Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[DwntwnGeo]

A historical fun fact, the Grand Rapids cable car route was the longest of any city, measuring some 32,000 feet.

Interesting, I didn't know that. You learn something new everyday. Thanks

[francishsu]

Sounds like the Market Ave. route is all about spurring development on the riverfront and lure a buyer for that public works riverfront parcel.

[tamias6]

I'm not sure why some here are disappointed on the Market/Monroe route. There is allot of room for new developments along that route while still being close to major draws like the Van Andel Arena, the new GRAM/Monroe Mall, Devose Place etc. If anything this route is spot on if the city is pinning hopes of new developments on the street car line.

[fotoman311]

I'm not sure why some here are disappointed on the Market/Monroe route. There is allot of room for new developments along that route while still being close to major draws like the Van Andel Arena, the new GRAM/Monroe Mall, Devose Place etc. If anything this route is spot on if the city is pinning hopes of new developments on the street car line.

And it'll drop you off right in front of the strip club, too!

[AlexPKeaton]

I agree a Michigan Street route would make sense. Spectrum has a couple parking lots east of Fuller on Michigan, and if the streetcar came out this far they could potentially eliminate their shuttle busses. Maybe Spectrum would put up some funds if they could save money on shuttles?

[Rizzo]

I'm not sure why some here are disappointed on the Market/Monroe route. There is allot of room for new developments along that route while still being close to major draws like the Van Andel Arena, the new GRAM/Monroe Mall, Devose Place etc. If anything this route is spot on if the city is pinning hopes of new developments on the street car line.

Its a disappointment, because some of us theorized that running a single track loop around a few blocks would offer downtown a more circulatory function. I believe Portland did this. However, that equals more track, more gradients equaling more costs. The down side to that concept as a transit function is that all trains are moving in one direction. What the current proposal means is that they will probably create a "crossing loop" with a switch at both ends to allow continuous bi-directional operation.

I agree a Michigan Street route would make sense. Spectrum has a couple parking lots east of Fuller on Michigan, and if the streetcar came out this far they could potentially eliminate their shuttle busses. Maybe Spectrum would put up some funds if they could save money on shuttles?

I have to wonder how advantageous building a rail link between the hill and Monroe will be. The problem I see right away isn't the capabilities a streetcar may have to negotiate these kinds of gradients, but the cost involved. The line would have to traverse the bridge, that right there could be a huge cost to cover.

We'll have to wait and see what DMJM+Harris has to say. They might well be studying the entire downtown and having tons of scenarios looked at.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Rizzo

[AlexPKeaton]

I have to wonder how advantageous building a rail link between the hill and Monroe will be. The problem I see right away isn't the capabilities a streetcar may have to negotiate these kinds of gradients, but the cost involved. The line would have to traverse the bridge, that right there could be a huge cost to cover.

Well, that's why I was suggesting they go east with it past Fuller. I suppose the reason to continue west down the hill might be to reach the Dash lots on the west side and to link in with the rest of the system in general. But if the line didn't go down the Michigan hill I'm sure an alternate route on Bostwick or Lafayette would work.

Edited January 28, 2008 by AlexPKeaton

[Rizzo]

My mistake....

Dad created a link to Michigan hill from the bus terminal that might be able to connect with your idea.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Rizzo

[metrogrkid]

You're right, the streetcar needs to provide a transit service and move people for it to be successful. Don't we have that potential now? There needs to be a balance in aligning the streetcar near enough potential ridership, yet also enough opportunities for private investment -- balance. Arguably, it is the private investment that will further make a streetcar line more viable (more potential riders and increase in tax revenue.) Currently, you have centers of people potential for a starter loop downtown. The Van Andel arena alone brings in more than a million people a year. Not to mention the quarter of a million expected for GRAM. Then on top of that the other people centers: Devos Place, Pantlind, Monroe Center, Vandenburg Plaza, etc. These are all directly on the proposed line. Now factor in areas for building anew which will add more people along the line, thus adding vitality to a streetcar.

