Jump to content

Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts

Record number of riders will help build a foundation for a more expanded (useful) system. Maybe we can catch up to Lansing. CATA delivered over 10 million rides in 2006. I'm not sure when CATA will release FY07 numbers, but I can imagine it will be another record breaking year for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


One of the things that to me is really important is to get the time between buses down to 15 minutes or less. If I remember from looking at the schedule in the past, they have this on a couple of the lines during peak travel times, but that's about it.

When there is 30 or even 45 minutes between buses, it can make it a very inconvenient option because the times won't match up right with where you want to go so you'll have to get there really early or wait around a long time for the bus. Also, if you miss the bus you need it makes you really late getting to whereever you're going. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem, because they don't want to increase frequency if the buses are not full, but the buses might be emptier partly because of the inconvenience of non-frequent service.

When we were in Portland in 2005, I believe 6-8 of their highest traffic bus lines had 15 minute frequency at least all through the day and into the evening (and they were still full when we were headed downtown from the NE side). It made it much more convenient.

I think the GVSU connector runs about every 15 minutes during daytime hours. But thats basically to insure students can jump from campus to campus quickly and reliably. So does much of the Alpine Route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alpine route would most likely do that only during peak times. I think the only route (excluding college routes) that comes close to constant 15 minute frequencies would be Division. Hopefully when the BRT is added they will be able to shift some of the normal buses off of that route and enable others to have higher frequency. I could definately picture Route 2 supporting higher frequency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BRT won't be replacing any service on Route 1. Essentially, both will share a physical route, but will be totally different. You will have The Rapid's local Route 1 service and a nonlocal express service.

Edited by Rizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alpine route would most likely do that only during peak times. I think the only route (excluding college routes) that comes close to constant 15 minute frequencies would be Division. Hopefully when the BRT is added they will be able to shift some of the normal buses off of that route and enable others to have higher frequency. I could definately picture Route 2 supporting higher frequency.

The Alpine route is on a regular 15 minute interval during the morning commute and afternoon commute... and it gets rather busy from my experience

I hope the East Leonard route gets some more frequency during the rush hours! The couple of times I've rode it since moving it was packed, standing room only. I don't mind standing on a bus, but there were the random school-age kids that we're giving up their seats to the older people that were forced to stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kids I'm talking about are always taking over the back half of the bus... I'd rather stand in the front than sit in the back by them and have to listen to their ridiculousness

Back when I was in High School, I hated ridding the school bus because of the same reasons why you prefer to stand in the front of the bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Federal transit panel urges gas tax increase to pay for transportation/transit infrastructure

Some of the recommendations:

_Work to cut traffic fatalities in half over the next 17 years by urging states to embrace new strategies to improve safety.

_Ease traffic congestion by expanding state and local public transit systems and highway capacity.

_Protect the environment by smoothing traffic flow, encouraging alternative commute options such as carpooling and public transit and promoting energy-efficient construction and lighting in transit systems to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

_Seek to develop new energy sources with new research programs costing $200 million annually over the next decade.

Under the proposal to raise gas taxes, the current tax of 18.4 cents per gallon would be increased by 5 cents to 8 cents annually for five years and then indexed to inflation afterward to help fix the infrastructure, expand public transit and highways as well as broaden railway and rural access.

Agree/Disagree? Do these recommendations have more of a chance under a Republican or Democratic administration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Federal transit panel urges gas tax increase to pay for transportation/transit infrastructure

Some of the recommendations:

_Work to cut traffic fatalities in half over the next 17 years by urging states to embrace new strategies to improve safety.

_Ease traffic congestion by expanding state and local public transit systems and highway capacity.

_Protect the environment by smoothing traffic flow, encouraging alternative commute options such as carpooling and public transit and promoting energy-efficient construction and lighting in transit systems to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

_Seek to develop new energy sources with new research programs costing $200 million annually over the next decade.

Under the proposal to raise gas taxes, the current tax of 18.4 cents per gallon would be increased by 5 cents to 8 cents annually for five years and then indexed to inflation afterward to help fix the infrastructure, expand public transit and highways as well as broaden railway and rural access.

Agree/Disagree? Do these recommendations have more of a chance under a Republican or Democratic administration?

That kind of funding could lead to a resurgence in intercity railroads, not to mention more rail for public transit systems nationwide. Frankly, if we did this 20 years ago, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be higher, but I suppose 8 cents is a start and might be easier for other people to swallow. Market is as a sin tax like on cigarettes and maybe the public will get behind it. Also, don't run for office on that platform, do it early in your term and people might forget by the time you're up for re-election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree/Disagree? Do these recommendations have more of a chance under a Republican or Democratic administration?

I agree with the recommendations because they may encourage people to use public transportation but this is a just small step in the right direction. People need more of a reason not to drive their vehicles (what better way to do it than to hit them in their wallets). Drastic changes must be made in terms of city and transportation planning from towns and cities to statewide.

