Should the M-6 have been built?

[Mark Miller]

The M-6 /US 131 interchange is "sprawling" as it's designed for future traffic. It has merge weave lanes for the future entering / exiting traffic volumes so it will not be a malfunction junction in the future like US131/I96, US131/I196, and East Beltline/I96 are today for example. Those interchanges malfunction because the design traffic counts of the early 60's were about 10% of today's traffic volumes.

The M-6 interchange was designed for future traffic....based on projections and standards established when? 1990? What makes you so confident that the same thing will not happen in 30 years that you are referring to with the above "malfunction junctions". Those, I am sure, were designed with careful leading edge standards and projections...in 1960. It is just that they completely missed the mark. It is possible that they again completely missed the mark.

There is no way to know until it is too late. But history has proven, since Robert Moses started building highways in Long Island in the 1920's and 1930's,that (as an earlier post indicated) "transportation investments lead to seemingly paradoxical outcomes based on empirical review of transportation data. One of those outcomes is that new road construction actually increases congestion overtime." Build it and they will come...in droves and then people will b*tch about conjestion and then we will spend another $50million applying a band-aid to the problem.

No one would have believed anyone that would have predicted in the late 90's that MI would be in a recession for the next 10 years and the only state to lose population by 2010. If anyone had said in the next decade that Steelcase would be selling and closing factory buildings and the 36th Stamping plant would be closed and demolished, you would have been accused of smoking wacky tabaky.

Exactly the point. We can not adequately predict what is going to happen. The issue of congestion on M-6 and its impending "Fix on M-6" may not even be an issue in 20 years when gas prices hit $10 per gallon and nobody is worried about how crapty their forty minute commute is. Or it may well be when gas is still at $4.00, and we need to fix it.

What we can probably safely assume, is that current conditions will be different, maybe drastically different. It took decades for 28th street to go from the regional retail center to 30% vacancy and shuttered buildings. Nobody in 1960 or 70 would have ever thought the happy times would end and certainly did not prepare for them.

We need to plan better for the potential worse case scenarios. We are not, at our own peril. The $650 million dollars allocated to M-6 should have been used to begin to build a transit network in this city and inner ring, not to build another highway. M-6 is misinvestment, built on misinvestment.

If we had begun to plan to build robust transit, instead of this highway decades ago, would we be better off or worse off today?

In 30 years, even if all the doom and gloom does not come to fruition, would we be better off or worse off by not investing heavily in transit today and effectively saying no more highways?

I am confident of my answer.

[GRDadof3]

I think too that many people in West Michigan have very little experience seeing what mass transit investments have done in other cities. If they could see it, they might understand it more. Several commenters on the MLive article actually laughingly referred to the M-6 as though it were a wonder to behold; a smashing success that should be replicated. I very highly doubt anyone from another larger city than Grand Rapids would feel the same. It's basically pretty awful looking. Big sound barriers, obnoxious billboards, new strip malls, brand new neighborhoods with no trees, etc.. Maybe I'm a bit biased, but the development that springs up around transit stops is usually quite striking.

If massive development along highways is your thing, try 36 between Denver and Boulder, Colorado. Or 494 around the Southern end of Minneapolis. Or highway 15 going into Las Vegas. Or the 401 in Toronto. They make M-6 look like a dirt road. And I find it hilarious how the service roads running alongside these highways have big box stores FACING the highway, as if you're in some bizarro world where Rivertown Parkway has become a 10 lane highway.

Not sure what my point is, ha!

[Veloise]

...Not sure what my point is, ha!

Maybe "Rapid yes."

[AlexPKeaton]

I think too that many people in West Michigan have very little experience seeing what mass transit investments have done in other cities. If they could see it, they might understand it more. Several commenters on the MLive article actually laughingly referred to the M-6 as though it were a wonder to behold; a smashing success that should be replicated. I very highly doubt anyone from another larger city than Grand Rapids would feel the same. It's basically pretty awful looking. Big sound barriers, obnoxious billboards, new strip malls, brand new neighborhoods with no trees, etc.. Maybe I'm a bit biased, but the development that springs up around transit stops is usually quite striking.

