Jump to content

Grand Rapids Airport (GRR) News and Developments


joeDowntown

Recommended Posts


22 hours ago, temporary.name said:

More lanes do not solve traffic problems. Just ask Los Angeles.

They do solve problems, they increase capacity and safety as well as modern interchanges and other. However there is a limit when adding more won't do any good where it would b best to either create more freeways and or create toll lanes. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GRLaker said:

Small town thinking is one of GR's biggest impediments.

Some examples of that:

1. This issue you've brought up

2. Every highway (minus 131 between M6 and I-96) being four lanes

3. Every main non-highway artery being four lanes (and one even being two)

4. 12 stories

5. Cramming buildings into small spaces and not accounting for everything around it, traffic flow, or parking

6. Grand Valley refusing to claim its rightful place in Division I

7. Single A baseball

8. An unfinished arena

9. Low pay and benefits compared to other metro areas of similar size or larger

 

I like the direction GR is going in, but there is still a lot that needs to get done to get the area to the next level and that will require a major shift in thinking.

Actually 131 is to 76th st and rivertown parkway is 3 lanes as well as 31 in holland.

4 hours ago, GRLaker said:

Agreed that a six lane highway is the ideal and higher speeds are needed. A major issue in West Michigan is the notoriously slow left lane driver. In all of the places I have been nationwide, I have never witnessed so many people needlessly driving in the passing lane at or below the speed limit. It has gotten to the point that the MSP has had to do an actual crack down on it. Three lanes allows for those people to get passed, as opposed to them shutting down any reasonable traffic flow.

You're also right that 4-5 lanes is needless and only creates more headaches. I hate driving in large cities that have massive expressways.  

There are plenty of small cities with wide freeways and large cities with narrow ones and medium cities with both. Also speeds r slower in higher traffic areas for safety.

4 hours ago, MJLO said:

You need to spend more time in Indiana,  you will then have a modified view about the left lane drivers around W. Michigan.

-In terms of the left lane drivers, part of that can be attributed to all of the left lane exits that were put in here. It creates situations where a lot of overly cautious drivers are in the lane way ahead of time for their impending left exit, where they would otherwise be nowhere near the left lane.   I've not seen a place with as many left lane exits as in GR.  Grand Rapids freeways are unique in that there are several spots where you enter on the left or right and then have about a half to quarter of a mile to get all the way over to exit again.

That's cuz the roads r old and outdated and were designed for the traffic 50 years ago and not for anything nearly as heavy as it is today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GR8scott said:

Ever been to Colorado? It's a left lane campers wet dream...,as for the left lane exits here, that is a legit reason why this may happen because at least here people recognize you in the rear view and move over, not in Colorado....not sure why they would continue to incorporate that design like at 196/m6, none the less better highways don't necessarily make it a bigger city but plays into the whole small town infrastructure mentality when it comes to designing. Back to the airport, lets play sim city and say they build direct access to the highway, a new taller control tower, onsite hotel, add flights to places like LAX, PHX, Cancun and Toronto, maybe a second story conversion to the front of the terminal to separate arrivals and departures, that would put the airport on par with places like providence, buffalo, Spokane, ect places of similar size that get more in way of amenities, conventions and perception of larger city than GR. 

Well the airport is breaking records every year and they r doing a lot of big expansions so they will probably always b doing stuff to expand it and make it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2017 at 9:31 PM, Quercus said:

Looks like that tunnel would be quite an under-taking (har har). But if it ever is constructed I'd like to see it wide enough to also accommodate a rail connection to the RR line that conveniently runs all the way to the Grand Rapids transit complex...

This!

 

We don't need more roads.  We need a light rail that connects the airport to downtown.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scottythe1nonly said:

This!

 

We don't need more roads.  We need a light rail that connects the airport to downtown.  

Actually most people who travel in and out of the airport stay at hotels along 28th street, so we need light rail from the airport to Costco. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, temporary.name said:

Three lanes is that limit. I regularly commute on 270 here in Columbus that is regularly six lanes wide in one direction and it is far from safer. The width encourages last minute darting to exits because nobody plans their exits ahead (yea, in a perfect world they would but the reality is far different). Cars regularly undertake. Backups are quite common. It's a war zone and needlessly chaotic. Even though Columbus is a large city I personally feel 270 is needlessly wide at a lot of places and higher speeds and less lanes would help tremendously. 

There is a volume component to multiple lanes that i'm not hearing being taken into this argument as well.  The busiest section of freeway in Grand Rapids carries a little over 130k cars a day.  In Detroit there are sections of freeway that carry more than 300k cars a day.  I find it illogical to assume that more space wouldn't be needed if we were to take the traffic volume on 131 and double it.  It backs up daily as it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, temporary.name said:

Three lanes is that limit. I regularly commute on 270 here in Columbus that is regularly six lanes wide in one direction and it is far from safer. The width encourages last minute darting to exits because nobody plans their exits ahead (yea, in a perfect world they would but the reality is far different). Cars regularly undertake. Backups are quite common. It's a war zone and needlessly chaotic. Even though Columbus is a large city I personally feel 270 is needlessly wide at a lot of places and higher speeds and less lanes would help tremendously. 

