Downtown Shuttle System

[Ingersoll1978]

Main line: Connect 42nd or 35th on Ingersoll through downtown turning onto Walnut or Locust and stopping at the foot of the capital. (or you could do a short loop around the capital to service all the state office buildings in vicinity.) That addresses A.) Connecting the largest near dwntwn population bases. Ingersoll/Grand and East Village- close to Court Ave. too B.) Enables a nice sized route for dwntwn workers to take adv. of.

2nd line: The main line might be good enough at this point but in the future I would love to see a connector from Drake to downtown somehow. Give easy access to downtown for x,000 18-22 yr olds, along with another large population enclave of Sherman Hill and the Drake neighborhoods.

after that, we can talk about a monorail from the Airport to Downtown..........

I agree with this statement. The trolley should connect major surrounding population centers to Downtown. If the line were connected to Ingersoll (via Sherman Hill)...I would use it almost daily. In addition, it would connect downtown residents to Dahl's, which always seems to be used as a deterrent (no major grocery store downtown...which I think is bunk) to live downtown.

[Mastermind]

Scratch the loop idea. I'm a big proponent of a 1 line track that either goes back and forth or has two trams that go up and down the same line (cheaper infrastructure too). I worked downtown in 2007 and 2008 and the shuttle system was a nice novelty but it isn't something I ever witnessed many people using unfortunately. For this to work, I think it is essential to connect the main areas of population density w/in the near downtown area. The Ingersoll/Grand corridor comes to mind immediately. Next maybe a pipe dream or a "pie-in-the-sky" dream but I would love to see Drake connected to downtown.

I agree with the one line idea. Lets get more bang for our buck. I think i may have talked about this a couple pages ago, but to me this makes the most sense. Since the majority of development occurs with in 2-3 blocks of rail lines, one track would fit our needs. A line on Walnut and then cutting down 6th Ave to Cherry (connecting the Dart Hub and Amtrak line) than heading east to Court, would keep nearly all major businesses and attractions within 2-3 blocks. With the money saved on only having one track, you can take the line north 2 blocks in the East Village up to Locust, and up north in western gateway from walnut which would connect Sherman Hill/Methodist/Hoyt Sherman along walnut.

[Young DSM Social Club]

I don't understand the route to an industrial wasteland. Unless housing is going to be built here, this seems like an odd choice and a total waste.

Instead of that, let's get that route down Ingersoll and/or Drake. Such a route would definitely spur development and interest in that area. I think a lot of people, especially younger people, would be thrilled to be able to ride from home both to work downtown, but also be able to go downtown for entertainment and have an easy way back.

If it went down Ingersoll/Drake, I would also likely use it. The current route, as proposed, is not something I would have any need to use.

Some friends and I discussed this over the weekend --- the consensus was the industrial wasteland route is a waste, but Drake/Ingersoll would be a great choice. I am assuming industrial wasteland is likely proposed instead b/c the costs would be lower since less is there to deal with ?

[DMRyan]

Probably looked at as a way to spur redevelopment of the next big area(s) to redevelop. I think there has to be something there to begin with before you can expect laying some track down to accomplish anything at all. Some existing building stock has to be changing hands, raising value and being reused in a higher and better way, or some large attraction or feature needs to be in in place first before such a line could even begin to make sense. I think it's wise to plan for how rail can be extended to this area, but it doesn't need to be accomplished for the foreseeable future. If we're talking strictly downtown trolley, it makes more sense to connect the Iowa Events Center to Court Avenue way before it makes sense to connect to the current industrial wastelands.

[Mototail]

I think the E. 6th route is being used because it combines the development of the MLK East and the downtown tram development. The buses would be best used with the Sherman Hill and Drake area by expanding those routes with the suburbs.

Btw: I just completed my Master in Public Administration for Public Policy. Can I get a prize and high-five for that Maybe a cheeseburger?

[Ingersoll1978]

Btw: I just completed my Master in Public Administration for Public Policy. Can I get a prize and high-five for that

Congrats Mototail! I just completed my bachelors in Public Relations at Drake!

[Better Life dude]

Congrats to both of you, Mototail and Ingersoll. Well done.

For the shuttle/tram IMHO it would be great if it was a straight route and not a loop and went up and down Ingersoll Ave then up to the foot of the Capitol. That would get tremendous ridership right off the bat. It would prime the pump for future extensions.

[rasmeth]

I am for expanding streetcars here of course, but I also think that a single straight line track would be better. Instead of a loop in Downtown, have a straight line and take into the Ingersoll/Grand corridor.

[rasmeth]

My main reasons for this are that this corridor west of Downtown is the best neighborhood close to Downtown, has high-density residency that can help ridership, and would allow better shopping and entertainment access between this corridor and Downtown for Downtown residents and visitors and vice-versa.

