3]

Hey, if it only costs in the neighborhood of 2.4 million for the service on the Howell line this does seem pretty feasible. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007702110610

I am sure many have seen the above link, but it is interesting nonetheless. For less than $100 million(maybe even far less) we could really put ourselves on the map

[Rizzo]

I think we should really consider holding 'workshops' or community meetings somewhere to hold a larger conversation. Its probably the most effective 'real' first step we can do, especially because this community would have to be apart of the effort.

We could basically invite local philanthropists, mayors, representatives, business men/woman, etc.. who have interest in this. I think if we have a head to the body the rest will follow.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

Libertarian, in response to your "laying new rail" would cost more, I think even if you use existing freight rail, it would all have to be torn out and replaced because it's not suitable now for passenger travel. They're proposing to replace all the rail on the Whitmore Lake to Ann Arbor line to bring it up to code.

[Libertarian]

I'm with ya on the "envisioning my future ride on the (need a good name) light rail line". I'd give my right leg to be on the inaugural ride too.

I agree with you that the Northern route is a good one but should wait until phase II or III due to needs and biggest ridership bang for the buck. Like I outlined in my hypothetical 2020 and Beyond Plan. Light rail down South first. Streetcars mixed in for connectors.

If most of us are in agreement that this is worth pursuing, what is the next step? We had a transit meetup back in the Fall, where we didn't have nearly the number of ideas or a vision that we do now. I keep thinking of Clay Chastain in Kansas City, who after nine years of putting it on the ballot, single-handedly got voters to approve a light rail transit tax last Fall. Now the city council and their transit board don't know what to do because they weren't prepared for it.

I still feel we are in disagreement, GRD. I am proposing the use of existing rail lines, much like the proposed Howell line. I could be wrong, but yours seems to lay new track. I feel that $1 billion is just too much at this juncture in the game. Maybe a combo of both. Streetcars with their own track are a must and they seem relatively inexpensive vis a vis a light rail line that were to run on its own tracks out to Comstock.

If we can, as UPers, come to agreement on some actual costs and a firm route plan then I believe that we need to form a “coalition.” While I was in college I worked at the state capitol and you would not believe the issues that actually got somewhere because people started these “coalitions.” I see our path, if we can come to a firm agreement on the particulars, much easier than the Kansas City gentleman because the world was against him--or so it seemed. In our case it seems that many influential people in our community are already embracing this idea somewhat. Just look at the Portland trip, for example. By creating our own “coalition” outside of the Rapid/city we can state our own case and actually be heard. I think, if it is cohesive enough, we can get the attention of the people we really need to get on board.

We would need to lay, no pun intended, the initial ground work for our “smart transit coalition.” This would include generating a cohesive message, contacting the media and sending out a press release, and then following up with whomever is willing to listen. It may sound complicated, but when I was interning for a public relations firm several years ago I saw the formation of these coalitions in the matter of several hours. Some were successful and some were not. The hard part is staying on message and really following through with whatever issue one is advocating. But, again, you really would be surprised at how easy it is to form something like this and alert the media of your intentions; the local media is always looking for stories. How often have you seen a two car pile-up make the nightly news? One caveat though, if one were to rush too fast into something like this, without being prepared, you run the risk of being passed up for dead even before you start.

Libertarian, in response to your "laying new rail" would cost more, I think even if you use existing freight rail, it would all have to be torn out and replaced because it's not suitable now for passenger travel. They're proposing to replace all the rail on the Whitmore Lake to Ann Arbor line to bring it up to code.

Oops, was busy writing my last post.

[Rizzo]

Depends on how fast you want to go... I'm guessing those commuters wont even break 25mph.

I stick by Dad's plan though. Either way, when the time comes were going to wish we did this sooner of half-assin' it.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

I don't believe it would be $1 Billion.

Downtown to Cutlerville is about 7.7 - 8 miles. Even at a hefty $40 million/mile (full light rail) you're only looking at $320 Million. Downtown to FifthThird Park is only 3.5 - 4 miles, so about $160 Million. Your idea to go from downtown out to Grandville is about 5 miles or $200 Million. On that route, a DEMU or DMU like Raildude'sDad posted might be sufficient and a fraction of that cost. But you can't go too cheap, especially on station design. I know, I'm spoiling people and getting into too much detail. Solid gold system, no. Duck-taped together system, no.

The GT2 Study did their own estimation of the South corridor and these were their findings:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/141440133_f878a7339a_o.jpg

They abandoned light rail and DMU because they were in the mindset that the majority of the funding would have to come from the FTA, and they didn't feel they could meet the FTA's stringent ridership forecasts to qualify for its rapidly shrinking pool of money. Let's be honest, the current administration in Washington has drastically taken the wind out of transit and has quadrupled the requirements. They don't believe in it, but know they can't totally get rid of transit funding for fear of losing the large metropolitan vote.

There is the Senate Joint Resolution in Lansing now that would allow for a local sales tax. To me, that's the starting block. If we can remove the funding obstacle from our brainstorming, we're worlds ahead. It gives us the ability to be flexible. Right now, none of the proposed lines go by my house, so I'm just doing this because of the belief it will be a springboard for bigger and better things (and we'd look at moving). Grand Rapids is doing great, but I'm afraid we'll reach a plateau at some point in the near future without a seismic shift in how GR is perceived and how the city is growing. And the metro will continue to spread out to the far countryside because there are too many reasons not to live in the city.

[Libertarian]

I think we should really consider holding 'workshops' or community meetings somewhere to hold a larger conversation. Its probably the most effective 'real' first step we can do, especially because this community would have to be apart of the effort.

We could basically invite local philanthropists, mayors, representatives, business men/woman, etc.. who have interest in this. I think if we have a head to the body the rest will follow.

I just saw this post of yours and I agree.

[GRDadof3]

After you have one more post Libertarian, I can send you a PM with my letter to Mark Jensen and some figures that Rizzo worked on (you need 10 posts to receive/send PM's). I've kept them off the open forum for just those reasons.

I just realized I know one person who sits on the GT2 Study group who was not happy AT ALL with the routes/vehicles chosen. And he has 10x the enthusiasm for a metro-wide system then I do. Haven't heard from him in a while.

BTW Libertarian, a fellow Libertarian wrote into this blog regarding downtown streetcars:

http://blackbearspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/0...and-rapids.html

(read the comments below)

[Libertarian]

...There is the Senate Joint Resolution in Lansing now that would allow for a local sales tax. To me, that's the starting block...

Not trying to be argumentative, too much, just looking at this from all angles. I would tend to believe that a full 1% levied on car sales and appliance sales would create a maelstrom among various groups, not to mention one of the Devos’ who I believe owns Fox. I do agree that a sales tax in some form would be a great start. What do you think about a .75% sales tax on most things, save for big ticket items, and 1% property tax on the areas that will realize the most gain from our transportation dreams?