This downtown loop is only the start in adding mobility. There are options under study to extend lines into nearside neighborhoods giving people diverse transit options in and out of Downtown. One specific line will go to Eastown, with other extensions to the west and north. With these future extensions there will be many more diverse people centers to add to the equation. (GVSU, residential, business & retail centers, etc.)

I see this project bringing optimism that will follow the current boom downtown. What kind of statement can this project make to a first time visitor? I'm willing to wager it will make equal the statement that tall buildings and cranes have. Imagine you are someone visiting Devos Place and seeing such a modern utility?

Anyhow, there is too much riding on this that could either help or hurt perception of any future rail transit. If the streetcar is pushed to be something it is not, then that will be public perception of any future transit on rail.

I love being on the GT2 Steering Committee for this project and having people like Rizzo here that get what we're doing EXACTLY. It makes all the long, drawn out consensus-building that we have to do worthwhile. As Rizzo so acurately says, BALANCE between potential ridership AND potential new economic development is what the Feds want to see and, in fact, require. I would even go so far as to say that FTA seems to be making an example out of GR (i.e. - " . . . . GR, all the other cities before you were allowed some gaffs, but you're going to do it by the letter of OUR law and then some, or else! . . . . " ).

<sigh> Poor GR, we get to end up with the beginnings of the best multi-modal transit network in Michigan. Darn!

Edited January 29, 2008 by metrogrkid

[GRDadof3]

Officials eye linking area cities with bus system

Tue, Jan 29, 2008 BY PETER DAINING

[email protected]

OLIVE TOWNSHIP

[metrogrkid]

Officials eye linking area cities with bus system

Tue, Jan 29, 2008 BY PETER DAINING

[email protected]

OLIVE TOWNSHIP

Edited January 30, 2008 by metrogrkid

[GRDadof3]

Now might be as good a time as any to post this synopsis packet that I've been slowly circulating around the West Michigan transit community and to GVMC:

TRIGGR_Synopsis_Package_11_07.pdf

This was put together from meetings and discussions between me, Rizzo, Raildude'sDad, tamias6 and several other contributors over the last year. This is meant to foster discussion and to get people to think about the possibilities out there.

So far, the feedback has been great! What do you guys think?

[tracer1138]

Starting with bus service is especially poignant given that Government Starts programs seem to require numbers from existing transit lines before they're willing to upgrade to rail. It's a good way of laying the groundwork.

[metrogrkid]

Now might be as good a time as any to post this synopsis packet that I've been slowly circulating around the West Michigan transit community and to GVMC:

TRIGGR_Synopsis_Package_11_07.pdf

This was put together from meetings and discussions between me, Rizzo, Raildude'sDad, tamias6 and several other contributors over the last year. This is meant to foster discussion and to get people to think about the possibilities out there.

So far, the feedback has been great! What do you guys think?

I said I was numb from the other transit piece. What are you trying to do, put me in a coma?

Very good work. A SUGGESTION: really, really underscore that this concept is to give us all a MUCH SOONER demonstation rail project that can function as a precursor of the GVSU Allendale-to-Downtown-to-Ford Airport lightrail supercorridor and the GR-Holland-Muskegon commuter rail tri-corridor.

FYI - former Mayor Logie and I have talked about this on several occassions prior to our recent focus on BRT and Streetrail. He and I were both intrigued at that time with doing what you propose on the SouthEast CSX/Conrail allignment (that cuts across Division <at Goodwill>/Madison/Eastern and heads out toward Kentwood, crossing over 28th Street between Breton and Kalamazoo, etc.) and the other corridor your concept included (i.e. - the U.S.-131 parallel CSX/Conrail corridor).

Collaboration is the key to pushing forward concepts. Here are some key organizations with forward-thinking transit advocacy/visioning components that would serve your interests well in such a beneficial collaboration suggestion: West Michigan Environmental Action Council, Michigan Black Expo Mass Transportation Steering Committee, Faith in Motion and Interurban Transit Partnership Great Transit-Grand Tomorrows Steering Committee. Put UP-GR in the mix with them and add their hugely complimentary concepts to your proposal. I can assist with coordination after February 2008 is over. Rizzo should still know how to reach me.

