Should the M-6 have been built?

[Veloise]

...You're absolutely correct, there is very little congestion at rush hour here in GR. That's why the BRT and commuter rail are not necessary here. (More comments to follow later )

Transit is not designed/needed solely to alleviate motorcar congestion. (But you knew that.)

[GRDadof3]

Transit is not designed/needed solely to alleviate motorcar congestion. (But you knew that.)

Exactly. It's to give people alternatives, and make it much more convenient (buses coming every 15 minutes, running later and traveling 20% faster is a lot more desirable for people).

[Raildudes dad]

I’ve been reading this thread over the past couple weeks for several reasons. One, I’ve always been drawn to road building and I have a pretty strong opinion on the Silver line .BRT. I haven’t posted much because I’ve been busy lately preparing a Power Point on the history of road construction in Kent County. (Yeh, I’m a road guy )

I made notes as I read the posts and have had the time to research to make the comments I will make.

One poster stated “29th Street went from a 2-lane back road in the woods to a wide road with lots of businesses around it because it allowed people not to use 28th Street.”. 29th Street was never a 2 lane road in the woods. The City of Kentwood whether you consider it good planning or not, developed 29th Street as a “back door” to the commercial development along 28th. The City of GR and Cascade Township had very little success getting a 27th or 29th Street. Wyoming did have some success with Prairie Parkway. M-6 was just a wish with a big “fight” going on between the City of GR against it and the townships for the road.

I’m not sure where the M-6 traffic of 25,000 cars comes from. The traffic counts range from 50,400 ADT between US131 and Kalamazoo Ave. to 26,000 ADT on both ends. Cutting it in half to say 25000 users per day for commuting is not the way traffic is measured nor do I consider it an accurate statement. Incidentally, the 50,400 count is equal to or higher than US 131 south of M-6, north of I-96 and I-196 at Hudsonville, I-96 west of Alpine and east of M-6. It’s a fairly heavily used local freeway segment.

The Division Ave bus line has 2567 weekday boarding’s. The same rational would say it serves 1284 commuters per day. Transit systems count boarding’s and highway systems count vehicles per day. Lets use apples to apples accounting.

Let’s return back to M-6. There were comments on how it doesn’t pay for itself; no one would pay enough to use it as a toll road to pay for it. Let’s see how much fuel tax revenue it does generate. I calculated a weighted ADT for the 18.36 miles. That number is 37,000 ADT. The commercial count is 3700 ADT. I assumed a 5 day week, 15mpg for cars and 5mpg for trucks (my own truck averages 6.2+ running empty or light load) The fuel tax generated for a 5 day week for a year is over $5 million at $0.40 per gallon. This number is low since there are registration fees to be added, 2 more days of travel per week and increased traffic counts in the future.

For the sake of comparison, I will use the numbers used in this thread. 25,000 commuters per day for $650 million M-6 is $26,000 per commuter. 1285 commuters per day on the $40 million BRT is $31,100 per commuter. If M-6 is a bad deal, then the BRT is worse.

Let’s look further at the BRT. According to the Rapid, overall rider ship has increased 46.5% system wide. The Division Ave route has increased only 20%. The Silver Line is going to be 9.6 miles long, with 36 stops, 17 of which are “stations”. That’s a stop every 1400 feet. This is an “Express bus”?

The Division Ave bus has 2567 weekday boarding but they consider the Division Ave “corridor” to be 7751 daily boarding’s. That number is derived by adding in the Clyde Park route (across the freeway), the Madison route, the Eastern route and the Kalamazoo Ave route. Now those 5 routes are in a 3 mile wide corridor (with a freeway in it no less). If “we” are going to use the “corridor” idea, then the traffic counts on 44th St., 52/54th St. and 68th Street need to get added the M-6 counts.

Don’t get me wrong, I do support a good bus system, but I guess the “Hollander” in me says we could spend our transit monies more wisely than the Silver Line. If it is supposed to be such an economic developer, set up a Tax Increment Financing District to pay for at least the operating cost required, if not a good portion of the capital costs. (Free Federal and State monies are not free)

[jas49503]

If you are going to compare M-6 to the proPosed BRT then you shouldn't use the M-6 numbers to the division ave bus numbers. You should compare whatever was M-6 before it existed to the bus numbers. Since BRT is to a regular bus what M-6 is a 2 lane rural road.

