Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[Explorer55]

I have to disagree with you, there's still a lot of the original concrete pavement still in place in Kent County.

The I-96 concrete pavement has been reconstructed from 28th Street to I-69. It also has been reconstructed from Bristol west to the bituminous surface west of Coopersville. The original concrete has been covered with microsurfacing from 28th Street to the Grand River. (First micro work in this area way back when) It has bituminous surfacing over the orignal concrete from the Grand River to Bristol.

The US 131 concrete pavement has been overlaid with bituminous surfacing from somewheres south of Shelbyville north to 76th Street. The concrete has been reconstructed from 76th Street to 44th Street. The original concrete pavement has been covered with microsurfacing from 44th to 28th (also first micro work in this area and has held up really well). The original concrete is still in place from 28th Street north to 10 Mile Road. It has had numerous joint repair projects both contracted out and some done by the DOT's maintenance agency, the Kent County Road Commission. About 5-10 years ago after the last joint project, it was diamond ground and was real smooth. The concrete pavement has been reconstructed on 131 from 10 Mile Road to 17 Mile Road. The original concrete pavement north of there to north of Pierson has been overlaid with bituminous surfacing . North of there, the original concrete is still in place without any surface treatment.

I-196 is the original concrete pavement from the East Beltline to Market Street (GRD3's favorite piece ). It's had joint repairs but most of the slab is still the original built in the 60's. The original concrete has been overlaid with bituminous surfacing from Market Street west to Holland as well as a short piece from 131 to Lane Ave.

I watched 196 east of the river being built by riding my bike there during the summer (no drivers license) and have lived in GR all my life except for Sept -June in 1968, 69, 70, and 71 when I lived in Hougton MI. If you'd like to review the as-built plans on file for these roadways at my workplace, I'd be happy to show them to you.

Trivia: The portable batch plant for 196 was on Service Drive between Plymouth & Ball. LW Edison was the contractor. It was paved with a batch mixer on tracks. Dump trucks with separate compartments for cement, sand and aggregate dumped into a skip which raised to load the mixer. Water was added, the raw materials mixed and then dumped in front of the screed which rode on the steel forms (No slip form pavers in those days). It's amazing what they did in those days with no computerized electronics and only rudimentary hydraulics.

Actually, I think you verified both of my points - 1) much of the original infrastructure of I-96 and other Interstates/or non-Interstate freeways has been repaired or replaced and 2) a lot more should be repaired or replaced (most pavements are not expected to last more than 20 -30 years and they are subject to more abuse in a freeze-thaw environment), but hasn't, mainly because the money isn't available and/or other projects have taken priority.

I'll take your word on the specifics.

[Libertarian]

Hey GRD, you never answered when I asked you about what you thought of a having a funicular going up medical mile.

[GRDadof3]

Hey GRD, you never answered when I asked you about what you thought of a having a funicular going up medical mile. Well, since it is a slow day in the transit thread... what do ya think?

http://perso.orange.fr/anthony.atkielski/FunicularLarge.jpg

Okay, maybe a stretch and a bit of a tourist trap. Ya never know, though! Gotta admit it would be an interesting ride.

If the Press building was redeveloped into something "medical-related", I think it'd be a great way to tie the two pieces together.

[Pappster85]

I think it's outstanding that there is such an interest in building a system of the like in Grand Rapids. If anything, the space saved by the trains could leave more room for other things that are more enjoyable. The footprint of any railroad is smaller then an expressway in just about every case. I mean look at Detroit on a map. It's such a cluster of expressways! From what I have seen the Grand Rapids area is too good looking for any mess like that. When the system is to mature it would be great to see them expand it maybe even up to Traverse City? I think that would be great! There actually is already a railroad grade that exists. Tracks remain up to Baldwin then the grade of the removed tracks runs right into Traverse City so one of the hard parts, the right of way, is done as long as sprawl does not eat it up. Something worth looking into.

