Aside from shortening the trip by making it faster, the entire point of BRT and light rail is as a development tool along commercial corridors. BRT on Kalamazoo - which isn't wide enough a street to do it on, anyway - makes absolutely no sense. And, not giving its dedicated lane essentially defeats the purpose as you simply have a regular bus line with fancy stops, which is why Grand Rapids' was never the one we wanted to model our's after. Most BRT advocates don't even consider a line operating in mixed traffic to be actual BRT.
I hear you. I'm trying to imagine cheaper alternate routes in light of recent news. Kalamazoo is too narrow for dedicated bus lanes. Unless - and this is crazy talk - you made Kalamazoo east of Clippert and west of Harrison a bus-only road. You'd use Homer and Howard to get back and forth from Michigan. A stop on a Circle Drive could put downtown East Lansing a 0.1 mile walk away.
Besides the University Village Apartments, there's not a lot there that you'd be cutting off by making Kalamazoo bus-only. And there's a huge parking lot you could carve up to give the apartments access to Harrison.
You'd still have Trowbridge and Michigan to feed highway traffic into MSU. There are a few buildings north of Kalamazoo that I'd be concerned about - are those municipal/university buildings or private buildings? Either way, those buildings have very limited parking. There could be a way to still provide access without hurting the BRT route.
A regular once an hour bus could provide direct access to Frandor and Grand River businesses.
It's not uncommon to run BRT or light rail off of the main commercial corridor for practical reasons. Anyway, I'm really just playing SimCity here and I'm sure nobody will like my idea.
From the start this project seemed to me to be. yes it's obvious an urban area of 500,000 people should have a rapid transit system of some kind. CATA seemed to try very hard not to step on any toes, and upset the "anti-everything that makes sense" crowd. A small and rather simple project, really just one line. What exactly would cause some people to be so against such an idea? I guess we have talked about all this before.
I use to go to the downtown library when I was young and look at the pamphlets and plans for all the dream developments that were talked about. The modern shining city that would replace the old industrial 19th century city. Forty story buildings with vertical shopping malls, winter gardens under glass, amphitheaters, markets, fountains, beautifully designed government buildings, modern highways and boulevards to drive our beautiful cars on. It looks like they will add the BRT plans to that drawer with the other grand plans for Lansing that never happened.
Perhaps this will be an opportunity to do something better. I was brainstorming about a cheaper alternative, and perhaps all the rail spurs and lines that run through every neighborhood in Lansing and out to the surrounding communities could offer a "road" for mass transit. Just dreaming and we may have talked of this before, but I am thinking of self propelled rail " buses" running on the rails through our communities. The stops or stations could be were the rails cross major streets. The street bus lines could be routed to the rail stops and take passengers to the major districts that are not near the tracks. The right of ways are already there, it would serve the propose of taking mass transit out of the street traffic, and maybe revitalize the neighborhoods they pass through. It might be a bit cheaper to upgrade the rail roads and build a rail transit system on that existing infrastructure.
Well, it's over. The board formally suspended the project. That said, we do get quite a bit more detail which makes this not as bad as I originally imagined:
It's suspended "until federal funds are available." So contrary to how it's been reported, it has not been cancelled or scrapped. And they can use the results of the millions they've already spent on studies to help with other projects.
$4.5 million in current grants for the project, and $6.2 million in future grants don't have to be given back and thus can go to other CATA projects.
On the same day as this announcement, the CATA CEO is leaving, and it's really about time. Obviously in her last years she hasn't run the tightest ship, and that's me being nice. Hopefully, CATA can get some fresh, young blood who will know how to guide things like a BRT project and know how to outmenuever the opposition that inevitably pops up when we try to do anything progressive. The board also fired their auditing firm which didn't alert them to the lax handling of CATA's funds the last few years.
So, I guess I'm heartened that this is all over and those responsible for poorly selling this project are now going to be gone, mostly. I still wonder what other projects CATA sees that it has funds for. Not once was anything mentioned in the article. We get this silly quote from one of the board members:
Board member Donna Rose said ““Donald Trump did us a favor” in cutting some of the funding needed for the project. She said the lack of funding gives the transportation authority an opportunity to consider other projects.
“There are better things ahead for transportation than BRTs,” Rose said.