Granted, the commenters on MLive are usually total idiots, but you can't have it both ways. If the M-6 is simply pulling development at the expense of other areas of town, which seems to be your argument, then it didn't generate any new growth. Now you're saying transit stops will generate new development rather than just shifting it around? Maybe it is more desirable to shift development into the city along transit corridors, but it still strikes me as a boondoggle as it really isn't creating anything.

This is why I'm so skeptical of all the unicorn and fairies reports of Portland's light rail system. Portland is not Grand Rapids. Portland is growing at a rapid clip. Good for them that they've been able to direct that growth along transit lines instead of new highways. We're stagnant. If you build it, they will not come.

And again, I say this as someone who would love to see real transit project in Grand Rapids so we could have a real downtown without parking lots everywhere. It's just not realistic right now.

[GRDadof3]

Granted, the commenters on MLive are usually total idiots, but you can't have it both ways. If the M-6 is simply pulling development at the expense of other areas of town, which seems to be your argument, then it didn't generate any new growth. Now you're saying transit stops will generate new development rather than just shifting it around? Maybe it is more desirable to shift development into the city along transit corridors, but it still strikes me as a boondoggle as it really isn't creating anything.

This is why I'm so skeptical of all the unicorn and fairies reports of Portland's light rail system. Portland is not Grand Rapids. Portland is growing at a rapid clip. Good for them that they've been able to direct that growth along transit lines instead of new highways. We're stagnant. If you build it, they will not come.

And again, I say this as someone who would love to see real transit project in Grand Rapids so we could have a real downtown without parking lots everywhere. It's just not realistic right now.

The difference is that it's usually denser and more efficient development, on property that is already well served with infrastructure. In addition, it was trumpeted by the Press as a success story and a jobs creator. I was saying that it is not. It's called using what we already have, and not adding wastefully.

I never mentioned Portland.

[jas49503]

Granted, the commenters on MLive are usually total idiots, but you can't have it both ways. If the M-6 is simply pulling development at the expense of other areas of town, which seems to be your argument, then it didn't generate any new growth. Now you're saying transit stops will generate new development rather than just shifting it around? Maybe it is more desirable to shift development into the city along transit corridors, but it still strikes me as a boondoggle as it really isn't creating anything.

transit stops generate development at the locations of the stops. if mass transit is developed preferentially to M-6 type development then development will be concentrated in the city comparated to the suburbs. this has the effect of preventing urban decay which in turn would make the city more desirable compared to putting some strip mall in the middle of nowhere. by making the city more attractive, it keeps people from migrating out and help attract new talent to the city stimulating growth. this of course works slowly but the effect, I believe, is cumulative.

maybe it wouldn't stimulate explosive growth like portland or some sunbelt city but it would help in the long run as well as help disadvantaged people in the short run. no everybody can get out to 60th street for a job.

[GRDadof3]

transit stops generate development at the locations of the stops. if mass transit is developed preferentially to M-6 type development then development will be concentrated in the city comparated to the suburbs. this has the effect of preventing urban decay which in turn would make the city more desirable compared to putting some strip mall in the middle of nowhere. by making the city more attractive, it keeps people from migrating out and help attract new talent to the city stimulating growth. this of course works slowly but the effect, I believe, is cumulative.

maybe it wouldn't stimulate explosive growth like portland or some sunbelt city but it would help in the long run as well as help disadvantaged people in the short run. no everybody can get out to 60th street for a job.

Much of that sunbelt growth has come to a screeching halt, now that it's not being financed by artificial lending practices.

[jas49503]

Much of that sunbelt growth has come to a screeching halt, now that it's not being financed by artificial lending practices.

I think that pretty much applies to the entire country at this point.

[x99]

transit stops generate development at the locations of the stops. if mass transit is developed preferentially to M-6 type development then development will be concentrated in the city comparated to the suburbs.

Well. I guess that explains all of the explosive growth by the new bus stops.

Suburban conceit thought it may be, the folks riding the bus aren't the ones footing the bill for it. The folks driving the highways, on the other hand, more often are, and they don't particularly care to foot the bill for both when it's sold to them as something to benefit them, because it isn't. Be honest, and sell buses as a way to help the poor, and perhaps you'll get somewhere. Mass transit won't do squat to bring development into the City unless your definition of "development" includes more homeless shelters and low income housing. Right or wrong, that isn't what most people think of when they think of development. It's also why mass transit isn't likely to happen--those who fund it don't want the "development" that mass transit brings leaving the City.