[rasmeth]

Also, it would allow commuting between the two areas for workers and DSM University students. In the future the Drake area is good. What about a line to DSM's airport too?

[Des Moineser]

Drake and Grand lines would certainly be on table in the future. As seen in other cities, airport connections are often a whole different story, opposition from rental car and taxi companies can often stop rail proposals. This type of opposition has stopped cities such as Phoenix and Miami from having their mass transit systems from being hooked to their airports.

[rasmeth]

I hope the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Alliance could take sides of rail in such a situation. I actually asked the question because I'm not necessarily convinced it would be priority after Downtown and Ingersoll-Grand. Would a Drake line straight south to an Ingersoll-Grand line be better than a direct Drake to Downtown line? Also, would a Jordan Creek to Village of Ponderosa/West Glen line, disconnected to other areas, be viable?

[Young DSM Social Club]

Completely agree the initial route should be a straight line down Ingersoll to Downtown and they can build from there. This would tie Ingersoll into downtown, provide a solid, denser population base to draw from, and I think definitely spur development. I also think the people along this route are more likely to use it.

I wonder if the real reason this isn't happen is that Ingersoll isn't really downtown --- meaning the Downtown Alliance and various downtown interests aren't going to have the control over the routes like they will with the ones being suggested.

[mirage1]

I wonder if the real reason this isn't happen is that Ingersoll isn't really downtown --- meaning the Downtown Alliance and various downtown interests aren't going to have the control over the routes like they will with the ones being suggested.

No, the real reason it isn't going to happen is because it is too expensive, studies show that it isn't a tram that creates development (incentives do), this tram duplicates what the trolley already does, trams create an eyesore with hanging electrical lines, and trams are inflexible with rail embedded in streets as compared to trolleys.

Not to mention there are far bigger infrastructure priorties in Des Moines.

[rasmeth]

No, the real reason it isn't going to happen is because it is too expensive, studies show that it isn't a tram that creates development (incentives do), this tram duplicates what the trolley already does, trams create an eyesore with hanging electrical lines, and trams are inflexible with rail embedded in streets as compared to trolleys.

Not to mention there are far bigger infrastructure priorties in Des Moines.

I think it is a good point that busses have better flexibility, but people seem to have an anxiety about the buss timetables and routes. With a tram wouldn't the track solidify the route for people unsure and we could still use busses when needed? One example would be using busses in new areas before you know the best route and track is laid using streetcars for established permanent neighborhoods. I also agree that the overhead lines aren't attractive, and it would be nice to use a passenger rail car without lines. Buss fumes aren't nice either and so the lines might be a compromise for lack of fumes.

[Mastermind]

In a perfect world buses work the best, however this world isnt perfect. People have a facination with rail. How mny people have been to a larger city and taken the bus? Now how many of you have been to a larger city and taken rail (subway, streetcar, LRT)?

[Ingersoll1978]

In a perfect world buses work the best, however this world isnt perfect. People have a facination with rail. How mny people have been to a larger city and taken the bus? Now how many of you have been to a larger city and taken rail (subway, streetcar, LRT)?

We almost always prefer to take a rail line when it's available. The only exception I can think of is the double deckers in London...but 95% of the time we are still taking the trains.

[Mastermind]

Ive been on the rail in Minneapolis, and Chicago, never a bus.

[Better Life dude]

In a perfect world buses work the best, however this world isnt perfect. People have a facination with rail. How mny people have been to a larger city and taken the bus? Now how many of you have been to a larger city and taken rail (subway, streetcar, LRT)?

In Boston and New York City: We usually took the train/subway as close as it could get us to a destination and then we'd hop on a bus if needed. We lived in the Boston city center so my wife and I would take commuter rail to visit friends in the suburbs and took Amtrak a few times to visit New York City when we lived in Boston. Amtrak takes you right to Grand Central Station in mid-town Manhattan . In both cities it always seemed like you were getting around quicker on rail - even though you had to wait to board them.

When we lived in Minneapolis - before they had light rail - we always took a car or rode our bicycles (lots of bike trails in the city). I can remember riding the Minneapolis city bus once to the city's impound lot - to get my car which had been towed during a snow storm.

[fostprei]

Imo- the current trolley loop does not meet the needs of the people. Which is precisely why I think a 1 track line that can reach more people would serve best. Catering only to the lunch hour crowd is a recipe for failure.

The trams in Amsterdam and Germany that run on the streets are very modern and "clean" looking despite cables running above them. That is the model I would love to see followed.

I would also love to get a cost estimate of one line from the capitol to ingersoll vs. the loop proposal. I think there could be some real cost savings. (Cut line infrastructure significantly, even if going out on Ingersoll)

[dogbo]

Imo- the current trolley loop does not meet the needs of the people. Which is precisely why I think a 1 track line that can reach more people would serve best. Catering only to the lunch hour crowd is a recipe for failure.

