Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[AlexPKeaton]

We'd need very regular service and good local transit options once you arrived at the downtown station, which was discussed in his post. The local transit would probably have to come first otherwise the long distance transit will be useless to many people. The Pere Marquette may be getting record numbers of riders in recent years, but I'm sure it still pales in comparison to the number of people driving to Chicago on any given day. And Chicago already has a highly developed local transit system! Perhaps as driving and flying become less cost effective it will once again be important for companies to locate downtown near the central stations, but driving is still too cheap.

Though I do know a person who took the South Shore line into Milennium Station, walked to Union Station, took another train out to the suburbs, and walked from there to his final destination for Thanksgiving dinner.

[gvsusean]

I don't think it's the right way to go personally, and I think would be a poor use of taxpayer dollars ($Billions of taxpayer dollars). I know a lot of people don't like to drive between the cities, and some would rather take a train, but how many people actually make the trek every day to make it worthwhile? Think about it: when there are actually traffic jams in Grand Rapids or other parts of Michigan, where are they located? Not between here and Lansing, or between Lansing and Brighton. They are between the exurban areas and the employment centers (that may or may not be in the urban areas of the state). Perhaps the East meets West was a good way to start the conversation on a State level, but they should have been concentrating on things that can be enacted or implemented at the State level, and most of that would pertain to State financing of metro area systems, or at least to get Lansing legislators to open their eyes to new transit ideas and not stand in the way, or having them affect change or get Michigan on the priority lists for metro area projects at the national level.

But seriously, a train between Grand Rapids and Lansing would be lucky to get a couple hundred riders a day. If I am one of the unlucky ones that have to drive to Detroit several times a week (I was at one time), I am most likely involved in sales, product development or quality control for one of the various manufacturers. Where am I headed? Not to downtown Lansing or downtown Detroit. I'm headed to a plant in South Lyon (that is nowhere near a train stop), or I'm headed to the GM Tech Center, or I'm headed to Auburn Hills for a conference. How would a train between the three downtowns help me? Especially if it takes longer than driving, when I'm supposed to be at a certain place by a certain time (or risk losing a big customer)?

would a high spped line that stopped only in lansing be slower than a car ride... i think not, those high speed trains that are in Europe would only take 1 hour to go from where i lived in France to Paris (3 hour car ride)

[GRDadof3]

would a high spped line that stopped only in lansing be slower than a car ride... i think not, those high speed trains that are in Europe would only take 1 hour to go from where i lived in France to Paris (3 hour car ride)

Again, who's going to ride it? Who needs to go from downtown Grand Rapids to downtown Lansing? You have to build a good rail transit system within the two metro areas before you try and link them together by rail. So in essence, a better idea would be to table this discussion for 20 - 30 years (?) and concentrate on transit in the respective metro areas.

[Allison Slater]

One thing I thought about in my head when the several-hour late Amtrak trains were mentioned, as well as regional connectivity.. was that whenever feasible, any cross-state rail system would do well connecting into Chicago's Metra via the South Shore Line. It already runs to South Bend, which isn't really all that far from Kalamazoo.

[blueradon]

Interesting Article I found on Treehugger - though nothing really THAT new per say.

Article Link

Although some cities may act like it, streets aren't just for private vehicles. They are for pedestrians, bicyclists, skateboarders, public transportation vehicles, and so on and so forth. This idea is certainly not new news to most TH readers, but what is new is that now some localities are actually doing something about it.

Progressive localities such as Seattle, Charlotte and Sacramento are starting to design streets specifically to serve multiple uses, not just one dominant type of transportation...

This is a great example of why Michigan St does not need to be expanded to 6 lanes.

Edited December 11, 2007 by blueradon

[Rizzo]

I'm not convinced an inter-metro rail system is something MDot or Legislatures should even concentrate on now, but I'm the last one to say it can't be investigated further down the road. What about concentrating on commuters or even Mayor McGeehan's transit link from Holland to downtown and all those suburbs between?

Let start small and get a demonstration going. Something some task force members are currently investigating. In the near term a demonstration project could prove the concept and label this issue "very doable" in the minds of everyone.