Quite honestly, I think M6 could probably come fairly close to paying for itself if it were repurposed strictly as a toll road, and "avoidance methods" were implemented as I mentioned earlier (minor tolls on 96). I strongly doubt the same could ever be said for any form of mass transit in this area. M-6 may not have been the best idea, but it's still better than some ridiculous mass transit alternative.

[jas49503]

Well. I guess that explains all of the explosive growth by the new bus stops.

as I've stated here before, Bus transportation is a means of last resort. no development is going to be built around a bus because the only people that use it don't have any money. it is cramped, slow and unreliable and for better or worse there are a lot of "weird" people on the bus.

Quite honestly, I think M6 could probably come fairly close to paying for itself if it were repurposed strictly as a toll road, and "avoidance methods" were implemented as I mentioned earlier (minor tolls on 96). I strongly doubt the same could ever be said for any form of mass transit in this area. M-6 may not have been the best idea, but it's still better than some ridiculous mass transit alternative.

I a hundred years maybe. by then it will need to be rebuilt a few times and the payback will be extended even further. no transit ever pays for it self which is why the argument against mass transportation, that is isn't self sustaining is dumb.

[walker]

as I've stated here before, Bus transportation is a means of last resort. no development is going to be built around a bus because the only people that use it don't have any money. it is cramped, slow and unreliable and for better or worse there are a lot of "weird" people on the bus.

In cities where mass transit works it certainly isn't true that mass transit is only for poor people. The stigma certainly does exist in cities such as Grand Rapids where mass transit is sketchy and inconvenient and is used mainly by people who have no alternative. Short of some kind of dictatorial social engineering I don't know how you can change the usage and perception. It is a catch-22 situation. Maybe it will take $5 a gallon gas and the middle class becoming poorer.

I'm not saying anything original if I say that a major problem with the M-6 type sprawl is that its lack of density and central point destinations makes any kind of future efficient user friendly mass transit just that much more unlikely. So for non-poor people who are in favor of a strong mass transit system, the current system is just too inconvenient. I suspect that most of us here rarely take the bus. For me personally, it rarely makes sense for me to take a bus in Grand Rapids, while when I travel to cities with good public transit systems, I seldom use anything else.

[GRDadof3]

Well. I guess that explains all of the explosive growth by the new bus stops.

Suburban conceit thought it may be, the folks riding the bus aren't the ones footing the bill for it. The folks driving the highways, on the other hand, more often are, and they don't particularly care to foot the bill for both when it's sold to them as something to benefit them, because it isn't. Be honest, and sell buses as a way to help the poor, and perhaps you'll get somewhere. Mass transit won't do squat to bring development into the City unless your definition of "development" includes more homeless shelters and low income housing. Right or wrong, that isn't what most people think of when they think of development. It's also why mass transit isn't likely to happen--those who fund it don't want the "development" that mass transit brings leaving the City.

Quite honestly, I think M6 could probably come fairly close to paying for itself if it were repurposed strictly as a toll road, and "avoidance methods" were implemented as I mentioned earlier (minor tolls on 96). I strongly doubt the same could ever be said for any form of mass transit in this area. M-6 may not have been the best idea, but it's still better than some ridiculous mass transit alternative.

Boy, this is a pretty classist statement if I've ever seen one, and completely untrue.

And you have it the other way around. The 25,000 users of M-6 use it at the expense of everyone else in the State. At least the Rapid riders pitch in for a bus pass.

I'm not sure it would work as a 100% toll road. $650,000,000/25,000 people = $26,000/person (and that doesn't include maintenance). You could probably divide that up over time, but I don't see a lot of people paying $26,000 to drive on a highway that cuts 3.5 minutes off their commute.

Transportation systems do benefit everyone in the community. Just ask Mark Murray, Fred Keller, and every other large business executive in Kent County how much they rely on transit to get their workers to work.

Also, development along transit stops does happen, in direct correlation to how much is invested. A couple thousand dollar bus stop does not elicit much development. A $Million+ transit stop on the other hand.

[AlexPKeaton]

I agree with the points about transit made above. Again, I generally like subway and light rail systems, and would love to see them here. And I agree the investing where infrastructure already exists makes sense rather than subsidizing endless sprawl. My comment about Portland was in reference to all the people holding it up as a shining example of transit success, the implication being that if we just duplicate that here, we'll become as successful as Portland.