The shuttle runs during during business hours. It doesn't only "cater to the lunchtime crowd".

[Mastermind]

They have been running the trolley with other "normal" buses, maybe fostprei didnt realize this...

[fostprei]

Doesn't it run from apx. 7:00am to 6:00pm?

Those are apx. normal business hours imo. When I was downtown, like most people, I worked apx. 7:30 - 5:30 with an hour lunch break. The only time possible for me to utilize the trolley was from a window between 11:30 and 1:30. I would be willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of the apx. 70,000 downtown workers are on a similar schedule. What is ridership like in the morning and late afternoon compared to at lunch, I bet it's miniscule?

I'm saying that window of time and the current loop isn't sufficient for a successful and functional tram system. (maybe Mirage can agree with me on that ) Which takes me back to my point of connecting residential areas and extending the usable hours. This way you can can still cater to the lunch crowd and enable more people to use the line at all times of the day.

ie. riding it to/from work, afterwork to the grocery store, friday/sat. night to the bars, saturday from your apartment on Grand to the farmers market, for lunch in the east village, from your East Village apt to Wellman's on Ingersoll, and the list goes on.

[couch]

As seen in other cities, airport connections are often a whole different story, opposition from rental car and taxi companies can often stop rail proposals. This type of opposition has stopped cities such as Phoenix and Miami from having their mass transit systems from being hooked to their airports.

And Washington D.C.!


Regarding a straight line out Ingersoll: If I understand the routes people are discussing, it would be about the same distance, barely over three miles. Actually the straight shot would be 10% shorter, but keep in mind that this would also require one of the following design solutions not required by a loop: turnarounds, wyes, or bidirectional trams, as well as sidings for passing if there's more than one on the line at a time.

So we can safely assume the costs would not be significantly different. And I agree the straight shot would be way more practical. What do we need to do to explain this to the city?

You can take a look at the map i tried to make here: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=112940711668005667099.00046b415ebfca9b9da57

[mirage1]

What do we need to do to explain this to the city?

Two items.....

the consultant to Des Moines, Charles Hale, says grade is an issue. Trams currently cannot climb an grade as light as the grade to the capitol....thus, non of the currently proposed routes are all of the way to the capitol building itself. That would preclude the grade to the airport now just past Gray's Lake, or Sherman Hill.

two, explaining to Des Moines residents why spending $100 million dollars or more on a tram that duplicates the already existing trolley will be even more challenging.

[Mastermind]

I believe the "capital" route would stop at the eastern border of the East Village and the entrance to the capital grounds.

[Better Life dude]

Thanks Couch for the maps. It shows how practical the Ingersoll Ave. route is. I'm no engineer, but even though Ingersoll has an uphill grade to it, it seems fairly gradual so an electric tram could get up it.

[couch]

the consultant to Des Moines, Charles Hale, says grade is an issue. Trams currently cannot climb an grade as light as the grade to the capitol....

What? Really?

[Mastermind]

I think mirage may be right, see we agree on something. The capital is a steep grade, however i dont think the other grades are as steep. Also we are talking about the western edge of the capital complex, so this grade doesnt come into play.

[Mulder.DSM]

I saw this article and thought some of you may be interested in it:
http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rehw439.htm

Part of the article:

The automobile did not come to dominate American transportation by chance or by public choice. It happened as part of a plan by auto makers to buy up and destroy mass transit companies. General Motors led the way. As recently as the 1920s, many American cities and towns were connected by a network of electric railroads and interurban trolleys. Within cities, electric street railways, trolleys, and elevated trains, moved large numbers of people easily and cheaply, with minimal congestion and pollution. But steel-wheeled electric/rail mass transit systems did not serve the needs of the automobile manufacturers and their allies in the steel, rubber, glass, concrete, and oil industries.

Beginning in the 1920s, General Motors began investing in mass transit systems. According to historian Marty Jezer (and Congressional hearings held in 1974), between 1920 and 1955, General Motors bought up more than 100 electric mass transit systems in 45 cities, allowed them to deteriorate, and then replaced them with rubber-tired, diesel-powered buses. [1] Buses are more expensive, less efficient, and much dirtier than electric/rail systems. (And of course automobiles are even less efficient than buses, by far.) In 1949, General Motors, Firestone Rubber, and Standard Oil of California were convicted by a federal jury of criminally conspiring to replace electric mass transit with GM-manufactured diesel buses; in a noteworthy illustration of justice for corporations, the court fined GM $5000 and forced H.C. Crossman, the GM executive responsible for carrying out GM's policy, to pay $1.00.

Cities where GM managed to eliminate electric/rail systems, and replace them with buses and private cars, included New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles.