Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[Rizzo]

If we're going to be talking about using freight ROW how about that spur into the SE Side?

[Rizzo]

The lady that owns that old house won't like your idea . How about using the parking lot at Dwight Lydell County Park? (Low cost )

Stops - 13 Mile / Divison in Sparta, 10 Mile Road, Comstock Park, Delta Plex, 9th Street (American Seating Apts) and Bridge Street / Grand Valley, Amtrak Station, the old Isreals warehouse (Joel Rooks project), Franklin / Hall?, 36th Street/GM, 54th Street (old VKW yard/ parking lot), 68th Street and 84th Street (Douglas Walker County Park)

Rizzo: You can get these trains back up to authorized track speed real quick. They are only 200 ton trains, no 10,000 ton coal drag

Sure, but authorized track speed isn't going to help if the next station down is a mile or less. You're going to have to talk about breaking and acceleration in regards to customer comfort, safety, etc...

For a general scenario I'll go back to using the F40 or some other Diesel-Electric model and reference their operating manuals in regards to proper operating thresholds for passenger services. Indeed running a vehicle for coal isn't the same as passenger rail. I'll have to see about breaking and acceleration mphs with just two or three Pullman cars....

You are right though, but I'm seeing this from a customer service stand point.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

Sure, but authorized track speed isn't going to help if the next station down is a mile or less. You're going to have to talk about breaking and accelaration in regards to customer comfort, safety, etc...

I'll have to see about breaking and acceleration mphs with just two or three Pullman cars....

Let's go back to the DEMU's that RDD posted on New Jersey's River Line for a second. They seem to produce the best of both worlds: high speed (70 mph), tighter turns than DMU, no catenary so they can cross or even share freight rail at lower cost. The only thing that I can't nail down is the exact acceleration of this Stadler/Bombardier DEMU vs. a typical LRV. However, the River Line uses them in urban settings and on dedicated rail, so they can't be too bad.

But if acceleration is good, then the trek from Seward/LMD over to the East side of 131/Wealthy and the Interurban may be much easier to accomplish.

The other benefit is that coming from 19 Mile/Kent City or Sparta to Comstock Park, you could get those suckers up to what 50 - 60 mph? What are the speed limits on those sections?

The one downside I did read about is that they are a 70% low floor vehicle, so the platforms are a bit higher than standard LRV platforms. Modifications would have to be made to the stations if they ever switched over to LRV.

[Rizzo]

Not sure about DMU right now, but some LRVs such as those with the Portland Max will get something like 3 miles per hour per second in acceleration and maybe 3 miles per hour per second for deceleration. There's an envelope where you need to be to ensure safety, comfort, etc...

If you did switch over to the Interurban there would be the problem of noise reduction and the cost to mitigate it along the whole track length where residential occupies. From what I've learned this isn't such a concern with most LRT setups.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

Not sure about DMU right now, but some LRVs such as those with the Portland Max will get something like 3 miles per hour per second in acceleration and maybe 2 miles per hour per second for deceleration. There's an envelope where you need to be to ensure safety, comfort, etc...

If you did switch over to the Interurban there would be the problem of noise reduction and the cost to mitigate it along the whole track length where residential occupies. From what I've learned this isn't such a concern with most LRT setups.

Try this Rizzo:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&...j0FuxKKYpl7BCPA

[Explorer55]

Thanks Explorer55. I may have missed it. So the goal for a locally driven transit initiative would be to set up funding mechanisms for both capital expenditures, and to cover operating costs, but even without FTA funding, it's critical to have FTA approval of the work so that it meets transportation guidelines, and these efforts should be overseen by the Grand Valley Metro Council? I can understand that, and especially if federal funds for expansions are sought in the future, you want to make sure your current system is up to snuff. I sincerely have my doubts we can beat out the big players in getting New Starts money any time soon.

By my computations, a 1% local Kent County sales tax would raise about $1.1 Billion in 15 years, which would most likely cover the costs of about 15 miles of electric light rail, about 6 miles of modern electric streetcars, and about 18 miles (Holland to GR) of low-cost commuter rail DMU or DEMU, as well as operating costs of those lines. In fact, tax revenues would more than cover operating costs from years 16 and beyond. Or at least it's close enough that the idea should be strongly pursued, even if it means trimming back a bit on the distances.

I ran a comparison, and even if our sales tax here were 7% (6 state, 1 local), we'd still be below: Charlotte, Austin, Denver, Kansas City, Nashville, Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago and many other cities, and even with: Raleigh, Des Moines, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Louisville, all of which have combined state and local sales taxes. Michigan is one of only a few states without local sales taxes. We would not be sacrificing any competitive advantage IMO. This would also be modeled closely after the state's sales tax, which exempts food and prescription medicines to lessen the burden on lower income families and the elderly.