Here's my point: Yes, the M-6 might have been a horrible waste of money. But would spending $650,000,000 on a pie in the sky transit system have been any less wasteful? I doubt it.

[GRDadof3]

I agree with the points about transit made above. Again, I generally like subway and light rail systems, and would love to see them here. And I agree the investing where infrastructure already exists makes sense rather than subsidizing endless sprawl. My comment about Portland was in reference to all the people holding it up as a shining example of transit success, the implication being that if we just duplicate that here, we'll become as successful as Portland.

Here's my point: Yes, the M-6 might have been a horrible waste of money. But would spending $650,000,000 on a pie in the sky transit system have been any less wasteful? I doubt it.

Agreed. I think $650 Million for one transportation node in the GR MSA is too big of a chunk of money. It's why I'm not quite as hard on the I-196 rebuild. It was already there, since way back in the 60's. It needed to be rebuilt in a bad way. And it made quite an impact for $40 Million. Did it need added lanes? No, I don't think so. Longer weave/merge lanes to make it safer? For sure.

[AlexPKeaton]

Agreed. I think $650 Million for one transportation node in the GR MSA is too big of a chunk of money. It's why I'm not quite as hard on the I-196 rebuild. It was already there, since way back in the 60's. It needed to be rebuilt in a bad way. And it made quite an impact for $40 Million. Did it need added lanes? No, I don't think so. Longer weave/merge lanes to make it safer? For sure.

Yeah, it's actually really strange driving on it now. It's so wide and the extra lane goes for such a short distance it hardly gets any use yet. I still wish the 131 would've been rerouted the S-Curve not rebuilt. Oh well. Maybe we'll get the opportunity again in 50 years.

[Jippy]

What to do with $650 million ($800 million in today's dollars)? Here is my idea. Note: I used the $800 million guestimate for inflation.

My guess is that the following would create a much more enjoyable, diverse, and efficient economy and community than building a new beltway at the fringes. Additionally, these investments would provide greater benefit to a greater percentage of the G.R. metro population than M-6 has.

1) Rebuild roads and bridges in poor condition ($250 million),

2) institute a region-wide intelligent transportation network ($100 million) to better time traffic lights -- one that reacts to sudden shifts in traffic patterns and includes digital bus arrival times at bus stops . This would produce a far greater time savings than M6 and provide those time savings benefits to 100% of commuters, not the 5% of commuters (blind estimate) that utilize M6.

3) institute regional BRT ($300 million) -

1. Line 1a: goes from S Division to N Monroe,
2. Line 1b: Starts at Division or N Monroe and heads east on Michigan until Fuller
3. Line 2: makes a loop from downtown GVSU --> Seward Ave --> Leonard --> Monroe --> downtown --> GVSU (and vice versa),
4. Line 3: goes from downtown through east hills/east G.R./Woodland Mall to the airport,
5. Line 4: goes from downtown to GVSU Allendale

4) Convert US131 from 28th St to Ann St into a tree-lined boulevard and open adjoining property for redevelopment (and tax generation!) ($100 million).

5) Renovate key corridors with Complete Streets concepts and improve connectivity where street grid is lacking ($50 million)

In response to the jas quote above : "No development is going to be built around a bus because the only people that use it don't have any money..." I am always curious how those people pay to get on the bus when they "don't have any money". And I am consistently amazed with the oft repeated claim that no one will use the bus because "...it is cramped". Yogi Berra said it best: "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too busy".

The two comments always perplex me, because when I use the bus, I see business people, students and professors...in addition to low-income people. Its one of the only diverse places in the entire city. Try using the bus sometime, and you might be surprised by what you see.

If we did it again, what would you do with the money? I would love to hear everyone's ideas

[Khorasaurus1]

What to do with $650 million ($800 million in today's dollars)? Here is my idea. Note: I used the $800 million guestimate for inflation.

My guess is that the following would create a much more enjoyable, diverse, and efficient economy and community than building a new beltway at the fringes. Additionally, these investments would provide greater benefit to a greater percentage of the G.R. metro population than M-6 has.