Transportation officials must make a better effort to allocate more funding towards improving or expanding public transportation (i.e. shorter intervals for buses/transit) and walkable communities--luckily Grand Rapids is a pretty good job, or at least they're headed in the right direction*. The transit infrustructure must have better connectivity between different cities and regions because right now there isn't enough options or incentives other than the car. For instance, if you're travelling from Grand Rapids to Detroit you may only have one departure time for a bus or train to travel there. Drastic changes must be made. With that being said we need to fund projects such as the interstate traveler. I am not sure if this has been brought up in the past discussion but here is the gist of it:

[the Interstate Traveler] is a collection of vital municipal utilities bundled into what we call the Conduit Cluster providing a first of its kind full integration of solar powered hydrogen production and distribution with a high speed magnetic levitation ( MagLev ) public transit network built along the right of way of the US Interstate Highway Systems, and any other permissible right of way where such a machine would be of benefit. The Interstate Traveler, also known as the Interstate Traveler Rail, is accessed by Traveler Stations that are built within the right of way of the Interstate Highway within the land locked real-estate of the clover leaf interchanges providing maximum ease of access for people who live anywhere near the Interstate Highway.

These MagLevs can travel at least 250MPH so a nonstop trip from Muskegon to Detroit via I-96 would take approximately 1 hour. The impact on these cities would be incredible. There has been support in Michigan for such a project. In 2003, the Michigan Sentate and House of Representatives has memorialized (I am not sure what that means exactly, but I am guessing that it is a resolution) Congress to support The Interstate Traveler Project. The drawback is the cost to build is expensive-billions, but the operating cost are quite low because of renewable energy.

As for the political administration, I would vote for the candidate that would actually push public transportation let alone LEED. I have not heard of any candidate taking a big stand on these issues. The only candidate that I could see doing this would be the Green Party and I do not see them taking over Capitol Hill anytime soon. :P

*I went on Detoit's the urbanplanet, detroit.com (caution: the site is kind of "cluttered" like parts of the city ;) . It makes me appreciate UP even more.) and they seem to be lacking the insight or knowledge of transit initiatives. Transit does not seem to be a big issue. Maybe they just want to retain the name of Motown because streecartown or lightrailregion doesnt have a good ring to it. :P

Edited by gvstudent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably split down party lines. It's my guess that any sort of tax increase will be likely in a Democratic administration.

We shouldn't be investing time, money and energy on interstate travel in Michigan. Those precious resources should be spent building foundations for the metro area.

Edited by Rizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People flip out whenever gas prices rise, but it doesn't seem like many individuals do anything to change their lifestyle. I think a gas tax would be backed by most Dems, along with some GOPers like Vern. But it would definitely be used against supporters during elections.

So much of our taxes go to road projects and the encouragement of single-occupancy vehicular travel, I'd be totally in support of a gas tax to fund alternative transport and energy projects. And as others have stated, I'd like to see it be a little higher. Real changes won't come about until gas is $4-$5 a gallon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the notion that there is a cost celling where American's make real changes. It was a few years ago they said no one would handle $3.00 a gallon, now we are up passed it. About the only thing we do (and others) when gas is expensive is not go out on Sunday pleasure drives (We do pleasure walks now :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the notion that there is a cost celling where American's make real changes. It was a few years ago they said no one would handle $3.00 a gallon, now we are up passed it. About the only thing we do (and others) when gas is expensive is not go out on Sunday pleasure drives (We do pleasure walks now :) )

Actually, studies have shown that people cut back on other things when gas prices go up, like retail and restaurant spending. Creating attractive alternatives is FAR more effective than penalizing people for something they don't see as wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know from personal experience that all we do is cut back on other areas as GRDad said... I commute via bus 2-3 days a week so we only use the car when making the grocery trips, but we have to drive up north 2-3 times a month. Thats when the rising gas prices hurt us. I've actually had to make sure I include the trips in our monthly budgets now. Another 8 cents / gal would be rough, but if it IMPROVED the mass transit system I'd be ok with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Varga named new Chairman of the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce

Peter Varga is the Executive Director of the Rapid. I'm guessing transit is going to be the new hot button topic for the Chamber for the foreseeable future. ^_^

There is also this conference coming up in September:

One avenue to raise the chamber's profile is the first West Michigan Regional Policy Conference, announced Tuesday. The conference is Sept. 18-19 at the JW Marriott.

Partnering with the West Michigan Chamber Coalition, which includes chambers based in Grand Haven, Holland and Muskegon in addition to Grand Rapids, the conference's goal is to increase the region's influence and develop pro-business goals.

"We need to advocate for our issues," Varga said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody else hear on the WGVU Morning Show (I know there are at least a few other listeners, right?) when Shelley Irwin was interviewing the two students who help coach international students at GVSU and show them around. When she asked them for the biggest problems that students have, the first thing they mentioned was a lack of public transit. One of them went on to say how shocked most of the students are when they arrive here from Europe and India where they have more robust public transit and there is such infrequent service, especially on weekends.

I hadn't thought about this before, but I'm sure it really affect their quality of life here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Heartwell's State of the City address yesterday, he called on support of a public/private partnership to construct the new streetcar line:

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/01/stat...dress_2008.html

(under the Public/Private Parterships section)

And I wonder what large company based in Boston visited Heartwell in November? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad he talked about the funding aspects of the streetcar and adding the word "private." That can help get the word out that some if not most of the risk will be held on private partners. No clue on the Boston connection, but just a guess: www.bostonscientific.com

Edited by Rizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Conservative is furious with the Bush Administration for deleting report recommending light rail. Commissioner Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation has authored a report recommending light rail to, "play a significantly larger role in Americans’ mobility." According to the National Corridors Initiative (NCI), the Bush Administration deleted text from the Commission's report and suggests Contempt of Congress charges against Administration employees.

Light rail disappears from report, NCI charges.

National Corridors Press Release

Edited by Rizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.