But in Grand Rapids on the 2 lane freeways it's jammed up and not moving at all whereas the three lane 131 moves much smoother, even tho it's one of the busiest in the state, the fact that it's very straight and has three lanes and no left exits helps a lot but for what ur describing id recommend instead of 6 to have 2 each  way in the middle as express that bypass the exits, maybe till those. Then have four each way as regulars with an HOV lane, that might help, or there could b reversible tolls in the middle like 3 lanes there that reverse, then 3 each way regular, but if u feel it's unnecessary then they prob r really good with planning ahead except they maybe didn't think of a modern design and they just made it wide to prepare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more lanes, higher speeds do not mean faster commutes.  Increasing speed limits during rush hour can cause more congestion.  

It seems intuitive that making roads a mile wide and fast as hell is somehow better, but if you talk to anybody today who's well versed in street design and traffic flow they'll tell you the exact opposite is true.

In fact, if you want fewer cars on the highway during your commute from BFE to wherever you work, you should support as much public transit as possible, because putting people in buses, trains and on bicycles takes cars off the road.  And it means we don't need to spend even more money widening and repairing roads.

8ea22b5fc44a50e81e75c86a3fc2dcf9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

GR fans shouldn't be ashamed of Single-A ball.  Now, it's true that GR is bigger than a lot of Triple-A cities and could easily support a team. A Double-A team isn't likely, as those leagues are heavily regional (like Single-A), and they don't have much presence in this region.  However, GR is smack-dab in the Midwest League's region; it's a good fit for GR, and having them here doesn't reflect poorly on the town at all.  Two big things I like about the Whitecaps:

1) It's in the Tigers farm system, which would probably have to change if we picked up a Triple-A team.  The Mudhens aren't leaving Toledo anytime soon, and I don't think the Tigers will ever want to change their affiliate as long as they are there.

2) I like that the Whitecaps can play nearby teams like Lansing and South Bend.  I wanna see the Whitecaps beat their brains out.  I'm less interested in seeing Grand Rapids vs. Colorado Springs or Norfolk.

I'd support a Triple-A team in GR, and it would thrive, but I'd still be sad to lose those things. Triple-A isn't everything.

Edited by RegalTDP
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
3 hours ago, walker said:

Frontier Airlines is returning next spring.  However Frontier isn't a full service airline like it used to be.  It's just a low cost vacation trip airline like Allegiant now where you pay extra charges over the advertised price for just about everything:

frontier_airlines  

I used to fly Frontier to Denver quite a lot. I really liked the airline and was disappointed when they left. The Denver flight will be a good addition. I hope they're not like a Spirit Airlines now.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

I used to fly Frontier to Denver quite a lot. I really liked the airline and was disappointed when they left. The Denver flight will be a good addition. I hope they're not like a Spirit Airlines now.

Joe

They are exactly like spirit now....and they are not flying directly to DEN. Southwest and United still do that. 

Not sure we need a fourth airline going to Orlando or can support that. I would much rather see LAX or PHX or even a second option for the very limited service to Vegas. Even Boston, JFK, Miami or cancun seems it would make more sense. Maybe this will shift some things around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well frontier took out their comfortable seats with tvs in the back and replaced them with thin rock-hard one with no tvs....they also charge for carryons and all bags for that matter....they also charge for drinks and snacks even the pretzels and coke.....they also don't do regularly scheduled daily flights everywhere so it sucks when they cancel the flight all together and say "we can get you on next weeks flight" then offer a $25 voucher that you have 90 days to use only after spending over an hour on the phone to get it..:..just like spirit IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, GR8scott said:

Well frontier took out their comfortable seats with tvs in the back and replaced them with thin rock-hard one with no tvs....they also charge for carryons and all bags for that matter....they also charge for drinks and snacks even the pretzels and coke.....they also don't do regularly scheduled daily flights everywhere so it sucks when they cancel the flight all together and say "we can get you on next weeks flight" then offer a $25 voucher that you have 90 days to use only after spending over an hour on the phone to get it..:..just like spirit IMO. 

Yikes! The last time I flew Frontier was shortly after they bought Midwest, flying out of Milwaukee.  They had Directv in each seat, and it was a really nice airline and travel experience. What a shame they have gone ultra low cost  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Hoeks said:

Below are some photos of the new addition taken this past weekend.   Hard to describe, but this is a drastic change to how the airport feels.   It used to feel very small walking up the low, dark ramp and right to the gates.   This makes the airport seem much larger, and not so regional.  I've gone through a couple times now, and each time, travelers were commenting. It was also busier one of the days, and they opened an additional security checkpoint (they can open or close doors visible in picture 1).  Not that it is ever hard to get through security, but passenger throughput is improved.   There is a dedicated TSA PreCheck lane, which is convenient.   The new starbucks after security is a nice addition, and will not replace the existing location.   There is ample room/seating after security to put on shoes/belts/etc.   I did not go into the Grand Rapids gift shop, and the restaurant/brewery is still under construction.  

Wow.  That looks great!

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.