Stops every 1400 feet are a lot further apart than a regular bus as well. Hat us part of the problem with regular busses. They stop every 50 feet (or at least it seems that wAy). I went for a run last year along lake drive through east town to east hills. Coincidentally there happened to be a bus going my direction. In the mile or so between east town and east hills it was not able to Put much more than a hundred yards or so distance between us. I am a really slow runner. And I don't think this is a isolated experience. It also helps demonstrat the need for an alternative to the service we have now. It works great only for people who are lazy with nowhere to be. You can almOst always get there faster on a bike and you can't get there with any kind of reliabiliy or timeliness now. I have customers who need to take the bus once I. A while and they are always late for meetings or they need to leave early because if they miss this next bus it may be an hour before the next one. THe system is a total failure and people wonder why there isn't greater utilization.

BTW, I did this On my phone sorry about the weird capitalization.

[jas49503]

Also, according to the government, the average car gets 33 mpg and light truck gets 25 mpg which would significantly affect your calculations. It is largely irrelevant though because those people were going to commute there anyway. the fuel tax was going to be collected regardless. in fact, if M-6 did what it was supposed to do (make travel quicker and more efficient) then the tax collected would actually drop. If you think that tax would increase due to new development and more people traveling along the route then you've backed into the whole M-6 encourages Sprawl argument.

[fotoman311]

If you are going to compare M-6 to the proPosed BRT then you shouldn't use the M-6 numbers to the division ave bus numbers. You should compare whatever was M-6 before it existed to the bus numbers. Since BRT is to a regular bus what M-6 is a 2 lane rural road.

Stops every 1400 feet are a lot further apart than a regular bus as well. Hat us part of the problem with regular busses. They stop every 50 feet (or at least it seems that wAy). I went for a run last year along lake drive through east town to east hills. Coincidentally there happened to be a bus going my direction. In the mile or so between east town and east hills it was not able to Put much more than a hundred yards or so distance between us. I am a really slow runner. And I don't think this is a isolated experience. It also helps demonstrat the need for an alternative to the service we have now. It works great only for people who are lazy with nowhere to be. You can almOst always get there faster on a bike and you can't get there with any kind of reliabiliy or timeliness now. I have customers who need to take the bus once I. A while and they are always late for meetings or they need to leave early because if they miss this next bus it may be an hour before the next one. THe system is a total failure and people wonder why there isn't greater utilization.

BTW, I did this On my phone sorry about the weird capitalization.

One other thing to realize that will also make the BRT faster is that you will buy your tickets at the stations, so that when you board the bus, you just stick the card in and you're done, just like transit in most large cities. You don't have to wait for 2 or 3 people to stick their dollar and coins in the pay slot. I hate doing that when I ride the bus, because I always feel like I'm holding things up. And the stations will be level with the bus, making boarding for handicapped riders significantly easier and faster.

According to the info posted on the Rapid's Master plan website, there will be 19 stations for each direction. That puts them about 1/2 mile apart, probably more spread out to the south and closer together downtown where the density is higher and there are more destinations. Certainly this is more spread out than the Rapid's normal fixed routes.

The stations will also have a sign, showing when the next bus is scheduled to arrive based on the GPS data of the bus' current location.

[RegalTDP]

One poster stated “29th Street went from a 2-lane back road in the woods to a wide road with lots of businesses around it because it allowed people not to use 28th Street.”. 29th Street was never a 2 lane road in the woods. The City of Kentwood whether you consider it good planning or not, developed 29th Street as a “back door” to the commercial development along 28th. The City of GR and Cascade Township had very little success getting a 27th or 29th Street. Wyoming did have some success with Prairie Parkway. M-6 was just a wish with a big “fight” going on between the City of GR against it and the townships for the road.

I should have been clearer. I know 29th Street's purpose was to function as a back door to 28th street for commercial vehicles; that was kinda the basis of what I was getting at, that a lot of other people started using it because it was so much easier, and all the retail on that street sprouted up as a result. There was hardly any retail on 29th in 1990... Bargain Books, Russo's, Fox Jewelers (actually, the one that one that was there before Fox. I forgot the name)... Maybe a couple others, but that was mostly it. Not like now. I'm not bashing it, it was just an observation.

