Jump to content

Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts


WTF? Chicago, Detroit, and Pontiac?? Why not connect it to Sarnia and Bad Axe, and we'll be all set.

When is her term up?

I don't understand that Pontiac desire either. WTF.

If anything it should go up to Flint or Saginaw (since they are intent on heading north out of Detroit).

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand that Pontiac desire either. WTF.

If anything it should go up to Flint or Saginaw (since they are intent on heading north out of Detroit).

Brian

Well, whatever they do, they certainly should never, ever in a billion years include West Michigan, because nobody from GR ever travels to Detroit or Chicago on business. <_<

Edited by RegalTDP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, whatever they do, they certainly should never, ever in a billion years include West Michigan, because nobody from GR ever travels to Detroit or Chicago on business. <_<

If they did, I would expect it to include Kalamazoo over GR. Geographically Kalamazoo is a logical stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand that Pontiac desire either. WTF.

...

Pontiac is the Oakland county seat, and it's convenient to all the high-rollers in the Bloomfields. L. Brooks Patterson, the county executive, has a lot of pull.

HTH

(grew up in a suburb of Birmingham...Beverly Hills 48025)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I agree as well. Geographically it makes sense and I could see a light rail connector between GR and Kzoo, one which would end in the same high speed rail station. That would be awesome and convenient.

If they did, I would expect it to include Kalamazoo over GR. Geographically Kalamazoo is a logical stop.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I get the feeling many of you on here have seen this article on Mlive, but for those that haven't, I thought I'd post it.

What amazed me is that this new type of transit seems very plausable. Yeah, the start up costs are high, but the fact that the system pays back municipalities, is highly efficient, self-sufficient, and almost completely environmentally friendly is really amazing. It uses the storm water runoff to help run the system along with solar energy. To me, it has the potential to revolutionize transportation. What's even better is that it's all taking place in Michigan and is supported by roughly 150 private partners. Also, the company wants to utilize the large amount of auto parts manufacturers to construct the system, thus creating huge amounts of jobs.

But my feet are firmly planted on the ground knowing that this is probably more whimsy than reality. Yet Michigan once took a great risk in cultivating the auto industry, so if it can do that, why not cultivate a new industry on mass transit construction? As representative Bill Rogers (R-Howell) put it, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."

The links are here:

The HYRAIL

and here:

Mlive.com

I like how, in the first link, the conceptual drawings show the old Michigan Central Station as a terminal. That would be amazing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are they thinking of building some crazy expensive system that's not tested when we don't have any sort of rail system now. I would rather see 10 miles of "normal" track than 1 mile of some hi-tech experimental track. Maybe once people get used to mass transit in Michigan and see its value, then we can move on to the cool stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are they thinking of building some crazy expensive system that's not tested when we don't have any sort of rail system now. I would rather see 10 miles of "normal" track than 1 mile of some hi-tech experimental track. Maybe once people get used to mass transit in Michigan and see its value, then we can move on to the cool stuff.

I don't get the feeling that this concept is designed for coupling car units. Mark my words, a rail system that treats coupled cars as an exception rather than the rule is doomed to fail. I believe that's partly why the road-rail bus concept failed. The point of rail systems gaining an efficiency in operation and economics is that capacity is not directly correlated to man power. That's one reason why operating single cars (no matter the transit mode) in high capacity corridors results in higher costs.

The rails are there so that you can couple cars into trains.

Edited by Rizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, mass transit has to include mass. You make a very good point Rizzo. Yet this system still seems to have merit technologically. I could see Japan going gaga over this kind of transit.

I don't get the feeling that this concept is designed for coupling car units. Mark my words, a rail system that treats coupled cars as an exception rather than the rule is doomed to fail. I believe that's partly why the road-rail bus concept failed. The point of rail systems gaining an efficiency in operation and economics is that capacity is not directly correlated to man power. That's one reason why operating single cars (no matter the transit mode) in high capacity corridors results in higher costs.

The rails are there so that you can couple cars into trains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The point of rail systems gaining an efficiency in operation and economics is that capacity is not directly correlated to man power. That's one reason why operating single cars (no matter the transit mode) in high capacity corridors results in higher costs.

In addition to the manpower savings, there's also quite a bit of energy savings due to aerodynamics - each car is drafting the car ahead of it, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ITP's Board of Directors will be meeting tomorrow (4pm) for their regular agenda. Nothing special, but those here that frequent the #18 and #5 should pay close attention. Apparently, both routes have entered into strategic planning -- i.e. realignment.

By the way, any transit nerds want to see if ITP can look at holding board meetings in front of a web cam? Or having meetings published on Youtube?

Edited by Rizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a feeling #18 would end up seeing that. At the public opinion thing they had for it, I voiced concern that it wouldn't gain any new ridership because it runs near already existing routes. They said they knew that, and were looking to just have a route where the study said they should have one. I imagine all its done is grabbed a small handful of riders from the other routes and little more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

×
×
  • 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.