Those are *really* great ideas @gdbinlansing. I also really like the idea of a protected bike lane down Kalamazoo.
When I was living in Brooklyn, NY there was a protected two-way bike lane down Flushing Ave with cement barricades separating it from traffic. Local artists were assigned different sections and were able to make their own canvas out of it. The cement barricades don't take up much space, are easy to install, and make riding in the bike lane feel very safe.
There is one major difference in the trajectory of the two halves of downtown and it's that one has a major benefactor/mascot and one doesn't. And the other big reason is the land usage before revitalization. Pat Gillespie saw some dirt cheap land - people practically giving away land and property east of the river because no one wanted to be there - and quietly amassed a village to fill in. Since one development feeds off the other, he's done most of his big work within a few blocks of each other.
The problem west of the river is almost kind ironic. The land is actually be used for very successful (mostly private) parking operations, so even though the land isn't valuable in an urban sense, it's literally valuable. I bet you the parking companies would be asking and arm-and-a-leg if anyone came to them with an offer to buy their lots. There aren't really any developers short of the property owners themselves could or would shell out that kind of money to then have to borrow more money to build whatever it is they'd want to build. The ROI just wouldn't be quick enough. Look at the Grangers who nearly got away with tearing down their vacant build at the corner of Grand and Allegan so they could put up a parking lot.
Short of some out-of-area developer or company wanting to take a chance, I think it's going to require the city to somehow get a hold of some of these parcels, and then sell them cheap to developers. How they would do that, I have no idea.
The city could make it more expensive to own a surface lot in the downtown district perhaps by requiring fencing,walls,or landscaping around the lots to block the view of the cars parked there and beautify street space. It is ironic that parking has such power and percents in our city. I think the worst case of this is when they tore down the theater portion of the Michigan Theater for parking. Maybe some day that land will be too valuable to dedicate to surface parking. Some much larger multi-deck parking structures on the edges of downtown, with lower rates and shuttles downtown would be attractive to commutators and visitors. Maybe in the Cedar Larch corridor to the north and south.
The city could also affect parking by removing the meters downtown in trade for some shared payment that the property owners downtown pay (or just make it free like everywhere else in the city).
Just to add to your "the land is valuable for parking, even though it isn't urban-valuable" point - I work at LCC and do NOT drive there. The faculty contract guarantees all faculty a parking spot, and if you give it up the college will give you... $500 per year. Which seems insane to me (but hey I'll take it), but shows you how much parking land downtown can be worth. I know LCC doesn't have enough parking that "they own", they actually pay the AF Group to use some of their ramp.
gb, I've been wishing forever for CATA to offer a circle downtown shuttle like they do during Silver Bells.
BTW, I'd recognized this weeks ago when they released their numbers for the previous fiscal year, but CATA's ridership last fiscal year was down a whopping 4.7% with there being no good reason as to why that is. I say whopping, too, because while ridership has kind of plateaued for the last five years or more, more of less, it'd been on a constant growth course since at least 2000. The few times it has declined it's generally been by less than a percentage point a year. There hasn't been a dip like this in recent CATA history.
I've alwas been a fan of CATA, and for years it's been one of the better transit providers in the country for a city this size, but I'm starting to get worried about their lack of vision. Aside from the BRT, they should be coming up with plans for better service on existing routes. This would take very little planning, but I've heard nothing from CATA about it. And, it's not some decline in the service area in terms of population. Metro Lansing is bigger than it's ever been. To have stagnant and now falling ridership in the midst of a modest population boom - and most of that boom coming from infill and urban development as opposed to sprawl, so you have a younger and/or more liberal audience more prone to consider transit - points to something wrong at CATA that they haven't been able to capitalize off of this.
I think it's well past time CATA comes up with a vision for the next 10 years. Because, right now, they are struggling with vision.
I think one way to expand ridership would be to expand night time and weekend service. Many people work nights and weekends, many people do their shopping on the weekend. Maybe they could use a smaller fleet on buses on the off peck hours. I think that some routes should be run 24 hours. I have said here before lots of more modern stop shelters that offer a safe comfortable place to wait for the bus. Maybe the stops could have countdown clocks stating how many minuets until the next bus and wifi. Make taking the bus easier than driving your own car. Repave and maintain bus routes first, giving passengers a smooth ride would increase ridership. Change the perception that people take the bus only because they "have to".
This was reported on a few days ago, but the Canadian National is removing the long-closed Dakin service access bridge acros their tracks to Potter Park. We've talked a bit about the bridge, before. Anyway, it was closed in 2011 and was mantained by both the city and CN. Not exactly sure what it was used for exactly, though.