In my mind, CATA needs to go to the next level. Regular old bus service isn't going to cut it unless these "plans" are to significantly increase frequency or something. What do you guys want to see CATA do with this money if not BRT?
Again just dreaming. What about modern sleek looking double deck-er buses on the Mich Ave #1 route, they could be express buses, only stopping at "stations" not on demand. Maybe they could be equipped to change the traffic signals as they go out to Okemos. Double deck-er buses would only take up the space of a single bus but double the capacity and maybe fun and attractive to ride on. Keep the regular buses on the "local" routes,and perhaps add smaller buses for extended hours night routes.
I rode a public transportation double decker bus in Las Vegas that did more or less what gbdinlansing is outlining. It was a nice experience.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Michigan/Grand River BRT was estimated to save 7-8 minutes off of the length of the trip. While that is a noticeable improvement, if CATA could shave off about 4 minutes at a fraction of the cost, that might not be a bad thing.
I think the big problem with BRT along Michigan/Grand River is that a good right of way just isn't there. There isn't a good abandoned east-west railway right of way or other alternative route that I know of. The only solution was disruptive construction that wouldn't thrill many business owners in the short term. And it was telling that MSU never seem convinced about running BRT down the middle of Grand River. MSU should've been a big partner in BRT - after all, it seems like a great amenity to offer college students.
I don't want to keep belaboring this, but most BRT lines are built in existing right-of-ways. It's simply about sharing the road, which is something dozens of cities across the country do every day as it comes to transit an autos, even far less progressive cities than Lansing. But apparently Lansing is a bit too far behind the times. Ironically, the least complaints came from where the road was the smallest (Lansing). And then you had complaints from MSU where the road literally becomes a boulevard thus having more than enough room to accomodate the line. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
The funny thing is that there is almost a mirror line in the college town of Eugene, Oregon, and area of essentially the same style and economy: Emerald Express. You either do full street car/BRT/LRT or you don't do it. Half-assing it is the worst of both worlds.
This isn't rocket science, but boy did this town make it seem like it was. Let's get this out of the way: there was nothing unusual or fundamentally flawed about the plan; the problem was CATA's ineffective sales pitch, and a significant part of the audience being unreceptive regardless.
I was using the idea of what else could a be a good way to get more people on a mass transit system. I may use terms like right of way incorrectly, what I meant in regard to rail roads, they already exist, and using them would take some mass transit off the streets. While the rail roads do not line up with the street system, they are in every neighborhood and go in all directions. I also realize that there would be many issues with such a plan. I have found that when I ride a bus the most annoying part of the ride is the stop and go sometimes at every stop down the street. Some sort of express bus could shorten the ride by a few and give passengers a better ride.
I think I should mention that if the Michigan/Grand River BRT plan had been up for a vote, I'd have voted yes. I'm for it.
I'll agree that after seeing BRT fail in Detroit and Lansing, it's clear that the sales pitches need to be revamped. What I'd like to see is more direct comparisons to what other cities are doing and the level of investment rapid transit has brought to those regions. A lot of Michiganders have no idea that even cities like Dallas, Houston and Phoenix are aggressively pursuing rapid transit. This isn't just something for liberal, heavily urbanized regions. It's a modern, mainstream solution to congestion that encourages new development. And BRT is particularly suited for small to medium sized cities with a big university.
It's also probably true that rapid transit didn't have to be sold quite as hard in most other regions. The eastern half of Michigan was and is essentially an automotive superpower. We've been the car region for over a century. We still have an almost mythical reverence for the prospect of new auto plants. It's going to be tougher to sell rapid transit here.
It has been pointed out that shelving the plan is not ending the but postponing it. I am not sure CATA should be basing anything on what this "administration" says. They really could have got this done before the election, and I would suppose they were surprised by the results as anyone. It's true that the "love for the automobile" is strong here, and may have had a lot to do with anti-mass transit votes and attitudes. I think it is more of "I'm not going to use it! Why should I pay for it!" sentiment that is common here among conservative communities and organizations . They look at public schools the same way. The idea of the common good has to made stronger, that all taxes are not evil and wasted, and everyone should have access to transportation. It would also help if all the Greater Lansing communities would stop looking at themselves as separate islands and agree that what is good for Lansing is good for all the communities surrounding Lansing and vice versa.