[Veloise]

Found in partial answer to the question, "what does a bridge cost?"

http://www.bridgesite.com/

One forum has discussion of used & new bridges for sale and creation.

[Rizzo]

The Grand River could play a role in this. You could use the dam that already exists for a hydro plant on the Grand to power the LRT line ideas. I don't think you would have to build a huge one, you could channel a small portion of the river and utilize it. What about utilizing the incinerator/steam plant downtown to power a streetcar? Sounds like a small hydro-electric power source could be a great source of energy. Kind of adds to a "sustainability" argument of electrified LRT.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

(that video has not been sped up)

Dude! Thought some of you rail fans might enjoy that.

[gvsusean]

(that video has not been sped up)

Dude! Thought some of you rail fans might enjoy that.

I've ridden the TGV

[tamias6]

Uhhh....Tickets Please!!

(that video has not been sped up)

Dude! Thought some of you rail fans might enjoy that.

[numstead]

My ideal regional transit system would be a lot like Zurich's. Trains and buses come into the city from the suburbs. They stop at intermediate stations on the outskirts of city and the trains continue on to the central station. The street cars connnect the intermediate stations to each other and to the heart of the city.

Here's a cool diagram

Edited March 13, 2007 by golscorer4

[rivegauche]

My ideal regional transit system would be a lot like Zurich's. Trains and buses come into the city from the suburbs. They stop at intermediate stations on the outskirts of city and the trains continue on to the central station. The street cars connnect the intermediate stations to each other and to the heart of the city.

Here's a cool diagram

Saw similar trams in Oslo last summer.

[GRDadof3]

My ideal regional transit system would be a lot like Zurich's. Trains and buses come into the city from the suburbs. They stop at intermediate stations on the outskirts of city and the trains continue on to the central station. The street cars connnect the intermediate stations to each other and to the heart of the city.

Here's a cool

That's essentially what we're thinking of, except on a much smaller scale to start. Running DEMU's on the current Norfolk Southern and CSX lines from 54th Street all the way up to Comstock Park, with about 7 stations along the way. Then having Downtown Connector Streetcars (Trams) take people from the two main drop points (ITP Central area and West side near Lake Michigan Drive/Winter Ave) into downtown.

Proposed Route

Proposed Rolling Stock (Trains)

Using DEMU's is much less costly to build, with the O Train in Ottawa averaging about $2 - $3 Million/mile, and the River Line in New Jersey around $11 - $12 Million/mile. That's far less than typical electric light rail of $30 - $50 Million/mile. I don't want to give too much away yet, because we aren't going public for about another month or so. A lot of details still need to be worked out before we can present a plan that we hope county and city officials will get excited about, and run with. Despite the recent quietness of this thread, behind the scenes (off of UP) efforts have ratcheted up tremendously.

[Libertarian]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...D=2007703130370

Lets hope we can get the budget problems fixed or else borrowing money could get alot more expensive for municipalities/counties to raise money through bonds.

[GRDadof3]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...D=2007703130370

Lets hope we can get the budget problems fixed or else borrowing money could get alot more expensive for municipalities/counties to raise money through bonds. This is assuming that we would need to issue bonds and have the 1% sales tax go towards paying them off. Interesting nonetheless.

Idiots. I wonder how many companies have relocated to Michigan now because the Single Business Tax was eliminated: 0

I don't believe the State's credit rating affects county or municipality credit ratings directly, although the financial crisis may have trickle down effects.

[francishsu]

Using DEMU's is much less costly to build, with the O Train in Ottawa averaging about $2 - $3 Million/mile, and the River Line in New Jersey around $11 - $12 Million/mile. That's far less than typical electric light rail of $30 - $50 Million/mile. I don't want to give too much away yet, because we aren't going public for about another month or so. A lot of details still need to be worked out before we can present a plan that we hope county and city officials will get excited about, and run with. Despite the recent quietness of this thread, behind the scenes (off of UP) efforts have ratcheted up tremendously.