Anyway, what I found interesting about the press release on this is that the city says they've worked with CN and the county to add an at-grade emergency access at Allen Street a few blocks down the tracks. I've never been down this way, mostly because Allen ends north of 496 before picking up for one black south of Walsh Park. I'll have to go down that way one day to see exactly how they have this configured. My guess is that the crossing is behind a locked gate or something since this is a busy railway.
I saw an image of the new crossing on the Lansing Historical Society's Facebook page the other day but didn't look too deeply into the photo to see how it's configured. It was my understanding that the Dakin bridge was originally for public use. Where it entered the park you can see evidence of an old "Potter Park" sign that has vegetation grown over it. As the condition deteriorated it was just emergency use until it wasn't even in the condition for that. From what I understood the park was required to have a second exit for emergencies which is why that one existed and now why there is an at grade access point at Allen Street.
What's interesting, and maybe it was already brought up, is that the bridge is actually constructed with iron that out dates any bridge in Michigan. I think the plaque is from the 1880's and the bridge didn't op[en until I think 1917 it was. So likely salvaged iron, considering steel would have been used in the era it was constructed. A simple bridge with a lot of history. I can't seem to find anything on where the iron may have been salvaged from.
That makes a lot of sense that it started out as a pedestrian bridge, because I was trying to figure out exactly why you'd have a service entrance on a street that essentially isn't directly connected to any major route or a bridge that crosses to land that would have no use to service the zoo.
Thanks for that hint about the historical society's facebook page. I was able to find this:
It's exactly what I assumed. I'm kind of surprised CN seems to have been pretty expedient in allowing this. Railroads are notorious for not wanting to have to deal with new crossings.
Dakin Street Bridge:
BTW, from Dan Danke, who I believe works for the city:
The Allen Street crossing is for emergency purposes only when the Pennsylvania entrance is flooded. This is one of the conditions in the agreement between the City and the Railroad.
One of the reasons the Pennsylvania bridge cannot be raised was the Dakin Bridge underclearance is only 18 feet. If you raised the Pennsylvania bridge, it would reduce the underclearance to less than federal requirements for railroad bridges. With Dakin Bridge removed, this constraint to raising the Pennsylvania Bridge is gone. But the Railroad will likely not raise the Pennsylvania Bridge because 200 feet to the west is the Railroad bridge over the Red Cedar River, which would also need to be raised.
EDIT: Yep, was having a brainfart. I was thinking he meant raise the CN bridge over the river higher when he means the actual PA Ave bridge to the south. There will likely never be a full reconfiguration of this area given how little benefit it would have for how much it would cost, but realistically, you'd raise the whole Pennsylvania and zoo entrance intersection, and then raise the CNN line a bit higher. The expensive part would would be that to keep the grade from being too much for CN, you'd then have to also raise the CN tracks for many blocks to the east reducing it each block with a very gentle grade. How far east you'd have to go I have no idea not being an engineer, but it'd be quite a few blocks, and that'd be very expensive for the railroads who don't like to do these things.
Comments
When I was living in Brooklyn, NY there was a protected two-way bike lane down Flushing Ave with cement barricades separating it from traffic. Local artists were assigned different sections and were able to make their own canvas out of it. The cement barricades don't take up much space, are easy to install, and make riding in the bike lane feel very safe.
There is one major difference in the trajectory of the two halves of downtown and it's that one has a major benefactor/mascot and one doesn't. And the other big reason is the land usage before revitalization. Pat Gillespie saw some dirt cheap land - people practically giving away land and property east of the river because no one wanted to be there - and quietly amassed a village to fill in. Since one development feeds off the other, he's done most of his big work within a few blocks of each other.
The problem west of the river is almost kind ironic. The land is actually be used for very successful (mostly private) parking operations, so even though the land isn't valuable in an urban sense, it's literally valuable. I bet you the parking companies would be asking and arm-and-a-leg if anyone came to them with an offer to buy their lots. There aren't really any developers short of the property owners themselves could or would shell out that kind of money to then have to borrow more money to build whatever it is they'd want to build. The ROI just wouldn't be quick enough. Look at the Grangers who nearly got away with tearing down their vacant build at the corner of Grand and Allegan so they could put up a parking lot.
Short of some out-of-area developer or company wanting to take a chance, I think it's going to require the city to somehow get a hold of some of these parcels, and then sell them cheap to developers. How they would do that, I have no idea.
The city could make it more expensive to own a surface lot in the downtown district perhaps by requiring fencing,walls,or landscaping around the lots to block the view of the cars parked there and beautify street space. It is ironic that parking has such power and percents in our city. I think the worst case of this is when they tore down the theater portion of the Michigan Theater for parking. Maybe some day that land will be too valuable to dedicate to surface parking. Some much larger multi-deck parking structures on the edges of downtown, with lower rates and shuttles downtown would be attractive to commutators and visitors. Maybe in the Cedar Larch corridor to the north and south.