And it was mostly fields and trees. I meant "back road in the woods" kind of in hyperbole; true, it was no Forest Hills; but save for a few industrial centers, most of the lots adjoining 29th Street were just wilderness. Most of the strip malls and box stores on 28th were smaller then and didn't stretch all the way back to 29th like they do now. If there was a back access to 29th, it was a driveway that cut through the brush.

I thought I remembered it being 2 lanes at some point, but I could be wrong. I guess they would've wanted to design it fairly wide to accommodate the commercial traffic.

[walker]

Well I voted for the Silver Line last time around but I did it with a bit of skepticism. Many of the arguments for BRT were almost irrelevant to whether you used BRT or a bus.

One other thing to realize that will also make the BRT faster is that you will buy your tickets at the stations, so that when you board the bus, you just stick the card in and you're done, just like transit in most large cities. You don't have to wait for 2 or 3 people to stick their dollar and coins in the pay slot. I hate doing that when I ride the bus, because I always feel like I'm holding things up.

You can pre-buy tickets now and if you want more buying locations there is nothing about a bus that precludes kiosks in high usage locations:

rapid purchase fares

And the stations will be level with the bus, making boarding for handicapped riders significantly easier and faster. . . . there will be 19 stations for each direction. That puts them about 1/2 mile apart. . .

A level platform would be nicer than the lifts that conventional buses have but the trade-off is that the handicapped person might have to hobble a longer way to get to one of these stations since we are not going to have frequent stops.

The stations will also have a sign, showing when the next bus is scheduled to arrive based on the GPS data of the bus' current location.

This is possible now. You don't need BRT in order to put up a sign, or use an APP.

I know a conventional bus does not have the cool factor of BRT. It seems to me though that the way to increase transit use along Division is to increase frequency. A bus every five minutes with frequent stops is a lot more convenient and on average faster than a BRT with few stops and a half hour frequency. (When I was a kid, busses came every five or six minutes during peak times on the Plainfield route - you didn't need to plan your day around the bus schedule, it was no big deal if you missed a bus.)

I will probably vote yes again if for no other reason than because I don't like the crowd that's pushing for a no vote. But I'm just not sold the BRT is the best alternative on Division.

EDIT: I suppose this really belongs in the transit update thread, but it's here in M-6 because I was replying to a previous post in M-6.

[AlexPKeaton]

BTW, I did this On my phone sorry about the weird capitalization.

Hah, I thought you were trying to encode some hidden message.

[GRDadof3]

Well I voted for the Silver Line last time around but I did it with a bit of skepticism. Many of the arguments for BRT were almost irrelevant to whether you used BRT or a bus.

You can pre-buy tickets now and if you want more buying locations there is nothing about a bus that precludes kiosks in high usage locations:

rapid purchase fares

A level platform would be nicer than the lifts that conventional buses have but the trade-off is that the handicapped person might have to hobble a longer way to get to one of these stations since we are not going to have frequent stops.

This is possible now. You don't need BRT in order to put up a sign, or use an APP.

I know a conventional bus does not have the cool factor of BRT. It seems to me though that the way to increase transit use along Division is to increase frequency. A bus every five minutes with frequent stops is a lot more convenient and on average faster than a BRT with few stops and a half hour frequency. (When I was a kid, busses came every five or six minutes during peak times on the Plainfield route - you didn't need to plan your day around the bus schedule, it was no big deal if you missed a bus.)

I will probably vote yes again if for no other reason than because I don't like the crowd that's pushing for a no vote. But I'm just not sold the BRT is the best alternative on Division.

EDIT: I suppose this really belongs in the transit update thread, but it's here in M-6 because I was replying to a previous post in M-6.

This time around on the millage, only 1/3 of the request is for the Silver Line. The rest is for exactly what you are talking about: higher frequency, later runs, additional routes.

[GRDadof3]

I’ve been reading this thread over the past couple weeks for several reasons. One, I’ve always been drawn to road building and I have a pretty strong opinion on the Silver line .BRT. I haven’t posted much because I’ve been busy lately preparing a Power Point on the history of road construction in Kent County. (Yeh, I’m a road guy )

I made notes as I read the posts and have had the time to research to make the comments I will make.

One poster stated “29th Street went from a 2-lane back road in the woods to a wide road with lots of businesses around it because it allowed people not to use 28th Street.”. 29th Street was never a 2 lane road in the woods. The City of Kentwood whether you consider it good planning or not, developed 29th Street as a “back door” to the commercial development along 28th. The City of GR and Cascade Township had very little success getting a 27th or 29th Street. Wyoming did have some success with Prairie Parkway. M-6 was just a wish with a big “fight” going on between the City of GR against it and the townships for the road.

