Here is the link to the article. Can anyone post what the article says as I am not a paying member to Crain's Detroit thanks!!
https://www.crainsdetroit.com/politi...mpaign=grbjcdb
Here is the link to the article. Can anyone post what the article says as I am not a paying member to Crain's Detroit thanks!!
https://www.crainsdetroit.com/politi...mpaign=grbjcdb
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDapperMaleDetroit
:)Quote:
...
Convention center
Legislation would let the authority that oversees Detroit's Huntington Place convention center enter into public-private arrangements, lift its spending cap, authorize new borrowing and expand the facility's definition to include nearby roads. The action comes as the convention hall is working to encourage the construction of hotels on the nearby former site of Joe Louis Arena.
The definition of a convention facility would be revised also include bike paths, plazas, green space and roads necessary or convenient for use in connection with the facility. A $279 million spending cap on expanding or renovating Huntington Place would be lifted. The Detroit Regional Convention Facility Authority could issue new bonds not to exceed $299 million.
Convention authorities, which can use excess distributions from the Convention Facility Development Fund to pay down debt, could also spend the money on capital expenditures, including payments under a public-private arrangement.
QLine
The convention bills also would extend a $5 million annual subsidy for Detroit's QLine streetcar for an additional 17 years. The state's Convention Facility Development Fund, which is funded by hotel and liquor taxes and takes in roughly $100 million yearly, is primarily distributed to counties and the Detroit Regional Convention Facility Authority.
Since the 2019-20 fiscal year, the QLine has gotten $5 million a year — a subsidy that ended in the last budget year under current law. The legislation would continue the allotment through the 2038-39 fiscal year. The QLine opened in 2017....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
Knew it.
We just knew that we'd be forced to support this colossal waste of money and road lanes.
This is a blow to Detroit.
It will not be a waste of money if the powers that be in Detroit would allow it to run to 8mile rdQuote:
Originally Posted by Rocket
You already have subsidized bus lines that run to 8 mile. Why can't you ride one of those?Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
A few things here:
1) I would prefer a much longer BRT bus line with raised platforms, dedicated ROW, and signal priority
2) Transit is a service. Just like the police and fire department. Those departments don't pay for themselves. Just like I-75 that we're spending two billions dollars on to refresh between Square Lake Road and 8 Mile doesn't "pay" for itself. Infrastructure, police, fire, water and sewer mains, water and sewerage treatment, and transit are all SERVICES that we have decided have value and that we would invest in them.
3) We should continue to fund and INCREASE funding to transit. However, we should also make sure that those dollars are spent the best way, efficiently, and responsibly. I would make arguments that BRT from the Detroit River to Pontiac would cost LESS and provide much more benefit than a rail line. I don't think the Q-Line is a total waste of money, but we do need to critically analyze how we spend our limited transit budgets.
Yes, this, a service, BUTQuote:
Originally Posted by Scottathew
Light rail costs 10 times as much per passenger mile as compared to buses.
Buses are also flexible and doesn't use up a traffic lane like light rail does.
If something has more downsides, AND costs 10x as much, then it's a waste of money.
This was only slightly bad for Detroit when it was 25 million from the feds and the rest from private entities. But we always knew it would end up costing us Detroiter's in the end. And here's the start of it. I'm guessing the amount will go WAY up in a few years.
@Rocket, just for clarity, I think you and I are on the same page for the most part. BRT = Bus Rapid Transit. They're like busses, but with a few extra goodies. You take all the good stuff from trains, all the good stuff from busses, and combine it together while avoiding most of the negatives, including the extreme negatives of having to build tracks and keep the cars off of them.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottathew
And that's what many of us were crying for when they proposed this silly and slow rail extravagance instead.
Some nice buses that only stopped a few places on their way from Pontiac to downtown. Perhaps at 13 mile and then again at State Fair? And otherwise they would run in the middle lane at normal traffic speeds.
I think there's a huge glaring issue with what is happening with the QLine. It's not a serious mode of transportation. It has way too many stops. It's super slow. It gets stuck in traffic. It doesn't go far enough to be very useful. And so on and so on.
No transportation expert would have analyzed the city's transportation needs and proposed anything like the QLine. But the QLine is what we got because it was what Dan Gilbert [[and others) wanted. And since they were paying for it, how could the city tell them no?