-Metrogrkid

Edited January 30, 2008 by metrogrkid

[Rizzo]

You underscore two great points, that is collaboration and a demonstration project. Right now Mayor Bergman in Grand Haven is doing right by getting the Mayors hand in hand. Everyone has a resource to make this happen, but they just need to be at the table. For instance, Muskegon isn't included with Grand Valley Metro Council. Maybe it will help the region if they applied for membership?

EDIT: BTW, it seems what is blocking all this good stuff from progressing is turf. Can you believe it?

Edited January 31, 2008 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

I said I was numb from the other transit piece. What are you trying to do, put me in a coma?

Very good work. A SUGGESTION: really, really underscore that this concept is to give us all a MUCH SOONER demonstation rail project that can function as a precursor of the GVSU Allendale-to-Downtown-to-Ford Airport lightrail supercorridor and the GR-Holland-Muskegon commuter rail tri-corridor.

FYI - former Mayor Logie and I have talked about this on several occassions prior to our recent focus on BRT and Streetrail. He and I were both intrigued at that time with doing what you propose on the SouthEast CSX/Conrail allignment (that cuts across Division <at Goodwill>/Madison/Eastern and heads out toward Kentwood, crossing over 28th Street between Breton and Kalamazoo, etc.) and the other corridor your concept included (i.e. - the U.S.-131 parallel CSX/Conrail corridor).

Collaboration is the key to pushing forward concepts. Here are some key organizations with forward-thinking transit advocacy/visioning components that would serve your interests well in such a beneficial collaboration suggestion: West Michigan Environmental Action Council, Michigan Black Expo Mass Transportation Steering Committee, Faith in Motion and Interurban Transit Partnership Great Transit-Grand Tomorrows Steering Committee. Put UP-GR in the mix with them and add their hugely complimentary concepts to your proposal. I can assist with coordination after February 2008 is over. Rizzo should still know how to reach me.

-Metrogrkid

I've sent this piece to a few people at Kent County, GVMC, Dave Bulkowski at DA, several people at the city of GR, and I believe Peter Varga at the Rapid. I've tried making the GT2 meetings, but 7:30 on a weekday morning is impossible right now.

[Rizzo]

ITP has been putting ITS on its fleet. Now tracking them is possible which means real time route planning and cell phone alerts are possible! The system may offer the rider a new tool to efficiently plan their trips. Peter Varga says, the system should be up and running in 18 months. Looks like it will be Michigan's only ITS capable system.

Edited January 31, 2008 by Rizzo

[fotoman311]

ITP has been putting ITS on its fleet. Now tracking them is possible which means real time route planning and cell phone alerts are possible! The system may offer the rider a new tool to efficiently plan their trips. Peter Varga says, the system should be up and running in 18 months. Looks like it will be Michigan's only ITS capable system.

So, get it on Google Transit ( http://www.google.com/transit ) and I'll be able to easily plan routes and check when I need to leave work from my desk. Wonderful!

[Rizzo]

So, get it on Google Transit ( http://www.google.com/transit ) and I'll be able to easily plan routes and check when I need to leave work from my desk. Wonderful!

A while ago I wrote Google's business development department about transit tracking in Metro Grand Rapids. Maybe they'll be able to partner with ITP in the next 18 months to get a feature on iGoogle? Google is watching

[GRDadof3]

You underscore two great points, that is collaboration and a demonstration project. Right now Mayor Bergman in Grand Haven is doing right by getting the Mayors hand in hand. Everyone has a resource to make this happen, but they just need to be at the table. For instance, Muskegon isn't included with Grand Valley Metro Council. Maybe it will help the region if they applied for membership?

EDIT: BTW, it seems what is blocking all this good stuff from progressing is turf. Can you believe it?

From this article in MiBiz, it sounds like the three Metropolitan Planning Organizations, GVMC, WMSRDC, and MACC are beginning to collaborate on issues including a major metro-wide transit system and a Grand River watershed organization.