I’m not sure where the M-6 traffic of 25,000 cars comes from. The traffic counts range from 50,400 ADT between US131 and Kalamazoo Ave. to 26,000 ADT on both ends. Cutting it in half to say 25000 users per day for commuting is not the way traffic is measured nor do I consider it an accurate statement. Incidentally, the 50,400 count is equal to or higher than US 131 south of M-6, north of I-96 and I-196 at Hudsonville, I-96 west of Alpine and east of M-6. It’s a fairly heavily used local freeway segment.

The Division Ave bus line has 2567 weekday boarding’s. The same rational would say it serves 1284 commuters per day. Transit systems count boarding’s and highway systems count vehicles per day. Lets use apples to apples accounting.

Let’s return back to M-6. There were comments on how it doesn’t pay for itself; no one would pay enough to use it as a toll road to pay for it. Let’s see how much fuel tax revenue it does generate. I calculated a weighted ADT for the 18.36 miles. That number is 37,000 ADT. The commercial count is 3700 ADT. I assumed a 5 day week, 15mpg for cars and 5mpg for trucks (my own truck averages 6.2+ running empty or light load) The fuel tax generated for a 5 day week for a year is over $5 million at $0.40 per gallon. This number is low since there are registration fees to be added, 2 more days of travel per week and increased traffic counts in the future.

For the sake of comparison, I will use the numbers used in this thread. 25,000 commuters per day for $650 million M-6 is $26,000 per commuter. 1285 commuters per day on the $40 million BRT is $31,100 per commuter. If M-6 is a bad deal, then the BRT is worse.

Let’s look further at the BRT. According to the Rapid, overall rider ship has increased 46.5% system wide. The Division Ave route has increased only 20%. The Silver Line is going to be 9.6 miles long, with 36 stops, 17 of which are “stations”. That’s a stop every 1400 feet. This is an “Express bus”?

The Division Ave bus has 2567 weekday boarding but they consider the Division Ave “corridor” to be 7751 daily boarding’s. That number is derived by adding in the Clyde Park route (across the freeway), the Madison route, the Eastern route and the Kalamazoo Ave route. Now those 5 routes are in a 3 mile wide corridor (with a freeway in it no less). If “we” are going to use the “corridor” idea, then the traffic counts on 44th St., 52/54th St. and 68th Street need to get added the M-6 counts.

Don’t get me wrong, I do support a good bus system, but I guess the “Hollander” in me says we could spend our transit monies more wisely than the Silver Line. If it is supposed to be such an economic developer, set up a Tax Increment Financing District to pay for at least the operating cost required, if not a good portion of the capital costs. (Free Federal and State monies are not free)

Where did the $40 Million price tag come from?

The $32 Million allocated for the Silver Line has already been earmarked. That's not what the millage request is asking. If we don't use it, it will go somewhere else, and not back to the federal government.

I agree, there are too many stops as currently proposed. I wouldn't be surprised if that gets changed as engineering work begins. I know the Charlotte light rail line went through a ton of station changes, even as it was under construction.

You rested my point about turning our highways into toll roads. It's dead in the water if you ask people to physically pay to use it. I only use that to counteract claims that bus riders should bare all responsibility for operating costs.

[walker]

This time around on the millage, only 1/3 of the request is for the Silver Line. The rest is for exactly what you are talking about: higher frequency, later runs, additional routes.

I'd rather the last 1/3 went to increase the frequency on the Division line and forget the BRT. I figure what's happening is that they're chasing the federal funds for the BRT but I think it's a case of the tail wagging the dog. I think if we were to end up with both the BRT in addition to the Division bus route we will end up with two routes competing for mostly the same riders and both operating well below what is acceptable. I strongly support public transit so I'd like nothing better than to be convinced that I'm wrong. Like I said, I will likely vote yes despite my misgivings and when it wins by one vote we'll see what happens.

[Raildudes dad]

I shouldn't even typing this , I'm sneaking a few minutes on the computer since I had emergency eye surgery today and I'm not supposed to be "reading for a couple weeks" but I can't wait that long to reply .