Well now they aren't paying for it. Now the tax payers are paying for an incredibly compromised street car line that isn't what the city really needs. Dan Gilbert got his toy train and we're all paying for it.
Imagine what else we could have done with that money? BRT? Used it as seed funding for an actual light rail line? I'm sure there are lots of options that make more sense than a 3 mile train that is marginally faster than walking.
It's a straight line version of the People Mover!Quote:
Originally Posted by detmsp
$5 million is .3% of the state budget and less than 50 cents per tax payer. While the QLine has some issues and deficiencies I can think of a hundred things more worthy of complaining about.
The most intriguing part of the article is the changes coming to Huntington Place and the implication that we may realistically get two new convention hotels and the funding necessary to make that happen. Seems as though the changes making infrastructure a part of the center are tied directly to better connecting the Joe Louis site to the rest of downtown and may take the funding hurdles associated with that from the city and put it on the center itself.
Exactly. This is state dollars, not CoD dollars. Roads are extraordinarily expensive. This is small potatoes and actually a valuable service.Quote:
Originally Posted by southen
As much as people hate the People Mover at least it is consistent. If you miss the ride then you have to wait 3-5 minutes for the next ride. For the Qline you're waiting between 10-45 minutes for the next ride which you can sometimes walk faster.
There seems to be a debate on whether the money should go towards free rides or improved services.
Also recently the Mayor exercised emergency powers to fund paratransit services. Kind of wish that the Mayor/Region would also put the same urgency towards mass transit. If you return to DTW on a Sunday/Holiday and have to take the bus to Downtown and miss the bus you have to waiting almost an hour for the next bus plus another hour to get to Downtown so essentially 2 hours+ on 1 line [[no transfers) from DTW to Downtown. Sorry for the transit rant.
Ding, ding, ding at the trolley. Ding, ding ding at the bell.
We'll are putting tax subsidies on Gilbert's toy train. Enjoy the ride.
The QLINE car looks really cool. But to me, in its current configuration, it seems like a waste of space, and it's clogging up the street. I'm in the city 3 times a week or more and I can't see any reason to use it. If they expand it further up Woodward Avenue, I might use it. But the way it is, what's the point for 99.9% of the people around here?
For BRT, it doesn't make any sense to take the vehicle type that is the most expensive to operate and has pretty much the lowest quality rider experience, and build a really big expensive system around it.
Streetcars are more comfortable to ride than buses, but their service is slower and less reliable than buses. Except under certain conditions where there are a lot of passengers, they cost more to operate, and they have much much higher capital costs. They make sense when the city already has a legacy streetcar system, since you don't have to pay to build what is already built.
Light rail on roads, even in the center with its own lanes, doesn't really make much sense, because being in the road its still constrained by being in a mixed environment. It's not safe for light rail to go much faster than cars even if they're not sharing lanes. And the train headways have to correspond to sensible traffic light timings. It just costs way too much for the quality of service being provided.
Light rail that is built somewhere with existing grade separation, like an existing rail right of way, or freeway median or undeveloped land, can be cheap to build and can have good service quality. A lot of money can be saved by going onto a street sometimes instead of going over or under it. There's two issues though. First is that most of the time these cheap ROWs aren't located where people want to go, and there's not the land use planning and development activity to change that. Second, the better it is for light rail [[the more grade separated it already is), the easier it is just to go all the way and make it completely grade separated, and do it as a metro. Metros in general have better service quality and are cheaper to operate. And if it's 100% grade separated you can automate it, which dramatically lowers operating costs, and even reduces capital costs.
So for most situations BRT and light rail end up being in this awkward middle where they often get the worst of both worlds.
Regardless, any city that plans on having transit in the long term should not have all of their routes being buses. It's like buying cheap used clothes, wearing them once, and throwing them away, because it's too expensive to install a clothes washer and dryer. Or eating fast food for every meal because it's too expensive to buy a stove. Investing in the appropriate modes saves money in the long run.
Thank you, Jason, for your thoughtful reply. Chicago was apparently successful in locating some of the CTA lines in the medians of the city's
expressways. Cleveland has had both light and heavy rail systems for decades. They recently extended the light rail system from Terminal Tower through the Flats and on to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Until fairly recently Detroit benefitted from commuter rail service from
Pontiac and from Jackson/Ann Arbor. It would not be excessively costly to increase that service. Indeed Amtrak today runs three trains each way every day that cover the Pontiac to Jackson route.