I understand if you can't comment directly on my idea, but just to share my thought process.

I don't know enough about the particular numbers you refer to in order for me to comment on your estimates, but I will say that when setting up a funding mechanism for transportation revenues, establishing the appropriate boundaries is crucial. Will all of Kent County want to "buy" in? Should at least part of Ottawa County be included? What is the ITP service area now? Is that a place to start or should it be expanded or modified? What type of services are being proposed and what areas/populations will those serve and to what extent? What is the logical or practical service area to set up initially? Who's in and who"s out? How does the proposed system coincide with the metro area transportation planning boundaries? Will an increase in the sales tax cause at least some people to shop outside the transit tax area to save a few bucks? These are just some of the questions that could affect identification and establishment of the revenue base, the financing capabilities, and the projects/services the transit system would be able and should provide.

[Rizzo]

I don't foresee Kent county voters paying for a system that services the Lake shore communities. It might be better if we don't that way the tax percentage can go down some.

[GRDadof3]

I tend to agree that perhaps the commuter rail to Holland may be down the road outside of our plan timeframe.

The North - South corridor we are discussing, if it went from 54th to Comstock Park, takes it through the existing ITP service area (Grand Rapids, Wyoming, Kentwood, Walker). Outside of that would require bringing in new players (townships of Alpine, Gaines Township). It might behoove us to stick with the ITP area for a starter system. It would be concentrated along the 131 corridor, which is by far the most dense area of Kent County, has the most employment, and carries the most vehicular traffic. It is also crossed by 5, perhaps 6 current RAPID lines. In addition, many residents Byron Township, Gaines Township, Dorr Township, Plainfield Township, Alpine Township, Algoma Township would benefit from such a system.

Retail opportunities just outside of Kent County are very minimal, including some small village type retail in Georgetown Township, Meijer and Target in Jenison, etc.. The greatest concentration sits in Kent County with Rivertown, 28th Street, Alpine, Plainfield, and several other neighborhood centers. In addition, both new "Village" retail projects are proposed for Kent County in Walker and in Grand Rapids Township, including the new Cabela's in Walker. The Walker project is projected to draw many visitors from outside Kent County, not only to its store but to spinoff ventures in the development.

The only downside scenario would be people travelling to outside Kent County to buy cars to save on sales tax, but a $30,000 vehicle will only have $300 tacked on. Don't know if people will drive a long distance to Holland or Muskegon to buy a car just save a few bucks.

If the local sales tax legislation were passed, I would presume that Ottawa County would also be able to set up a mass transit authority and possibly "patch-in" to our system via commuter rail. The plan would that it is a "county-wide" tax applicable to any goods purchased in any retail store in Kent County, minus grocery food and prescriptions.

I envision the whole system (LRT and streetcars) being run by either a new division of ITP, or a county level transportation authority, or a mix of the two. Setting up TIF zones and disbanding the DASH system will require cooperation from the ITP cities, so there would have to be coordination of efforts.

This is all just speculation BTW, so don't anyone start panicking.

[GRDadof3]

Meetup Saturday, March 3rd. Details forthcoming, or watch for info in your inbox.

[Rizzo]

I don't know enough about the particular numbers you refer to in order for me to comment on your estimates, but I will say that when setting up a funding mechanism for transportation revenues, establishing the appropriate boundaries is crucial. Will all of Kent County want to "buy" in? Should at least part of Ottawa County be included? What is the ITP service area now? Is that a place to start or should it be expanded or modified? What type of services are being proposed and what areas/populations will those serve and to what extent? What is the logical or practical service area to set up initially? Who's in and who"s out? How does the proposed system coincide with the metro area transportation planning boundaries? Will an increase in the sales tax cause at least some people to shop outside the transit tax area to save a few bucks? These are just some of the questions that could affect identification and establishment of the revenue base, the financing capabilities, and the projects/services the transit system would be able and should provide.

I'd be really interested in hearing from Mr. Morgan and the Kent County Subcommittee on county wide transit. I would hope that when the committee regroups they discuss what they have found -- they might have done a lot of leg work (maybe getting the ball rolling on the local sales tax legislation.)

[Explorer55]

I mentioned Ottawa County not in the context of providing commuter rail service to Holland or other Lakeshore communities, but to provide more "mundane" transit services to the Ottawa Co. suburbs of Grand Rapids. To my knowledge, Jenison, Hudsonville, Georgetown Twp, etc., are part of the GR MPO (GVMC) and it is not a good idea to have more than one transit operator in a metro area if that can be avoided (i.e.there shouldn't be a separate public transportation provider just for the Ottawa Co. portion of the GR region), . Before you can run, you need to learn to walk, and expanding local and express bus services to outlying suburbs may be a good way to learn how to walk.