The current task at hand up at the State level should be build the foundation for transit. Michigan should transition from the casual talk to the results phase. There are many things that must be cleared to set a foundation and a few things that pop out in my mind is changing the law to allow local sales taxes. Then local transit can have a stable footing for funding while reducing the tax liabilities for property owners.

Better to do these things in hard economic times.

Edited December 12, 2007 by Rizzo

[Raildudes dad]

Might've been in my signature too, maybe.. I know my current name on MSN is a big advert for it.

It was pretty much a very basic panel-led speech and discussion about Detroit's advances in transit, and how both sides of the state need to work together to secure funding for transit. That was about it.

I was in attendance as well.

My observations:

Rep Donigan likes to hear herself talk. For being Chairperson of this committee, she needs to do some research on her own. She thinks it's unreasonable that rail passenger car builders are foreign companies. Rail passenger car builders are over seas because that's where the market is. We don't buy enough cars per year to in this country to warrant an American manufacturer, I mean two manufactures because our low bid system requires competing companies. Second, the Rep thinks Big 3 can build rail cars - duh see the previous comment. She also thinks the Big 3 can be persuaded to invest in the Detroit area transit system. Duh - does she read the papers. They are losing BILLIONS due to high labor costs trying to compete with foreign manufactures. Where are they (Big 3) going to get the money to "donate" to the cause?

The Special projects lady from Wayne County knows all the right words and phrases. There wasn't much substance other than "we can be a great transportation hub" with our "Airtropolis". Why would anyone use Detroit as a hub if the consumers or users are not in the metro Detroit area?

The transit lady basically said we need transit. "Our bus system used to be crappy, now it's better"

Carmine Palumbo, the SEMCOG person told us about the Detroit - Ann Arbor commuter line. "We have to negotiate with the freight railroads and pay" to use the corridor - yup, if it's private property paid for and used by the railroads, why would they want a gov't agency of all things to run over their tracks w/o compensation?

All the speakers said we "need to be creative and innovative" and "work together" (east & west) in financing the projects. Must be I'm not too bright because the state doesn't have any extra money, the feds don't, the county doesn't and no one wants or will agree to increase taxes, so I don't see where the money is going to come from. (I don't buy the private investment along the line will generate enough new taxes to pay for it).

All the speakers repeatedly said "you guys over here in West Mi". There were a number of ladies in the audience and "you guys" came across to me as unprofessional.

All in all, IMHO, lots of words but not much substance.

[Rizzo]

No so much private investment along the line, but what about tax deferment? Couldn't capital costs be partially covered by developing a tax deferment zone along a proposed rail corridor?

[Raildudes dad]

No so much private investment along the line, but what about tax deferment? Couldn't capital costs be partially covered by developing a tax deferment zone along a proposed rail corridor?

A tax deferment on a private project will reduce taxes for a period (10 - 15 years?). That's great for the private project but how does it fund the transit project?. I believe the argument that a new development will be more tax base for the community. I question that the increased tax base will cover the transit project. If you give the private development tax breaks, that defeats the argument of increased tax base.

I don't believe there's a transit system that covers it's capital costs or even operating costs. The "extra" money required needs to come from somewhere. If it's a money tree, I want to get just a small one for my backyard

[Rizzo]

Maybe, I don't understand the concept. The city or state could create a zone along the rail corridor where current and future taxes (property, income, sales etc.) collected in there get funneled into ITP for transit improvement specifically in that zone. It seems that there would be quite a bit of tax monies in a zone to help at least cover capital costs. It would just be a diversion or reallocation of taxes. I thought they already do this downtown for public improvement projects?

Edited December 12, 2007 by Rizzo

[gvsusean]

i dont understand why it costs so much to put down steel rods??? can anyone explain?

[GRDadof3]

i dont understand why it costs so much to put down steel rods??? can anyone explain?

Assuming you're talking about rail to Lansing or Detroit, it's more than just steel rods (and I'm sure you probably understand that already), it's all the land that is needed, eminent domain, design work, stations, crossing signals, bridges over creeks, bridges over roads, millions of tons of earth that need to be moved to make it level, ties, tracks, signaling, central control stations, not to mention the approval process to cross many different counties and municipalities.

Not to mention no one will ride it, so who will pay for it?