Is DEMU less costly to build than DMU? In the GT2 study, did they not estimate the capital and operating cost of DMUs along existing rail lines to be on par with LRT, and at the same time estimate ridership of DMUs to be less than half?

I've been supportive of the idea of utilizing existing rail lines (or building next to) for passenger lines, but the GT2 figures conflicted with my speculation that building transit along Norfolk/CSX would be less costly.

[GRDadof3]

Is DEMU less costly to build than DMU? In the GT2 study, did they not estimate the capital and operating cost of DMUs along existing rail lines to be on par with LRT, and at the same time estimate ridership of DMUs to be less than half?

I've been supportive of the idea of utilizing existing rail lines (or building next to) for passenger lines, but the GT2 figures conflicted with my speculation that building transit along Norfolk/CSX would be less costly.

We're working on that right now. The GT2 study pegged DMU's on the existing lines at nearly $363 Million, and the only way we can figure out how they came to that figure was actually BUYING all the existing freight lines and building all new track. First of all, we're not sure how that's even possible, especially with GM at 36th Street needing a lot of track. Second of all, why do that, when there are plenty of other systems to model after that lease freight lines. Otherwise, there's no other way they could have reached a figure of nearly $50 Million per mile. The only way that light rail lines approach that much in other cities is if you build tunnels, bridges and flyovers (rail bridges over street crossings) instead of at-grade crossings. Even the fabled Weslin report, which had many inaccuracies, pegged DMU's on the Southern freight lines at about $1 - $2 Million/mile. And why the GT2 study predicted more ridership for the Division Bus Rapid Transit over a light rail line up the rail corridor is also quite perplexing.

[Rizzo]

An interesting link: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/1,1607,7-151-...4809---,00.html Scroll down to, "Who we are, how we travel"

Interestingly, 67% of those surveyed in our region say highways should be given more emphasis as opposed to light rail, buses, and bike lanes.

[GRDadof3]

Ridership on public transit in the U.S. climbed to the highest level in five decades in 2006 - USA Today

I'm sure it has a lot to do with gas prices last year. What are they up to now? $2.50+ again?

[tamias6]

Today, the family car gobbled up $38.07 cents in gas. Oh yeah, almost forgot that $20.00 top-off last week to get us by 'till payday. So almost sixty bucks burped out the exhaust pipes in less than two stinking weeks. That Park 'n' Ride lot behind Walker's new fire station is starting to look real good as a way get to Downtown.

Ridership on public transit in the U.S. climbed to the highest level in five decades in 2006 - USA Today

I'm sure it has a lot to do with gas prices last year. What are they up to now? $2.50+ again?

[tamias6]

First of all let's make one thing clear I am in full tilt support of bringing in a more robust mass transit system, such as streetcars, LRT's, BRT's, and the like here into the Grand Rapids Area. Anyone who is keen in smart city planning and sustainable urbanization knows the benefits such a mass transit system can bring to Grand Rapids. They ranges from a vibrant city center and positive and long lasting boosts to the local economy to less urban sprawl, and positive effects to quality of life. It is undisputed and a given that a better form of mass transit to serve the metro area is sorely needed to insure our future as a viable and thriving metro area.

However, Streetcars, LRT's and fully implemented BRT's do carry heavy prices tags that will no doubt be a very tough sell to local and state officials. The State is suffering from a budget crisis the likes of which has not been seen in a very long time while cities such as Grand Rapids proper are feeling the pinch from dwindling city revenue sharing. Therefore, Mass transit advocates that are working hard to support and promote mass transit initiatives must also be prepared to accept the fact that mass transit visions may not become reality for a long time to come if at all as Local and State officials, struggling with financial shortages and also operating on a stubbornly entrenched automotive centric mindset, stand the likelihood of balking at the thoughts of spending the millions necessary to install mass transit in the area, no matter how much convincing mass transit advocates try to do. I'm not saying that advocates should give up on there visions of a better mass transit oriented city. In fact efforts to promote mass transit are now more important than ever because giving up on the idea would be social-economic suicide considering that all successful cities from mid sized cities like Portland Oregon to world class Alpha Cities like New York, Tokyo, and London all feature a variety of robust mass transit systems. However, considering the economic conditions of the state and local financial short falls and the likely hood of local and state officials dismissing mass transit as "too expensive", local mass transit advocates must compile cost effective alternatives to their visions that bring at least some of the benefits of a mass transit system but at lower cost should their preferred visions fall through. Therefore this thread's purpose is just that, to discuss low cost ideas of bringing to our area the benefits of Mass transit.