Here's an article that might be of interest (if you haven't read it already):

http://www.mlui.org/transportation/fullart...sp?fileid=16880

[Rizzo]

I think that portion is growing like crazy and will need some form of mass transit in the near future.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

I mentioned Ottawa County not in the context of providing commuter rail service to Holland or other Lakeshore communities, but to provide more "mundane" transit services to the Ottawa Co. suburbs of Grand Rapids. To my knowledge, Jenison, Hudsonville, Georgetown Twp, etc., are part of the GR MPO (GVMC) and it is not a good idea to have more than one transit operator in a metro area if that can be avoided (i.e.there shouldn't be a separate public transportation provider just for the Ottawa Co. portion of the GR region), . Before you can run, you need to learn to walk, and expanding local and express bus services to outlying suburbs may be a good way to learn how to walk.

Here's an article that might be of interest (if you haven't read it already):

http://www.mlui.org/transportation/fullart...sp?fileid=16880

Yes, thanks E55. I have read that article. MLUI has been a strong proponent of expanded mass transit for the Grand Rapids area for a long time, through various articles like this one, and also through their sister publication, Rapidgrowthmedia (another article).

I agree that whatever transit body was set up to run this new system, it should probably include the Ottawa County suburbs of Grand Rapids, even if they are not served by the first legs. Especially since a great deal of their tax dollars would be going to this new body (taxation with representation). We're taking all these different elements into consideration.

[GRDadof3]

Just to keep you transit addicts fed for awhile, here's a video of a proposed streetcar line in Tucson that is very similar to the recent GT2 recommended Monroe Ave streetcar:

http://www.nc3d.com/content/view/52/93/

Enjoy!

[tamias6]

Thanks for posting the vidclip. I can very well envision a system like the Tucson proposal working here in GR. One question. I noticed diamond shaped markings along the guide ways. Do these marking indicate the street lanes the system occupies as HOV lanes? If so that would mitigate the concern of the system competing with automotive traffic to a great extent.

Just to keep you transit addicts fed for awhile, here's a video of a proposed streetcar line in Tucson that is very similar to the recent GT2 recommended Monroe Ave streetcar:

http://www.nc3d.com/content/view/52/93/

Enjoy!

[GRDadof3]

Thanks for posting the vidclip. I can very well envision a system like the Tucson proposal working here in GR. One question. I noticed diamond shaped markings along the guide ways. Do these marking indicate the street lanes the system occupies as HOV lanes? If so that would mitigate the concern of the system competing with automotive traffic to a great extent.

Yes, they normally mean HOV lanes. They may not be feasible on streets like Wealthy for the Gaslight Village leg, due to there only being 2 lanes now, but they may work on Monroe Ave where it's a 4 lane street. Sometimes HOV lanes are strictly enforced during certain times of day as well.

tamias6, I think if you and Rizzo put your talents together, I bet you guys could do a Monroe Ave streetcar video.

[Rizzo]

I'm not sure about it, but there is a storyboard and concept in the works.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

The Grand Rapids Press supports expanded mass transit

Last bullet point at the end. This was written by the Press' editor.

And a letter of opposition to downtown streetcars.

His point actually is in agreement with mine that streetcars alone won't solve anything unless incorporated into a metro-wide system.

[Rizzo]

Here's another Letter to the Editor:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ss...&thispage=2

[Veloise]

Here's another Letter to the Editor:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ss...&thispage=2

Paul Moore, XXOOOOO!

[GRDadof3]

Nice letter. The average lifespan of a rail line is what, 50 years? In Michigan, the average lifespan of one lane of highway is nowhere near that (maybe 20), especially with all the salt and abuse they take. Seems like of all the states in the country, Michigan should be looking at alternatives to concrete and asphalt to move people around.

[Explorer55]

Here's a series of presentations on transportation, sponsored by those folks in Portland, that you may find helpful.

http://www.cts.pdx.edu/seminars.htm

In particular, I recommend viewing Donald Shoup's video. It's on a topic that just doesn't get the attention I think it deserves.

[Raildudes dad]

Nice letter. The average lifespan of a rail line is what, 50 years? In Michigan, the average lifespan of one lane of highway is nowhere near that (maybe 20), especially with all the salt and abuse they take. Seems like of all the states in the country, Michigan should be looking at alternatives to concrete and asphalt to move people around.

I must be dense, I don't get the point of Moore's letter. I'm a road guy & if I don't get it, I don't think others will either.

Lifespan of rail line? Rail that was rolled in the 20's is still in service on light & medium density lines. Rail only 15 years old can be totally shot on high density superelevated curves. Rail needs continual maintenance. It suffers from contaminated ballast, soft spots, low joints, loose bolts, deteriorating ties etc. How do you think that right of way stays "clean" - yearly herbacide treatment. Don't think you can build rail and ignore it.