1) Rebuild roads and bridges in poor condition ($250 million),

2) institute a region-wide intelligent transportation network ($100 million) to better time traffic lights

3) institute regional BRT ($300 million) -

1. Line 1a: goes from S Division to N Monroe,
2. Line 1b: Starts at Division or N Monroe and heads east on Michigan until Fuller
3. Line 2: makes a loop from downtown GVSU --> Seward Ave --> Leonard --> Monroe --> downtown --> GVSU (and vice versa),
4. Line 3: goes from downtown through east hills/east G.R./Woodland Mall to the airport,
5. Line 4: goes from downtown to GVSU Allendale

4) Convert US131 from 28th St to Ann St into a tree-lined boulevard and open adjoining property for redevelopment (and tax generation!) ($100 million).

5) Renovate key corridors with Complete Streets concepts and improve connectivity where street grid is lacking ($50 million)

In response to the jas quote above : "No development is going to be built around a bus because the only people that use it don't have any money..." I am always curious how those people pay to get on the bus when they "don't have any money". And I am consistently amazed with the oft repeated claim that no one will use the bus because "...it is cramped". Yogi Berra said it best: "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too busy".

The two comments always perplex me, because when I use the bus, I see business people, students and professors...in addition to low-income people. Its one of the only diverse places in the entire city. Try using the bus sometime, and you might be surprised by what you see.

These are some great suggestions. Number 1 is obvious - the condition of the roads across the state is embarrassing.

Number 2 would have gone a long way to fixing the problems that were specfically addressed by M-6. The crosstown journey on the south side of town was very difficult and timed lights on 28th or 44th would have a made a big difference.

On Number 4, I don't know that decommissioning any of the existing freeways would be a good idea. Unless you added really high capacity transit in the corridor, you wouldn't be able to replicate the capacity without building a road almost as obtrusive as the existing freeways. The truck traffic is really the killer I think. For most areas (excluding 131 between the S-Curve and Leonard), a 6 lane boulevard with heavy truck traffic would hurt almost as much as the existing freeway. Additionally, if the capacity of 131 specifically was lowered, there would need to be a replacement route for north-south through traffic, likely in the form of a costly and otherwise pointless West Beltline.

That said, a Beltline-style boulevard like you describe would have been perfect to build instead of M-6, maybe along the 60th or 68th Street corridors.

Numbers 2, 3, and 5 got me thinking about something somewhat radical that could make traffic flows smoother while improving life for pedestrians and bicyclists and opening the way for expansive BRT - creating an expanded network of one way pairs with Complete Streets principles and dedicated bus lanes. The idea would be one lane for cars, one lane for BRT, one lane for bikes, one/two lanes for parking. Some possible locations would include:

1) Fulton/Lake Michigan Drive on the lower west side. A GVSU BRT line would have to run through this area anyway and the Fulton/LMD split on the hill lends itself to it.

2) Southeast Side. An Eastown/Gaslight/Calvin/Woodland/Airport BRT line would be an excellent idea, but running it through the southeast side and East Grand Rapids would be difficult. Wealthy would be one-way eastbound from Market to Lakeside. Cherry would be one way westbound from Lake Drive to Market. Lake Drive would be one way westbound from Breton/Lakeside to Cherry. This would get the BRT from Central Station to Gaslight Village. I'm not sure what it would do then, as both Breton and Lake are pretty narrow and there is a 0% chance of anyone in East GR supporting upgrading a street like Lake Grove and running a regional bus down it. I'd also make Fuller and Diamond a similar one way pair between Wealthy and Aberdeen. The Fuller/196 interchange would be a problem though.

3)Existing one-way pairs such as College/Union and Fountain/Lyon could be redesigned in this fashion (or eliminated and those streets returned to two way traffic, depending on the needs of the expanded bus system and auto traffic patterns).

I realize one way streets are not really popular ideas anymore, but as long as we're playing "Fantasy 800 million dollars" I thought I'd throw this out there. As an aside, if I was completely redesigning GR from a transportation perspective, I would eliminate the Ottawa/Ionia one-way system and probably eliminate Ionia north of 196 completely.

[torgo]

This is an interesting conversation.