That in mind I'll start the ball rolling by posting my idea of a lower cost alternative to my own visions for a mass transit oriented Grand Rapids. The RAPID bus service is currently a very well managed system that has won numerous awards in performance and service. Also, year after year the RAPID is seeing record breaking ridership numbers. In short the RAPID is proving itself as an effective means of mass transit right under our noses. However like most bus services across the country, It is not a fixed guide way system and lacks its own ROW's. Therefore like normal automobiles the bus fleet suffers the negative effects of congestion, traffic signals, and the stop and go nature of urban driving. In short a bus is no different than an automobile other than the fact its bigger and carries allot more people.

But there are off-the-shelf-ways coupled with adjustments to city planning to give the RAPID service at least some of the qualities of a more robust mass transit system with out the need of ROW's new vehicles, or laying tracks. First, to address congestion and to establish some of the benefits of dedicated ROW's, is to simply mark off dedicated bus lanes or at least HOV (High occupancy vehicle) lanes where ever possible along service routes to keep traffic out of the way of buses. Local and country laws can adjusted to discourage delinquent drivers from driving in the bus lanes via traffic citations and stiff fines. Secondly to remedy the stop and go nature of driving on surface streets and to give the RAPID some of the efficiencies LRT's and BRT's is to give the bus fleet traffic light priority. This can be easily done with the same type of transmitters found in emergency service vehicles that forces a traffic signal to give a green light. With service routes featuring dedicated bus lanes and traffic light priority, the efficiency of the RAPID would be greatly improved.

Lastly to complete the picture is to make adjustments to city planing to steer density and population to the services routes instead of the service routes coming to them. One of the biggest complaints Mass Transit Advocates have about buses and even BRT's is the lack of permanence that a fix guide way based system such as LRT's provides. Bus routes can and do get moved around to meet the demands of the population. For example the RAPID is currently in the mist of spending thousands of dollars to move some of its routes to better suit changing population patterns. But despite the variably of bus routes, a public transit route is a public transit route no matter what type of transit serves that route. Bus routes can be made permanent by city leaders working with the RAPID to make adjustments to formulate Form Based codes and changes to master plans to encourages TOD's (Transit Oriented Developments)along existing service routes. With these changes bus routes would not have to be moved as the people would come to the bus routes instead of the other way around.

Even though I would very much prefer my vision of a comprehensive network of LRT's and Streetcars to serve the metro area. I see a lot of potential for the RAPID bus service. With some tuning and tweaking the RAPID could be made into something that could at least provide many of the benefits of mass transit should more preferred visions fail to convince local and state officials. Even if a more robust mass transit system did become reality my idea for improving the RAPID would make a very good compliment to that system.

[Rizzo]

What you are proposing is what ITP is doing to the Division Ave route. And recently, from what I learned signal priority doesn't mean changing red lights -- they still have to stop.

Edited March 18, 2007 by Rizzo

[Raildudes dad]

But there are off-the-shelf-ways coupled with adjustments to city planning to give the RAPID service at least some of the qualities of a more robust mass transit system with out the need of ROW's new vehicles, or laying tracks. First, to address congestion and to establish some of the benefits of dedicated ROW's, is to simply mark off dedicated bus lanes or at least HOV (High occupancy vehicle) lanes where ever possible along service routes to keep traffic out of the way of buses. Local and country laws can adjusted to discourage delinquent drivers from driving in the bus lanes via traffic citations and stiff fines. Secondly to remedy the stop and go nature of driving on surface streets and to give the RAPID some of the efficiencies LRT's and BRT's is to give the bus fleet traffic light priority. This can be easily done with the same type of transmitters found in emergency service vehicles that forces a traffic signal to give a green light. With service routes featuring dedicated bus lanes and traffic light priority, the efficiency of the RAPID would be greatly improved.