Walker - your comments are right on IMHO

$40 million = $32 federal and $8 million from MDOT (80 / 20 match with no local match required)

Tickets could be sold from a kiosk just like the one used in a parking ramp, much cheaper than a "station".

jas49503 - those govt fuel economy averages might be for today's new vehicles, but certainly don't apply to what is on the highway. I have 3 vehicles that get 15-18 around town and maybe 20 -24 on the highway in the summer. As for trucks, the 3700 is commercial semi type trucks. The 11-13 axle trucks ( aggregate & steel haulers) are lucky to get 3.5 mpg and the 5 axle 18 wheeler fleets get excited if they get 6mpg

I wasn't comparing M-6 to the BRT, rather making the same analysis on both modes.

Again: I repeat, I do support a good bus system, but I guess the “Hollander” in me says we could spend our transit monies more wisely than the Silver Line. If it is supposed to be such an economic developer, set up a Tax Increment Financing District to pay for at least the operating cost required, if not a good portion of the capital costs. (Free Federal and State monies are not free)

[jas49503]

I would hpoe that with BRT that the regular bus line is dumped. It dent make sense to run to lines on the same street. And I would also hope that BRT runs a lot more frequently than every 30 minutes be size it defeats the purpose if it hardly ever runs.

I am pretty sure that stations and kiosks are interchangeable words here when it comes to ticket purchases. BRT would eliminate the option of paying your fare when you boarded which would speed it up considerably. Right now it isn't you fare that makes it so slow, it is the hundreds of other riders who don't pre purchase tickets.

Also I would bet that the composite of vehicles on the road are far better than what you are stating. Most cars and trucks made in the last ten years (which is the vast majority) get mileage comparable to cars produced today. There haven't been any major breakthroughs in that time with regards to mileage. Remember we are talking about a highway so I would use the highway numbers. Imaxmit I don't know anything about semis and couldn't tell you the proportion of those to cars.

[jas49503]

Putting up signs at bus stops regarding bus schedules is worthless. When was the last time ambus ran on time. GPS dat is more useful if you have a phone that can access that. I would suspect that most of the people currently riding the bus do not have phone that can take advantage of that info. What is useful, is when you arrive at a stop seeing when the next several busses are arriving for all the lines servicing your stop which would ideally be several.

I think handicapped people are screwed no matter what when it comes to public transit. The system should accommodate them but it sill never be user friendly.

[fotoman311]

I would hpoe that with BRT that the regular bus line is dumped. It dent make sense to run to lines on the same street. And I would also hope that BRT runs a lot more frequently than every 30 minutes be size it defeats the purpose if it hardly ever runs.

I am pretty sure that stations and kiosks are interchangeable words here when it comes to ticket purchases. BRT would eliminate the option of paying your fare when you boarded which would speed it up considerably. Right now it isn't you fare that makes it so slow, it is the hundreds of other riders who don't pre purchase tickets.

Also I would bet that the composite of vehicles on the road are far better than what you are stating. Most cars and trucks made in the last ten years (which is the vast majority) get mileage comparable to cars produced today. There haven't been any major breakthroughs in that time with regards to mileage. Remember we are talking about a highway so I would use the highway numbers. Imaxmit I don't know anything about semis and couldn't tell you the proportion of those to cars.

According to the materials published by The Rapid they are planning to run the BRT at 10 minute intervals during peak times and 15 minutes during non-peak times. I don't know where the 30 minute number came from.

[jas49503]

According to the materials published by The Rapid they are planning to run the BRT at 10 minute intervals during peak times and 15 minutes during non-peak times. I don't know where the 30 minute number came from.

i got it from walker up above. I don't know where he got it from. 10 minutes is not too bad.

[walker]

i got it from walker up above. I don't know where he got it from. 10 minutes is not too bad.

I don't know where I got it from either. I thought it came from the discussions about the old Silverline proposal but I can't find it. Here's what I did find:

The current Division bus route has a frequency of 30 minutes for the full route and during peak time fifteen minutes to 36th street only:

Division Schedule

I went searching for a proposed BRT schedule. I found this proposed schedule enhancements for phase one but it didn't mention BRT scheduling:

PHASE ONE DETAILS

Here is a much longer Transit Master Plan. I think this is where fotoman found the frequencies he mentioned (page 37) - WARNING THIS A 64 page pdf:

RAPID FINAL REPORT

So if this holds true then the frequency is pretty good and takes some of the wind out of my frequency argument.