I saw a PBS program called "Super Tunnel" which was about the building of a new subway line in London, and the challenges they faced. Obviously it is on a much different scale but after watching what they went through to build more mass transit, I could only think of our local situation and the fact that we can not even agree to build a simple dedicated bus lane for a few miles on the surface. We are a Capital City as well, I think we should have the best mass transit, something that is thought of as matter of fact and should just be a part of our city.
Comments
I hear you. I'm trying to imagine cheaper alternate routes in light of recent news. Kalamazoo is too narrow for dedicated bus lanes. Unless - and this is crazy talk - you made Kalamazoo east of Clippert and west of Harrison a bus-only road. You'd use Homer and Howard to get back and forth from Michigan. A stop on a Circle Drive could put downtown East Lansing a 0.1 mile walk away.
Besides the University Village Apartments, there's not a lot there that you'd be cutting off by making Kalamazoo bus-only. And there's a huge parking lot you could carve up to give the apartments access to Harrison.
You'd still have Trowbridge and Michigan to feed highway traffic into MSU. There are a few buildings north of Kalamazoo that I'd be concerned about - are those municipal/university buildings or private buildings? Either way, those buildings have very limited parking. There could be a way to still provide access without hurting the BRT route.
A regular once an hour bus could provide direct access to Frandor and Grand River businesses.
It's not uncommon to run BRT or light rail off of the main commercial corridor for practical reasons. Anyway, I'm really just playing SimCity here and I'm sure nobody will like my idea.
From the start this project seemed to me to be. yes it's obvious an urban area of 500,000 people should have a rapid transit system of some kind. CATA seemed to try very hard not to step on any toes, and upset the "anti-everything that makes sense" crowd. A small and rather simple project, really just one line. What exactly would cause some people to be so against such an idea? I guess we have talked about all this before.
I use to go to the downtown library when I was young and look at the pamphlets and plans for all the dream developments that were talked about. The modern shining city that would replace the old industrial 19th century city. Forty story buildings with vertical shopping malls, winter gardens under glass, amphitheaters, markets, fountains, beautifully designed government buildings, modern highways and boulevards to drive our beautiful cars on. It looks like they will add the BRT plans to that drawer with the other grand plans for Lansing that never happened.
Perhaps this will be an opportunity to do something better. I was brainstorming about a cheaper alternative, and perhaps all the rail spurs and lines that run through every neighborhood in Lansing and out to the surrounding communities could offer a "road" for mass transit. Just dreaming and we may have talked of this before, but I am thinking of self propelled rail " buses" running on the rails through our communities. The stops or stations could be were the rails cross major streets. The street bus lines could be routed to the rail stops and take passengers to the major districts that are not near the tracks. The right of ways are already there, it would serve the propose of taking mass transit out of the street traffic, and maybe revitalize the neighborhoods they pass through. It might be a bit cheaper to upgrade the rail roads and build a rail transit system on that existing infrastructure.
Well, it's over. The board formally suspended the project. That said, we do get quite a bit more detail which makes this not as bad as I originally imagined:
It's suspended "until federal funds are available." So contrary to how it's been reported, it has not been cancelled or scrapped. And they can use the results of the millions they've already spent on studies to help with other projects.
$4.5 million in current grants for the project, and $6.2 million in future grants don't have to be given back and thus can go to other CATA projects.
On the same day as this announcement, the CATA CEO is leaving, and it's really about time. Obviously in her last years she hasn't run the tightest ship, and that's me being nice. Hopefully, CATA can get some fresh, young blood who will know how to guide things like a BRT project and know how to outmenuever the opposition that inevitably pops up when we try to do anything progressive. The board also fired their auditing firm which didn't alert them to the lax handling of CATA's funds the last few years.
So, I guess I'm heartened that this is all over and those responsible for poorly selling this project are now going to be gone, mostly. I still wonder what other projects CATA sees that it has funds for. Not once was anything mentioned in the article. We get this silly quote from one of the board members:
In my mind, CATA needs to go to the next level. Regular old bus service isn't going to cut it unless these "plans" are to significantly increase frequency or something. What do you guys want to see CATA do with this money if not BRT?
Again just dreaming. What about modern sleek looking double deck-er buses on the Mich Ave #1 route, they could be express buses, only stopping at "stations" not on demand. Maybe they could be equipped to change the traffic signals as they go out to Okemos. Double deck-er buses would only take up the space of a single bus but double the capacity and maybe fun and attractive to ride on. Keep the regular buses on the "local" routes,and perhaps add smaller buses for extended hours night routes.