The City of GR is rebuilding Divison Ave from 4 thru lanes with 2 lanes of parking (6 lanes total) to 1 thru lane in each direction with a center left turn lane (3 lanes) and 2 dedicated parking lanes provided by bumpouts (5 lanes total). It's going to be pretty difficult to incorporate a HOV lane into that configuration. Quite frankly, it appears to me that all these "traffic calming" techniques on major streets just increases the stop & go effect. For those of you that remember Breton north of the GR / EGR line, it used to be a wide 2 lane that you could pass on the right if someone wanted to make a left turn. Now, someone making a left, stops all traffic until that car can turn. Not very efficient for moving traffic. Also, remember, giving a bus priority with a transmitter will destroy any signal timing which allows traffic to move more efficiently.

PS: Rizzo, the transmitters for GR fire trucks do change the signals from red to green. They still approach the intersections cautiously just in case someone does something stupid.

[Rizzo]

I don't doubt that emergency response vehicles do it, but buses? I was under impression that if the bus approached a green light the signal priority would keep it green while the bus passed through. The system would need to install failsafe measures so emergency cross traffic would override any continuation of bus right of way. Maybe I'm wrong?

I don't think you could get away with operating all buses with signal changers. It will probably be the most effective if used on spine routes (Division.)

Edited March 18, 2007 by Rizzo

[Raildudes dad]

I don't doubt that emergency response vehicles do it, but buses? I was under impression that if the bus approached a green light the signal priority would keep it green while the bus passed through. The system would need to install failsafe measures so emergency cross traffic would override any continuation of bus right of way. Maybe I'm wrong?

I don't think you could get away with operating all buses with signal changers. It will probably be the most effective if used on spine routes (Division.)

Yup, you're right. 3M has two sytems - 1 to change for emergency vehicles and 1 to extend for transit. I should have googled first .

[GRDadof3]

From what I have seen of BRT systems, the bus approaches a stoplight in a diamond HOV lane, and stops. Just prior to the light changing to green for standard traffic, the bus gets a "priority green light", which allows the bus to slide in front of the cars at the stop light into the normal traffic lane. Next stoplight, same thing. The kind of BRT where there is a dedicated ROW for just buses is very expensive, and you might as well look for a railroad line to run light rail on.

But here's something I figured out from some research about a BRT line along S. Division down to 54th or 60th, vs. a light rail line on the Norfolk Southern freight line down to 54th:

- The proposed BRT line on S. Division has 15 stations proposed between 60th and downtown, intersects 155 side-streets, has over 25 traffic lights, over 500 business drives, and will mix with 12,000 vehicles a day that drive South Division

- A South Light Rail Transit (LRT) line only intersects and has at-grade crossings at 6 streets, Albany St SW, 32nd, 36th , 44th, 50th and 54th Streets, has the FRA signalled right of way at all of them, and could operate well with only three stops: 54th, 36th, and downtown.

But I wouldn't quite throw in the towel on light rail yet tamias6. For one thing, there is a lot of empirical evidence that expanded mass transit can be used as an economic development tool. So it's actually an investment where each $1 spent returns $1.50 - $6.00 in economic development.

Another thing to consider is that even though the current RAPID routes run pretty well, the "long squiggly line" that they follow does not suit most suburban commuters very well, and can double the amount of time it takes to make a trip to work or school. Light rail mitigates this by acting like an "artery" between population or employment nodes, with connector "veins" (streetcars or trams) that connect to more densely populated areas within those nodes.