Just to add to your "the land is valuable for parking, even though it isn't urban-valuable" point - I work at LCC and do NOT drive there. The faculty contract guarantees all faculty a parking spot, and if you give it up the college will give you... $500 per year. Which seems insane to me (but hey I'll take it), but shows you how much parking land downtown can be worth. I know LCC doesn't have enough parking that "they own", they actually pay the AF Group to use some of their ramp.
gb, I've been wishing forever for CATA to offer a circle downtown shuttle like they do during Silver Bells.
BTW, I'd recognized this weeks ago when they released their numbers for the previous fiscal year, but CATA's ridership last fiscal year was down a whopping 4.7% with there being no good reason as to why that is. I say whopping, too, because while ridership has kind of plateaued for the last five years or more, more of less, it'd been on a constant growth course since at least 2000. The few times it has declined it's generally been by less than a percentage point a year. There hasn't been a dip like this in recent CATA history.
I've alwas been a fan of CATA, and for years it's been one of the better transit providers in the country for a city this size, but I'm starting to get worried about their lack of vision. Aside from the BRT, they should be coming up with plans for better service on existing routes. This would take very little planning, but I've heard nothing from CATA about it. And, it's not some decline in the service area in terms of population. Metro Lansing is bigger than it's ever been. To have stagnant and now falling ridership in the midst of a modest population boom - and most of that boom coming from infill and urban development as opposed to sprawl, so you have a younger and/or more liberal audience more prone to consider transit - points to something wrong at CATA that they haven't been able to capitalize off of this.
I think it's well past time CATA comes up with a vision for the next 10 years. Because, right now, they are struggling with vision.
I think one way to expand ridership would be to expand night time and weekend service. Many people work nights and weekends, many people do their shopping on the weekend. Maybe they could use a smaller fleet on buses on the off peck hours. I think that some routes should be run 24 hours. I have said here before lots of more modern stop shelters that offer a safe comfortable place to wait for the bus. Maybe the stops could have countdown clocks stating how many minuets until the next bus and wifi. Make taking the bus easier than driving your own car. Repave and maintain bus routes first, giving passengers a smooth ride would increase ridership. Change the perception that people take the bus only because they "have to".
This was reported on a few days ago, but the Canadian National is removing the long-closed Dakin service access bridge acros their tracks to Potter Park. We've talked a bit about the bridge, before. Anyway, it was closed in 2011 and was mantained by both the city and CN. Not exactly sure what it was used for exactly, though.
Anyway, what I found interesting about the press release on this is that the city says they've worked with CN and the county to add an at-grade emergency access at Allen Street a few blocks down the tracks. I've never been down this way, mostly because Allen ends north of 496 before picking up for one black south of Walsh Park. I'll have to go down that way one day to see exactly how they have this configured. My guess is that the crossing is behind a locked gate or something since this is a busy railway.
I saw an image of the new crossing on the Lansing Historical Society's Facebook page the other day but didn't look too deeply into the photo to see how it's configured. It was my understanding that the Dakin bridge was originally for public use. Where it entered the park you can see evidence of an old "Potter Park" sign that has vegetation grown over it. As the condition deteriorated it was just emergency use until it wasn't even in the condition for that. From what I understood the park was required to have a second exit for emergencies which is why that one existed and now why there is an at grade access point at Allen Street.
What's interesting, and maybe it was already brought up, is that the bridge is actually constructed with iron that out dates any bridge in Michigan. I think the plaque is from the 1880's and the bridge didn't op[en until I think 1917 it was. So likely salvaged iron, considering steel would have been used in the era it was constructed. A simple bridge with a lot of history. I can't seem to find anything on where the iron may have been salvaged from.
That makes a lot of sense that it started out as a pedestrian bridge, because I was trying to figure out exactly why you'd have a service entrance on a street that essentially isn't directly connected to any major route or a bridge that crosses to land that would have no use to service the zoo.
Thanks for that hint about the historical society's facebook page. I was able to find this:
It's exactly what I assumed. I'm kind of surprised CN seems to have been pretty expedient in allowing this. Railroads are notorious for not wanting to have to deal with new crossings.
Dakin Street Bridge:
BTW, from Dan Danke, who I believe works for the city:
EDIT: Yep, was having a brainfart. I was thinking he meant raise the CN bridge over the river higher when he means the actual PA Ave bridge to the south. There will likely never be a full reconfiguration of this area given how little benefit it would have for how much it would cost, but realistically, you'd raise the whole Pennsylvania and zoo entrance intersection, and then raise the CNN line a bit higher. The expensive part would would be that to keep the grade from being too much for CN, you'd then have to also raise the CN tracks for many blocks to the east reducing it each block with a very gentle grade. How far east you'd have to go I have no idea not being an engineer, but it'd be quite a few blocks, and that'd be very expensive for the railroads who don't like to do these things.