Thanks for the rundown RDD. That seems to be the resounding feedback on the uneventful meeting.

[Allison Slater]

The majority comes from attaining the land ROW I believe, or if there is already rail, from paying the railroad companies to use it.

One thing I notised about the meeting was that the speakers didn't seem to know very much at all about Grand Rapids. Understandable to a point, they are from Detroit and they don't live here -- but they seemed to applaud Flint and some other city for having Hybrid buses, completely neglecting that we have Hybrid buses as well. Moreover, somebody from our own area asked about Transit-Oriented-Development and why there is NOTHING about that in all of Michigan, and the speakers agreed. This is all despite the fact in the booklet they were distributing there said specifically that Transit-Oriented-Development was adopted into the Grand Rapids Master Plan in 2002. (Although the booklet itself dates to January 2006 and had all kinds of wonderful "expected" this and "expected" that for 2006.)

After the meeting, as I went down into the waiting area I think I saw only one other from the meeting down there waiting for a bus, which also got me wondering how many of those transit advocates even used transit to get there. Most people went out the front door to their cars.

One last quick note: I had asked Central Station Information last week and again Monday at 5:30 about where in the station the meeting would be, and both times they knew absolutely nothing about it. When people began gathering up on the second floor, we had to guess and go through a hallway labeled "Staff Only" to get to what we could only assume was the meeting.

Edited December 12, 2007 by tSlater

[Raildudes dad]

i dont understand why it costs so much to put down steel rods??? can anyone explain?

There's a tendency on the part of consultants to over design and "gold plate" after all it's federal money. I worked on a project that was bid at $1,000,000. The consultant liked boardwalks and retaining walls because they were esthetically "nice". By using culverts rather than boardwalks and grading slopes rather than walls, I lowered the price by approx. $300,000. Federal "requirements" don't help either - don't even get me started on the lack of common sense at that level.

[Raildudes dad]

Assuming you're talking about rail to Lansing or Detroit, it's more than just steel rods (and I'm sure you probably understand that already), it's all the land that is needed, eminent domain, design work, stations, crossing signals, bridges over creeks, bridges over roads, millions of tons of earth that need to be moved to make it level, ties, tracks, signaling, central control stations, not to mention the approval process to cross many different counties and municipalities.

Not to mention no one will ride it, so who will pay for it?

Thanks for the rundown RDD. That seems to be the resounding feedback on the uneventful meeting.

I forgot to mention Carmine Palumbo was proud of the fact that on the Detroit to Ann Arbor commuter line, they are going to build a number of sidings over time and eventually connect then into a second track exclusively for commuter rail to increase "on time" performance. That will eliminate freight interference or so he said. To do that, the commuter rail will have to go over or under every freight line it crosses (very expensive) or you will have the interference from the crossing lines. If the commuter line isn't grade separated, the fail safe signaling systems and coordination to give the commuter train the "green light" will be expensive.

[fotoman311]

would a high spped line that stopped only in lansing be slower than a car ride... i think not, those high speed trains that are in Europe would only take 1 hour to go from where i lived in France to Paris (3 hour car ride)

Europe is so different from here though. In Europe they already have local, robust transit systems that LOTS of people use. Two examples from my two trips to France. I stayed for 4-5 days in St. Quentin, a city of 60,000 in NW France. I could walk to the town square in St. Quentin and there were buses all over the place that could move you around the city in a pretty efficient manor. There was a smallish university there, but the buses were full of all sorts of people, not just students. We just don't have that kind of transit to get people to and from the high speed rail lines in a convenient manor. Part of this is due to the density. St. Quentin was a really old and dense city, and it's definitely easier to build an effective transit system with a wider market in this kind of urban environment.

Second example, when I was in Aix-en-Provence in 2001, I took a bus to Marseilles (~1.6 million people in the metro are according to wikipedia, a large medium size, or small large city) for about $6. It was about an hours ride, but the bus ran 5-6 times per day, so it was convenient to take it there in the morning and back in the evening. It dropped us off at a subway station in Marseilles and we were able to use that to get closer to our final destination.