1. I don't think M6 was built just to alleviate congestion in 2011. It was also built to alleviate congestion in 2040. Long range planners are usually thinking 30 or 50 years down the road. And the "need" for roads like M6 are also (probably) based on existing patterns of growth and development (sprawl). Those patterns of development haven't changed yet. When the economy rebounds, we'll be seeing sprawl by the truckloads again. At some point sprawl will become too costly to sustain itself, but GR obviously isn't there yet. It is too early to say whether or not M6 is a success or failure. What seems wasteful and stupid now may seem prudent and visionary in 50 years.

Now you could also say that building an awesome light rail system is planning for 30 or 50 years down the road and I would agree with you, and I would also agree that it would be a far better use of all that money. But a highway will get the public support now, so the decision for elected officials becomes pretty easy: build a highway. Mass transit here is stuck in a bad loop. People don't want to pay for empty buses, but in order to improve service to get more riders, outfits like ITP need funding. Without better service, ridership stagnates.

2. I think the freeways around GR, especially downtown, make it too easy to get around by car, and M6 only makes it easier. You can live ten miles from the city center and it only takes fifteen minutes to get there by car. BRT or rail won't be that fast. Until mass transit becomes notably faster/more convenient than driving your own car, people are going to drive.

Automobile access/convenience is the top priority for pretty much everyone as far as development goes. That will take a looooooong time to change, and it will happen gradually. I would just like this region to take the plunge and put some more eggs in the mass transit basket instead of the M6/sprawl basket, because in 50 years I think the return will be much greater.

[AlexPKeaton]

Automobile access/convenience is the top priority for pretty much everyone as far as development goes. That will take a looooooong time to change, and it will happen gradually. I would just like this region to take the plunge and put some more eggs in the mass transit basket instead of the M6/sprawl basket, because in 50 years I think the return will be much greater.

For sure. The price of oil will be higher as demand outstrips supply, which means the age of single passenger automobiles is limited. Investing in transit project now will prove visionary at some point in the future, but right now it's a hard sell.

[GRDadof3]

What to do with $650 million ($800 million in today's dollars)? Here is my idea. Note: I used the $800 million guestimate for inflation.

My guess is that the following would create a much more enjoyable, diverse, and efficient economy and community than building a new beltway at the fringes. Additionally, these investments would provide greater benefit to a greater percentage of the G.R. metro population than M-6 has.

1) Rebuild roads and bridges in poor condition ($250 million),

2) institute a region-wide intelligent transportation network ($100 million) to better time traffic lights -- one that reacts to sudden shifts in traffic patterns and includes digital bus arrival times at bus stops . This would produce a far greater time savings than M6 and provide those time savings benefits to 100% of commuters, not the 5% of commuters (blind estimate) that utilize M6.

3) institute regional BRT ($300 million) -

1. Line 1a: goes from S Division to N Monroe,
2. Line 1b: Starts at Division or N Monroe and heads east on Michigan until Fuller
3. Line 2: makes a loop from downtown GVSU --> Seward Ave --> Leonard --> Monroe --> downtown --> GVSU (and vice versa),
4. Line 3: goes from downtown through east hills/east G.R./Woodland Mall to the airport,
5. Line 4: goes from downtown to GVSU Allendale

4) Convert US131 from 28th St to Ann St into a tree-lined boulevard and open adjoining property for redevelopment (and tax generation!) ($100 million).

5) Renovate key corridors with Complete Streets concepts and improve connectivity where street grid is lacking ($50 million)

In response to the jas quote above : "No development is going to be built around a bus because the only people that use it don't have any money..." I am always curious how those people pay to get on the bus when they "don't have any money". And I am consistently amazed with the oft repeated claim that no one will use the bus because "...it is cramped". Yogi Berra said it best: "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too busy".

The two comments always perplex me, because when I use the bus, I see business people, students and professors...in addition to low-income people. Its one of the only diverse places in the entire city. Try using the bus sometime, and you might be surprised by what you see.

If we did it again, what would you do with the money? I would love to hear everyone's ideas

) BRT between downtown and Allendale, $75 Million

) Silver Line, but with slightly adjusted downtown routes, $35 Million

) Light rail first segment from Cherry/Lake/Diamond to downtown, $120 Million

) Resurface old sections of I-196 and 131, and rebuild bridges, $150 Million

) Cap over I-196 near Medical Mile, leave it parkland and development pods for future developers, $25 Million

) Stripe bike lanes on all primary roads through the city, $5 - $10 Million

) Commuter rail from 54th Street to Comstock Park, using existing freight rail corridors, $50 Million

[jas49503]

In cities where mass transit works it certainly isn't true that mass transit is only for poor people. The stigma certainly does exist in cities such as Grand Rapids where mass transit is sketchy and inconvenient and is used mainly by people who have no alternative. Short of some kind of dictatorial social engineering I don't know how you can change the usage and perception. It is a catch-22 situation. Maybe it will take $5 a gallon gas and the middle class becoming poorer.