[x99]

If anyone can still support this bus "rapid" transit boondoggle after reading this, I would seriously question their objectivity. What you don't mention (although it is implied) is that your M-6 numbers are still far too low. The average passengers per car is clearly higher than one. If there are even two passengers per car, the cost per commuter is cut in half to $13,000.00. Further, M-6 generates additional monies in all of the other taxes placed on trucks: tire tax, plate taxes, you name it. Ultimately, all of those taxes also pay for the highway system as well, ensuring that those who use it most heavily (trucks) pay the most.

On the other hand, you've got this completely stupid bus idea that serves very few people at an enormously high cost which is paid entirely out of general tax revenues--virtually none of the tax revenue to fund it is funded by taxes on the users. In the end, it would probably be cheaper and more economically efficient to hand each one of the prospective users $1,500.00 to go buy a used car.

M-6, for all its faults, actually did manage to serve a much more useful function per dollar of input than any Silverline or BRT nonsense has any hope of doing.

For the sake of comparison, I will use the numbers used in this thread. 25,000 commuters per day for $650 million M-6 is $26,000 per commuter. 1285 commuters per day on the $40 million BRT is $31,100 per commuter. If M-6 is a bad deal, then the BRT is worse.

...

The Division Ave bus has 2567 weekday boarding but they consider the Division Ave “corridor” to be 7751 daily boarding’s. That number is derived by adding in the Clyde Park route (across the freeway), the Madison route, the Eastern route and the Kalamazoo Ave route. Now those 5 routes are in a 3 mile wide corridor (with a freeway in it no less). If “we” are going to use the “corridor” idea, then the traffic counts on 44th St., 52/54th St. and 68th Street need to get added the M-6 counts.

Don’t get me wrong, I do support a good bus system, but I guess the “Hollander” in me says we could spend our transit monies more wisely than the Silver Line. If it is supposed to be such an economic developer, set up a Tax Increment Financing District to pay for at least the operating cost required, if not a good portion of the capital costs. (Free Federal and State monies are not free)

[GRDadof3]

If anyone can still support this bus "rapid" transit boondoggle after reading this, I would seriously question their objectivity. What you don't mention (although it is implied) is that your M-6 numbers are still far too low. The average passengers per car is clearly higher than one. If there are even two passengers per car, the cost per commuter is cut in half to $13,000.00. Further, M-6 generates additional monies in all of the other taxes placed on trucks: tire tax, plate taxes, you name it. Ultimately, all of those taxes also pay for the highway system as well, ensuring that those who use it most heavily (trucks) pay the most.

On the other hand, you've got this completely stupid bus idea that serves very few people at an enormously high cost which is paid entirely out of general tax revenues--virtually none of the tax revenue to fund it is funded by taxes on the users. In the end, it would probably be cheaper and more economically efficient to hand each one of the prospective users $1,500.00 to go buy a used car.

And average riders per car M-6, for all its faults, actually did manage to serve a much more useful function per dollar of input than any Silverline or BRT nonsense has any hope of doing.

Sorry, I still don't think M-6 should've been built and I think the Silver Live should be built. The problem with his calculations is that he uses today's ridership on the Division route (which doesn't yet have the Silver Line), and today's users of the M-6 (which has been built). The users for M-6 before it was built were 0. We don't yet know how many more users will use the Silver Line. The Silver Line might get 2500 - 3000 riders a day, which would change your calculations. And number or riders per car is not "clearly" more than 1. It's probably 1.07.

[x99]

Over the long haul, this is a growing area, and M-6 needed to be built in order the service the traffic demands unless, of course, you plan to grow the area with people who are too poor to afford cars or want crappy old 900 square foot houses in Grand Rapids and Wyoming. I really see zero tangible benefits to preferring bus lines over highways. You are not, no matter how badly you may desire it, going to coax people into living in high density developments in Grand Rapids and taking the bus to work. There is plenty of land to go around, and additional suburban developments and vehicular travel are the way of the future around here, even if I dislike it.

I simply cannot fathom how building a "high speed" bus line is going to spur or accommodate future growth that existing buses cannot already service. I just don't get it. In fact, I can hardly see one potential benefit whatsoever other than a bunch of fairy tale nonsense promoted by urban transit junkies and dreamers. Oh the other hand, while M6 may have been wildly too expensive, I can at least understand its many benefits, and so could anyone else capable of looking at a map.