I rode a public transportation double decker bus in Las Vegas that did more or less what gbdinlansing is outlining. It was a nice experience.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Michigan/Grand River BRT was estimated to save 7-8 minutes off of the length of the trip. While that is a noticeable improvement, if CATA could shave off about 4 minutes at a fraction of the cost, that might not be a bad thing.
I think the big problem with BRT along Michigan/Grand River is that a good right of way just isn't there. There isn't a good abandoned east-west railway right of way or other alternative route that I know of. The only solution was disruptive construction that wouldn't thrill many business owners in the short term. And it was telling that MSU never seem convinced about running BRT down the middle of Grand River. MSU should've been a big partner in BRT - after all, it seems like a great amenity to offer college students.
I don't want to keep belaboring this, but most BRT lines are built in existing right-of-ways. It's simply about sharing the road, which is something dozens of cities across the country do every day as it comes to transit an autos, even far less progressive cities than Lansing. But apparently Lansing is a bit too far behind the times. Ironically, the least complaints came from where the road was the smallest (Lansing). And then you had complaints from MSU where the road literally becomes a boulevard thus having more than enough room to accomodate the line. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
The funny thing is that there is almost a mirror line in the college town of Eugene, Oregon, and area of essentially the same style and economy: Emerald Express. You either do full street car/BRT/LRT or you don't do it. Half-assing it is the worst of both worlds.
This isn't rocket science, but boy did this town make it seem like it was. Let's get this out of the way: there was nothing unusual or fundamentally flawed about the plan; the problem was CATA's ineffective sales pitch, and a significant part of the audience being unreceptive regardless.
I was using the idea of what else could a be a good way to get more people on a mass transit system. I may use terms like right of way incorrectly, what I meant in regard to rail roads, they already exist, and using them would take some mass transit off the streets. While the rail roads do not line up with the street system, they are in every neighborhood and go in all directions. I also realize that there would be many issues with such a plan. I have found that when I ride a bus the most annoying part of the ride is the stop and go sometimes at every stop down the street. Some sort of express bus could shorten the ride by a few and give passengers a better ride.
I think I should mention that if the Michigan/Grand River BRT plan had been up for a vote, I'd have voted yes. I'm for it.
I'll agree that after seeing BRT fail in Detroit and Lansing, it's clear that the sales pitches need to be revamped. What I'd like to see is more direct comparisons to what other cities are doing and the level of investment rapid transit has brought to those regions. A lot of Michiganders have no idea that even cities like Dallas, Houston and Phoenix are aggressively pursuing rapid transit. This isn't just something for liberal, heavily urbanized regions. It's a modern, mainstream solution to congestion that encourages new development. And BRT is particularly suited for small to medium sized cities with a big university.
It's also probably true that rapid transit didn't have to be sold quite as hard in most other regions. The eastern half of Michigan was and is essentially an automotive superpower. We've been the car region for over a century. We still have an almost mythical reverence for the prospect of new auto plants. It's going to be tougher to sell rapid transit here.
It has been pointed out that shelving the plan is not ending the but postponing it. I am not sure CATA should be basing anything on what this "administration" says. They really could have got this done before the election, and I would suppose they were surprised by the results as anyone. It's true that the "love for the automobile" is strong here, and may have had a lot to do with anti-mass transit votes and attitudes. I think it is more of "I'm not going to use it! Why should I pay for it!" sentiment that is common here among conservative communities and organizations . They look at public schools the same way. The idea of the common good has to made stronger, that all taxes are not evil and wasted, and everyone should have access to transportation. It would also help if all the Greater Lansing communities would stop looking at themselves as separate islands and agree that what is good for Lansing is good for all the communities surrounding Lansing and vice versa.
I saw a PBS program called "Super Tunnel" which was about the building of a new subway line in London, and the challenges they faced. Obviously it is on a much different scale but after watching what they went through to build more mass transit, I could only think of our local situation and the fact that we can not even agree to build a simple dedicated bus lane for a few miles on the surface. We are a Capital City as well, I think we should have the best mass transit, something that is thought of as matter of fact and should just be a part of our city.