Us 131, I-96 & 196 in GR were built in the early 60's. Some sections are still in service, granted they need repair but it has been in service for over 40 years. Not too shabby for a pavement stucture carrying far more traffic with much heavier trucks than the orginal design ever figured on.

[GRDadof3]

I must be dense, I don't get the point of Moore's letter. I'm a road guy & if I don't get it, I don't think others will either.

Lifespan of rail line? Rail that was rolled in the 20's is still in service on light & medium density lines. Rail only 15 years old can be totally shot on high density superelevated curves. Rail needs continual maintenance. It suffers from contaminated ballast, soft spots, low joints, loose bolts, deteriorating ties etc. How do you think that right of way stays "clean" - yearly herbacide treatment. Don't think you can build rail and ignore it.

Us 131, I-96 & 196 in GR were built in the early 60's. Some sections are still in service, granted they need repair but it has been in service for over 40 years. Not too shabby for a pavement stucture carrying far more traffic with much heavier trucks than the orginal design ever figured on.

Not too shabby? Sorry RDD, I'm no highway guy but 131 and I-196 are a complete disgrace. They're loud, broken, worn down to the nub, in disrepair, ugly and greatly outdated. They're "duck-taped" highways. Have you noticed if you are driving on I-196 in the old section, you can barely hear yourself think, not less your passengers, until you reach the new pavement section out by the Beltline? The merge/weave lanes were built for 1960's levels of traffic and speed, the I-96/I-196/East Beltline interchange was built for another era (or by someone who failed their licensing exam), and the joint repairs they did last year only made them worse.

I wasn't saying that rail is maintenance-free, but how long can a properly maintained, relatively straight section of rail last before it has to be replaced? Especially one that carries light rail trains? That was my point. I've read it can last 50 years or more.

Anyway, Moore is no Pulitzer, but I do get his point that it doesn't make a lot of sense for the Press to compare a streetcar line to a convention center. Maybe they just pulled something in Grand Rapids with a multi-million dollar price tag out of their asses.

In particular, I recommend viewing Donald Shoup's video. It's on a topic that just doesn't get the attention I think it deserves.

I got about 12 minutes into it. I'll try and catch more tomorrow.

[Raildudes dad]

Not too shabby? Sorry RDD, I'm no highway guy but 131 and I-196 are a complete disgrace. They're loud, broken, worn down to the nub, in disrepair, ugly and greatly outdated. They're "duck-taped" highways. Have you noticed if you are driving on I-196 in the old section, you can barely hear yourself think, not less your passengers, until you reach the new pavement section out by the Beltline? The merge/weave lanes were built for 1960's levels of traffic and speed, the I-96/I-196/East Beltline interchange was built for another era (or by someone who failed their licensing exam), and the joint repairs they did last year only made them worse.

I wasn't saying that rail is maintenance-free, but how long can a properly maintained, relatively straight section of rail last before it has to be replaced? Especially one that carries light rail trains? That was my point. I've read it can last 50 years or more.

Anyway, Moore is no Pulitzer, but I do get his point that it doesn't make a lot of sense for the Press to compare a streetcar line to a convention center. Maybe they just pulled something in Grand Rapids with a multi-million dollar price tag out of their asses.

I got about 12 minutes into it. I'll try and catch more tomorrow.

Yes 131, 96, and 196 are outdated and built for another era (How about comparing a late 50's early 60's car to todays' vehicles A/C was a luxury option, AM only radio standard, no seat belts, no airbags etc etc etc.). You should see the design ADT's (average daily traffic) for back then, just a mere fraction of the actual ADT today. The 96, 196, Beltliine interchange worked fine in those days (actually started driving myself shortly after it was built ) My point is, the pavement structure has held up remarkably well. 196 west of the Beltline is better than it was, yes, it needs rebuilding and widening. If you have a severe noise problem, we should discuss tires. Some brands are much noiser than others. (Got into a serious discussion with my boss over a road 's condition one time, he drove an Explorer at the time, ride quality and noise was much worse than the Chevy Celebrity I was driving).

The actual steel rail can last forever on a light or medium density line. But, the joints (on jointed rail), ties etc all require periodic maintenance. Deferred maintenance lowers the allowable speed limit. The number of "defects" and type all affect the allowable speed. The FRA standards determine the maximum allowable speed based on track condition. The operator of the train set will be held accountable for not reducing the speed limit accordingly and train crew members are held accountable for exceeding speed limits (Locomotives have speed recorders and the tapes are used to determine compliance with speed limits).

(We have lots to discuss Saturday )