As employment continues to increase rapidly in downtown Detroit and downtown sports, entertainment and culture venues continue to prosper, there will be a need for increased energy efficient public transit. And the city's total population appears to be about to grow.
The success of the privately financed Brightline commuter rail service in greater Miami appears to suggest the extensive commuter rail system can
be operated without huge governmental subsidies. And it appears that
investors are willing to assist in building high speed intercity rail systems
that will link Houston and Dallas as well a Los Angeles with Las Vegas.
Amtrak has invested extensively in upgrading the Michigan Central line from Detroit to the Indiana border but their passengers trains are still
slower and less frequent than what Michigan Central provided their
passengers with in the late 1940s.
Pontiac-Detroit commuter service ended in Oct. 1983, and AA-Det commuter service ended in Jan. 1984, 39 years ago. It had been cut back from Jackson in June 1982. I wouldn't describe that as "fairly recently."Quote:
Originally Posted by renf
Does employment truly continue to "increase rapidly" in downtown Detroit?
Brightline is a special case. The policies of its operator, Florida East Coast Railway, cannot be compared to those of passenger-hostile Class 1 freight railroads that any Detroit commuter rail operator would have to contend with.
The Qline services extended to 8 mile rd would have fewer stops while getting passengers to 8 mile quickly. Ridership will increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
I think that the only reason turned out to be a so called failure from the start is because it was going to rake business away from DDOT's Woodward line. Entities probably lobbied Council or some parts of City government to change the the original track layout for the Qline and now that it's running increase the wait time between trains so that waiting passengers would get discourage and hop on a bus to get to their destinations. Call me a conspiracy nut but I said from the beginning that things would be put in place to make the operation on the line ineffective. Once Target and other store, entertainment venues, and other business opens especially in the New Center area, the Qline will be worth having and put to good use
Thank you very much, Burnsie, for the accurate and helpful information about the termination dates for commuter rail service into Detroit from
Ann Arbor, Jackson and Pontiac. Those dates seem recent to me. I recall
my father taking me to Washington to see President Roosevelt.
And you are certainly correct about the favorable circumstances regarding the Brightline commuter rail in Miami. That firm is paying for the construction of new raodbed or the refurbishing of old roadbed into Orlando.
And the firms establishing rail service from Houston to Dallas and from LA
to Vegas are either building new rail lines of refurbishing existing lines. I
don't think there challenges come from railroad firms that do not want to handle passenger trains. There was great controversy in Maine when the
Downeaster service was established. Pan Am did not want passenger trains on their line from Portland into Boston but federal law apparently defines railroads as common carriers. After many disputes, passenger service was establish and the railroad bennefitted from the investments in their tracks
to make them appropriate for 10 passenger trains each day.
BRT does seem like the sweet spot on cost vs. service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottathew
Transit is nothing like police and fire. They are funded from taxes because they benefit everyone more efficiently than doing it yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottathew
I-75 is funded by gas taxes to a great degree. That's a proxy for 'user pay'. If you don't have a car, you don't pay road taxes [[mostly).
Transit is important. Its not clear to me that the centrally planned systems serve the public well. Public Transit as a gov't monopoly is a mistake, IMO. What Uber has done for non-car-owners shows that there are better ways.
...snip 3)...
It's a theme-park ride that goes only through the green zone where there's police protection and fewer drive-by shootings per week. Beyond the green zone, angels fear to tread IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny
I disagree that it's valuable, and I think the lower ridership supports that assertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by drjeff
I'm all for funding public transit. I just hate that Gilbert and Co dangled their money in front of us so they could dictate how this streetcar line should be built... and now that they've got the toy train they wanted, they're taking their money back.
We should have light rail running to 8 mile and beyond. I understand that that was probably not a viable option when the QLine was being planned... but now the QLine represents a huge barrier to ever getting that light rail line built. We would have to tear out the QLine to do it. And the poor People Mover and QLine ridership also makes for an easy argument that we've already spent enough money on trains no one wants. I get why that's a bad argument, but many people won't.