I'm not saying anything original if I say that a major problem with the M-6 type sprawl is that its lack of density and central point destinations makes any kind of future efficient user friendly mass transit just that much more unlikely. So for non-poor people who are in favor of a strong mass transit system, the current system is just too inconvenient. I suspect that most of us here rarely take the bus. For me personally, it rarely makes sense for me to take a bus in Grand Rapids, while when I travel to cities with good public transit systems, I seldom use anything else.

you should not confuse "bus transportation" with "mass transit". while mass transit includes busses, there is so much more that makes it much more effective. and you are right that people here have no concept about how mass transit works and how effective it can be. it doesn't even need to be light rail. there are a lot of things between that and bussing that address the problems of predictability and efficiency. I don't know if the middle class needs to be poorer but as long as gas is so cheap it will be a uphill battle. I am not sure that $5 will be enough. I just read some thing that the cheapest gas in europe is 5 something and the most expensive is 8 something.

your second paragraph is spot on.

[jas49503]

In response to the jas quote above : "No development is going to be built around a bus because the only people that use it don't have any money..." I am always curious how those people pay to get on the bus when they "don't have any money". And I am consistently amazed with the oft repeated claim that no one will use the bus because "...it is cramped". Yogi Berra said it best: "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too busy".

The two comments always perplex me, because when I use the bus, I see business people, students and professors...in addition to low-income people. Its one of the only diverse places in the entire city. Try using the bus sometime, and you might be surprised by what you see.

well the statement is a relative one as even the poorest, homeless guy can usually scrounge together a few dollars. they off course have enough money for bus fare, but the statement relates to the fact that the demographic that uses the bus mostly isn't driving any development decisions. and I would include students in that category. while they may not be dirty and disheveled, they certainly don't have a lot of extra money to spend on fancy condos or new commercial developments. I think that where you take the bus makes a big difference. taking the bus from grand valley to downtown will be a lot different from a route originating on south division.

the cramped comment refers mostly to the size and configuration of the seats more than how many people are on the bus. they are designing seats for americans of 30 years ago, not of today.

[jas49503]

What to do with $650 million ($800 million in today's dollars)? Here is my idea. Note: I used the $800 million guestimate for inflation.

My guess is that the following would create a much more enjoyable, diverse, and efficient economy and community than building a new beltway at the fringes. Additionally, these investments would provide greater benefit to a greater percentage of the G.R. metro population than M-6 has.

1) Rebuild roads and bridges in poor condition ($250 million),

2) institute a region-wide intelligent transportation network ($100 million) to better time traffic lights -- one that reacts to sudden shifts in traffic patterns and includes digital bus arrival times at bus stops . This would produce a far greater time savings than M6 and provide those time savings benefits to 100% of commuters, not the 5% of commuters (blind estimate) that utilize M6.

3) institute regional BRT ($300 million) -

1. Line 1a: goes from S Division to N Monroe,
2. Line 1b: Starts at Division or N Monroe and heads east on Michigan until Fuller
3. Line 2: makes a loop from downtown GVSU --> Seward Ave --> Leonard --> Monroe --> downtown --> GVSU (and vice versa),
4. Line 3: goes from downtown through east hills/east G.R./Woodland Mall to the airport,
5. Line 4: goes from downtown to GVSU Allendale

4) Convert US131 from 28th St to Ann St into a tree-lined boulevard and open adjoining property for redevelopment (and tax generation!) ($100 million).

5) Renovate key corridors with Complete Streets concepts and improve connectivity where street grid is lacking ($50 million)

In response to the jas quote above : "No development is going to be built around a bus because the only people that use it don't have any money..." I am always curious how those people pay to get on the bus when they "don't have any money". And I am consistently amazed with the oft repeated claim that no one will use the bus because "...it is cramped". Yogi Berra said it best: "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too busy".