Unfortunately, Sandeep Dey, Director of WMSRDC (Muskegon's MPO), said that he "doesn't think that a system that encompasses 15 counties is workable", and "could only support the plan if it was narrowed to concentrate solely on the disabled"

[fotoman311]

From this article in MiBiz, it sounds like the three Metropolitan Planning Organizations, GVMC, WMSRDC, and MACC are beginning to collaborate on issues including a major metro-wide transit system and a Grand River watershed organization.

Unfortunately, Sandeep Dey, Director of WMSRDC (Muskegon's MPO), said that he "doesn't think that a system that encompasses 15 counties is workable", and "could only support the plan if it was narrowed to concentrate solely on the disabled"

Muskegon is the same city where it is illegal to ride your bicycle on a road with more than two lanes.

"Section 6.31. Riding prohibited on limited access or multilane roadway.

(1) No person shall ride any bicycle on Apple Avenue, Laketon Avenue, Webster

Avenue, Muskegon Avenue, Sherman Boulevard, Seaway Drive, or any other

limited access or multilane roadway within the city, where parking has been

prohibited. Any person operating along these routes shall be required to use the

pedestrian walkway adjacent thereto.

Muskegon Municipal Code: http://www.muskegon-mi.gov/cityservices/de...hicles.pdf.html

It also says in there that it is illegal to ride your bicycle in Muskegon unless it is registered with the police dept. I don't think this is enforced.

[Rizzo]

From this article in MiBiz, it sounds like the three Metropolitan Planning Organizations, GVMC, WMSRDC, and MACC are beginning to collaborate on issues including a major metro-wide transit system and a Grand River watershed organization.

Unfortunately, Sandeep Dey, Director of WMSRDC (Muskegon's MPO), said that he "doesn't think that a system that encompasses 15 counties is workable", and "could only support the plan if it was narrowed to concentrate solely on the disabled"

I posted that article back a few pages and wondered why this issue comes down to these hard lined positions. From what I am hearing there is a real problem of "turf issues," which will make this slow and difficult.

Of course, how in the heck do we start off by providing transit in 15 counties? I don't think some of the largest metropolitan areas can even do that. Lets be realistic.

EDIT: I get the feeling that not a lot of people are on the same page for this to move forward, especially beyond a few mayors.

Edited February 1, 2008 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

I posted that article back a few pages and wondered why this issue comes down to these hard lined positions. From what I am hearing there is a real problem of "turf issues," which will make this slow and difficult.

Of course, how in the heck do we start off by providing transit in 15 counties? I don't think some of the largest metropolitan areas can even do that. Lets be realistic.

EDIT: I get the feeling that not a lot of people are on the same page for this to move forward, especially beyond a few mayors.

I agree that 15 counties in unrealistic, and probably not even needed. 3 counties would be nice. It all starts somewhere though. The people who are steadfast against expanded mass transit need to start feeling like they are being excluded from something dramatic and economy changing before they will jump on board.

Wow, 41 downloads of my pdf! I hope people are getting something out of it.

[Rizzo]

Aren't we told that if we want to compete globally we have to move forward on this issue? Clearly, if Grand Rapids wants to be in the business of attracting business don't we have an obligation to build a competitive city? Is transit apart of that?

I'm glad to hear that this issue might be studied. Whether that is from independent consultants or mayors meeting for a cup of coffee. What we don't need are folks throwing demands around. Just get the issue studied and move on.

BTW, I didn't know Muskegon was in a MPO. I guess that explains why they aren't included with GVMC

Edited February 1, 2008 by Rizzo

[Raildudes dad]

I agree that 15 counties in unrealistic, and probably not even needed. 3 counties would be nice. It all starts somewhere though. The people who are steadfast against expanded mass transit need to start feeling like they are being excluded from something dramatic and economy changing before they will jump on board.

Wow, 41 downloads of my pdf! I hope people are getting something out of it.

I'm guessing S Dey from wim-sor-dick (yes that's what they call their organization ) ) is confusing it with the Mi State Police District 6 groups he's working for on Homeland Security - 13 counties plus GR & Kentwood. Wim-sor-dick is an interesting group. Don't hold your breath for fast progress from them.