Sorry, I still don't think M-6 should've been built and I think the Silver Live should be built. The problem with his calculations is that he uses today's ridership on the Division route (which doesn't yet have the Silver Line), and today's users of the M-6 (which has been built). The users for M-6 before it was built were 0. We don't yet know how many more users will use the Silver Line. The Silver Line might get 2500 - 3000 riders a day, which would change your calculations. And number or riders per car is not "clearly" more than 1. It's probably 1.07.

[jas49503]

Sorry, I still don't think M-6 should've been built and I think the Silver Live should be built. The problem with his calculations is that he uses today's ridership on the Division route (which doesn't yet have the Silver Line), and today's users of the M-6 (which has been built). The users for M-6 before it was built were 0. We don't yet know how many more users will use the Silver Line. The Silver Line might get 2500 - 3000 riders a day, which would change your calculations. And number or riders per car is not "clearly" more than 1. It's probably 1.07.

I agree totally and another thing is that M-6 doesn't change the tax revenues collected. People are going to get to their destination whether there is a highway or not. in fact it may decrease them, as it makes it more efficient to get across the south side of town.

[jas49503]

Over the long haul, this is a growing area, and M-6 needed to be built in order the service the traffic demands unless, of course, you plan to grow the area with people who are too poor to afford cars or want crappy old 900 square foot houses in Grand Rapids and Wyoming. I really see zero tangible benefits to preferring bus lines over highways. You are not, no matter how badly you may desire it, going to coax people into living in high density developments in Grand Rapids and taking the bus to work. There is plenty of land to go around, and additional suburban developments and vehicular travel are the way of the future around here, even if I dislike it.

I simply cannot fathom how building a "high speed" bus line is going to spur or accommodate future growth that existing buses cannot already service. I just don't get it. In fact, I can hardly see one potential benefit whatsoever other than a bunch of fairy tale nonsense promoted by urban transit junkies and dreamers. Oh the other hand, while M6 may have been wildly too expensive, I can at least understand its many benefits, and so could anyone else capable of looking at a map.

unless gas reaches 8 dollars a gallon and people decide they no longer want to live 20 miles outside of town. now all you have is a huge white elephant that cost $650 million. if you've been to any other city with acceptable public transit you will see lots of people using it over driving. the problem now is that the bus is total piece of crap no matter what the service interval is or how many routes it has.

[arcturus]

I simply cannot fathom how building a "high speed" bus line is going to spur or accommodate future growth that existing buses cannot already service. I just don't get it. In fact, I can hardly see one potential benefit whatsoever other than a bunch of fairy tale nonsense promoted by urban transit junkies and dreamers. Oh the other hand, while M6 may have been wildly too expensive, I can at least understand its many benefits, and so could anyone else capable of looking at a map.

You got that right, and talking about existing buses, I take one ... frequently, and it's a joke how few people use it even with gas hitting $4 and this with school still open. M-6 was a rare example of realistic foresight in this state.

[GRDadof3]

Over the long haul, this is a growing area, and M-6 needed to be built in order the service the traffic demands unless, of course, you plan to grow the area with people who are too poor to afford cars or want crappy old 900 square foot houses in Grand Rapids and Wyoming. I really see zero tangible benefits to preferring bus lines over highways. You are not, no matter how badly you may desire it, going to coax people into living in high density developments in Grand Rapids and taking the bus to work. There is plenty of land to go around, and additional suburban developments and vehicular travel are the way of the future around here, even if I dislike it.

I simply cannot fathom how building a "high speed" bus line is going to spur or accommodate future growth that existing buses cannot already service. I just don't get it. In fact, I can hardly see one potential benefit whatsoever other than a bunch of fairy tale nonsense promoted by urban transit junkies and dreamers. Oh the other hand, while M6 may have been wildly too expensive, I can at least understand its many benefits, and so could anyone else capable of looking at a map.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. You only see things through one lens, people with kids, which is now less than 30% of households in Kent County. Significant increases in ridership have happened here and every other city in the country where investments have been made in transit. It's been proven over and over again. The main difference is is that investment in transit generally happens in pre-existing built environments.

While the areas along the South Division corridor might not be growing, what is growing is the number of workers downtown (fastest growing employment area in the county by far) and the number of commuters traveling in that corridor.

Yes, I'm a "dreamer," lol. I dream of a time when we don't waste money and resources and "live within our means" as a community.