The two comments always perplex me, because when I use the bus, I see business people, students and professors...in addition to low-income people. Its one of the only diverse places in the entire city. Try using the bus sometime, and you might be surprised by what you see.

If we did it again, what would you do with the money? I would love to hear everyone's ideas

I think I would build a geneva style tram network around the city with BRT to the airport and GVSU, maybe along division and 28th street if there was any money left.

I am surprised that an intelligent transportation network doesn't already exist but that should also be included. It should have been done years ago.

[wmrharris]

Once we get past replacing the bridges, and generally upgrading transportation what else is left?

One could look at network infrastructure -- a fully wired region would be a real plus.

Thinking regionally, another possibility would be to create a dedicated rail line from the airport to Holland (through downtown). The separation is essential for any sort of reasonable service. By reaching Holland, one begins to cement the role of the airport as a regional driver (instead of having the Ottawa folks use Muskegon or worse drive to Chicago). The added rail service and wiring would help develop a more urban culture.

But realistically?

The people were already coming; the trucks still had to move from the factories at the airport to the markets in Chicago. And there needed to be some direct connection to the airport for the area to participate in the global economy and not simply be a minor burb with low pay. In that light, it seems you end up with one of three options: first, the M-6; second, redevelop 44th, as this was the primary connection to the airport; or postpone the e-w route until later, and then extend it out either 76th or Byron/84th. Of these, the second (redevelop 44th) ends up with a more urban road and less development, something closer to the I-96 channel or the Southfield channel in metro Detroit. For a variety of reasons, political and developmental, I believe that this would have been a terrible outcome for the metro region, with a ghetto-ized Wyoming/Kentwood n. of 44th, and a more reactionary suburban neighborhoods to the south. As to the postpone option, the push for an e-w route would continue to be there, deciding to build it in another 10 years only creates incentives for more development to the south.

So realistically, the next steps would appear to be knitting the M-6 communities into the larger metro region. This especially seems to be true in the Caledonia/Cascade region.

What to do with $650 million ($800 million in today's dollars)? Here is my idea. Note: I used the $800 million guestimate for inflation.

My guess is that the following would create a much more enjoyable, diverse, and efficient economy and community than building a new beltway at the fringes. Additionally, these investments would provide greater benefit to a greater percentage of the G.R. metro population than M-6 has.

1) Rebuild roads and bridges in poor condition ($250 million),

2) institute a region-wide intelligent transportation network ($100 million) to better time traffic lights -- one that reacts to sudden shifts in traffic patterns and includes digital bus arrival times at bus stops . This would produce a far greater time savings than M6 and provide those time savings benefits to 100% of commuters, not the 5% of commuters (blind estimate) that utilize M6.

3) institute regional BRT ($300 million) -

1. Line 1a: goes from S Division to N Monroe,
2. Line 1b: Starts at Division or N Monroe and heads east on Michigan until Fuller
3. Line 2: makes a loop from downtown GVSU --> Seward Ave --> Leonard --> Monroe --> downtown --> GVSU (and vice versa),
4. Line 3: goes from downtown through east hills/east G.R./Woodland Mall to the airport,
5. Line 4: goes from downtown to GVSU Allendale

4) Convert US131 from 28th St to Ann St into a tree-lined boulevard and open adjoining property for redevelopment (and tax generation!) ($100 million).

5) Renovate key corridors with Complete Streets concepts and improve connectivity where street grid is lacking ($50 million)

In response to the jas quote above : "No development is going to be built around a bus because the only people that use it don't have any money..." I am always curious how those people pay to get on the bus when they "don't have any money". And I am consistently amazed with the oft repeated claim that no one will use the bus because "...it is cramped". Yogi Berra said it best: "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too busy".

The two comments always perplex me, because when I use the bus, I see business people, students and professors...in addition to low-income people. Its one of the only diverse places in the entire city. Try using the bus sometime, and you might be surprised by what you see.

If we did it again, what would you do with the money? I would love to hear everyone's ideas

[wmrharris]

Thinking about the M-6, it seems that some of the same concerns are presently being considered in the development of 10-Mile. Protestations to the contrary, the significant expansion of the road seems primed to bring the sort of suburban sprawl decried with the M-6. Although it may also simply be the case that the extension is too small. Stil...