These kinds of transit options aren't available to us (except maybe in the northeast US corridor from Philly to Boston) and these are just what I'm familar with. When you get the local infrastructures built up to the point where people use and support them, then it becomes much easier to justify and get passengers for the regional transit systems. I feel like the momentum is building in that direction, but it definitely has a long ways to go.

[radicaljoy]

Arrgh! Rizzo took those handy-dandy transit meeting notices out of his sig.

Dave Bulkowski sends out an email update called "Getting There Together Weekly"

I had written him a while back and suggested that he post stuff here. I spoke to him at Monday's meeting and he said that he is a bit of a technophobe -- not likely to post here, but that he would welcome it being posted here and to pass along his eDress [[email protected]] for anyone that would like to get his emails directly. Here's the last one:

Getting There Together Weekly

from: David Bulkowski

Executive Director of Disability Advocates of Kent County

[email protected]

Thursday, December 13-the Kent County Board of Commissioners meeting at the Kent County Administration Building, 300 Monroe NW, 8:30am. This meeting is intended to be some good old-fashioned democracy in action. A group of us are “just showing up” to the county commission meeting (hence no “fancy flyer”). We are going to say thanks and request that they match the Rapid’s planning dollars in order to get the county-wide study off the ground.

To get in control and get back on a roll, we need you to take some action! The action that we need is for you to select one or more of the following and have a go again:

(A) Show up for one or both of these events. We really need a good showing, so “just showing up” is the hugest part! This will impact the elected officials in attendance by showing how many people care about the issue. This will impact the wider community via the news media coverage we garner for the events. Folks not there will see that a lot of people support public transportation. No need to worry about public speaking if that’s not in your comfort zone because we’ll have that covered! We simply need you there!

(B) Mail or e-mail your state representative and senator to tell him/her you want him/her to support public transportation and to read the recommendations from Rep. Donigan’s subcommittee when they are released at the end of December. Their contact information is at: http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp or http://senate.michigan.gov/SenatorInfo/find-your-senator.htm. Send them your thoughts!

Edited December 13, 2007 by radicaljoy

[Rizzo]

Its been in my signature since Yesterday after work. I try to keep everyone updated with anything transit related through the signature, the blog, or this thread. My hope is that people will see it beyond the core group of folks.

I've been posting on Dave's behalf for ever now

[blueradon]

This is a small and personal HAH moment for me - in the past I have talked about different companies (one in particular) who had plans for designing a transit system in the form of little pod cars that can seat 4 instead of 1 long train cab. Everybody that responded seemed to think this would never happen...

Until now

The Heathrow Airport now has the cars that will transport people from terminal to terminal - and in Sweden, the city of Saguna is considering to install this into their town.

Article

Edited December 13, 2007 by blueradon

[tamias6]

I've seen this concept before on the discovery channel. Its a very clever set up. My only worry is the novelty factor may be too much at least here in the United States ala Disney's monorail.

[Grand Rapidian]

I am fairly skeptical about this system as well, but hopefully they do great things in Heathrow and put my worries to rest.

[blueradon]

To add to your skepticism - West Virginia University has a PRT system

Couldn't you just picture one of these going from GVSU to Downtown via the Grand River? or Lake Mi Dr?

[Rizzo]

I have to be honest, I'm not a fan of this at all -- I'll keep an open mind though. Maybe on a campus or airport, but for other applications

The Press has an article out today about meet up before the County Commission.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

I have to be honest, I'm not a fan of this at all -- I'll keep an open mind though. Maybe on a campus or airport, but for other applications

The Press has an article out today about meet up before the County Commission.

I got there just at the tail end of the public comment portion of this meeting (and met Dave Bulkowski of Disability Advocates in the hall). I couldn't believe that the whole room, including the board, appeared to be all middle-aged and old white men.

[Rizzo]

I got there just at the tail end of the public comment portion of this meeting (and met Dave Bulkowski of Disability Advocates in the hall). I couldn't believe that the whole room, including the board, appeared to be all middle-aged and old white men.

I'm not surprised that a great deal of middle-aged or older people populated the room considering who would be using the expanded services. The folks pushing the county wide concept are doing so for the elderly and disabled. I really hope they can get this thing passed through. Recently, gramps decided that owning a car in declining health is no joke.