Where Detroit public transportation goes from here.

[professorscott]

You will never make it to office of mayor or council for you use too much common sense. DDOT/SMART could have combined busses running along Woodward tomorrow if the companies wished.

What are these "companies" of which you speak? Also, what the hell good would it do for there to be "combined buses" as opposed to the current system? Lots of regional systems have lines, operated by a single agency, where some of the buses on a line go farther than others, some only make certain stops, and so forth. The fact is, transit along Woodward is about as good as any transit in most American cities ever gets - except that it's very slow, which is in the nature of local bus service absolutely everywhere.

Quite a few people are pooh-poohing the idea of BRT. What, precisely, is the vastly superior nature of rail for similar cost? Look at the Portland Streetcar, which is very popular, but even slower than a city bus. If you want high speed regional rail, let's say just along Woodward from Detroit to Royal Oak for starters, come up with a couple billion dollars and we'll talk. Or, take what money we think we can make available, and do the best with it you can.

Remember, kids, we must learn to walk before we can run.

[wolverine]

Hell; Chicago is going to have it's up and running before Detroit even decide whether to have curbside or middle of the street

Actually this was somewhat of a hold-up on the Chicago BRT project. The neighbors weren't happy about losing their planted medians and wanted curbside buses. But I think consideration for M1 placement is far more serious since Woodward has much more complexity to it.

[Wesley Mouch]

LOL, yes, really!

I don't think it will happen, but I wish it would. The big thing about public transit in many large cities like New York is that it's actually FASTER than taking an automobile from point to point.

I went to a Mets game once and I was able to be back in Times Square faster than I could have got out of a parking lot in a car.

Your outlook is probably more realistic and I most certainly would compromise with light rail or BRT.

I just wish that would would handle this economic crisis like we did the one 80 years ago, with large amounts of bold infrastructure investment.

Detroit's problems won't be solved by more money, as so many here seem to wish. And I'm suspicious of the Krugman toss money at the economy solution. But with all that said, I think this kind of bold infrastructure investment -- targeted at our countries cities -- would do wonders for the future economic health of our cities. Every city from large to small needs good public transit -- even if they also need good freeway systems. The money could be very evenly distributed. Even cities with good systems need money -- and of course so do backwaters like Detroit.

[dtowncitylover]

Very small blurb from Mr. Shea on M-1 Rail...

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...-summer-start#

[wolverine]

Detroit's problems won't be solved by more money, as so many here seem to wish. And I'm suspicious of the Krugman toss money at the economy solution. But with all that said, I think this kind of bold infrastructure investment -- targeted at our countries cities -- would do wonders for the future economic health of our cities. Every city from large to small needs good public transit -- even if they also need good freeway systems. The money could be very evenly distributed. Even cities with good systems need money -- and of course so do backwaters like Detroit.

It could be solved by smart uses of money. I realize some people may not see that with transportation. But ideally you want to invest money that will give you the largest return. That means NOT investing as much money in failing neighborhoods. If someone hands you transit money, you use it only places where people are interested in moving to or targeted development areas. So if you build an excellent transit corridor on Woodward, you can count on a good return in tax revenue from higher density development and more businesses.

[stasu1213]

It could be solved by smart uses of money. I realize some people may not see that with transportation. But ideally you want to invest money that will give you the largest return. That means NOT investing as much money in failing neighborhoods. If someone hands you transit money, you use it only places where people are interested in moving to or targeted development areas. So if you build an excellent transit corridor on Woodward, you can count on a good return in tax revenue from higher density development and more businesses.

I agree. Woodward would be an excellent start. People had asked "What good would 3 miles do?" 3 miles could make a hell of a start. Just imagine if the People Mover would had traveled from downtown to the New Center area. I hope the construction will start earlier in the summer. That way I know the city is serious about getting this thing rolling

[brizee]

First official meeting is later this afternoon.

I don't particularly like being told piss is rain, so I won't be going.

For those interested however:

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

3-5 p.m.
SEMCOG Office
Woodward Room
1001 Woodward Avenue, Suite 1400
Detroit, MI 48226-1904

[subsidized]

Here's a link to a live blog covering todays meeting on Deadline Detroit.

http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/artic...ugural_meeting

[brizee]

This must be that whole suburbs floating Detroit's transportation thing I was hearing so much about from suburban commenters.

If this is a preview of things to come, then this is going to be an even worse clusterfuck than I imagined.

[Detroitnerd]

This must be that whole suburbs floating Detroit's transportation thing I was hearing so much about from suburban commenters.

If this is a preview of things to come, then this is going to be an even worse clusterfuck than I imagined.

Yeah, well, for a lot of people in metro Detroit, the mythology trumps reality. That's just the way it is...

[TexasT]

This must be that whole suburbs floating Detroit's transportation thing I was hearing so much about from suburban commenters.

If this is a preview of things to come, then this is going to be an even worse clusterfuck than I imagined.

1) It's for one year.
2) SMART has been claiming that the current setup is unfair for years, and both sides agree that SMART's buses are older than DDOTs and in need of replacing.

The current setup was devised in the 70s. As the population has shifted towards the burbs, perhaps it is fair to consider whether funds should be shifted as well.

[ghettopalmetto]

Quite a few people are pooh-poohing the idea of BRT. What, precisely, is the vastly superior nature of rail for similar cost? Look at the Portland Streetcar, which is very popular, but even slower than a city bus. If you want high speed regional rail, let's say just along Woodward from Detroit to Royal Oak for starters, come up with a couple billion dollars and we'll talk. Or, take what money we think we can make available, and do the best with it you can.

Remember, kids, we must learn to walk before we can run.

Streetcar is the analogue of a local bus, not BRT. The proper analogue to BRT would be light rail. Never mind that regional rail from Detroit to Royal Oak, on existing tracks, would cost on the order of $3-5 million/mile [[if you use other cities as a guide)--hardly the "couple billion" estimate you've provided.

The capital costs proposed for the BRT system in Southeast Michigan, however, are insufficient to implement anything even resembling "rapid" transit.

You're usually very knowledgeable about transit issues, professorscott. I'm very disappointed in such a misleading post.

[Eber Brock Ward]

1) It's for one year.
2) SMART has been claiming that the current setup is unfair for years, and both sides agree that SMART's buses are older than DDOTs and in need of replacing.

The current setup was devised in the 70s. As the population has shifted towards the burbs, perhaps it is fair to consider whether funds should be shifted as well.

I think a distinction that the article pointed out, that is not being really picked up on, is that the shift is with respect to capital funds only, and not operating funds.

Service in the D should be relatively unaffected.

[brizee]

1) It's for one year.
2) SMART has been claiming that the current setup is unfair for years, and both sides agree that SMART's buses are older than DDOTs and in need of replacing.

The current setup was devised in the 70s. As the population has shifted towards the burbs, perhaps it is fair to consider whether funds should be shifted as well.

There are many more riders in the DDOT system than SMART.

I don't see how population matters when bus money is being spent.

[professorscott]

Streetcar is the analogue of a local bus, not BRT. The proper analogue to BRT would be light rail. Never mind that regional rail from Detroit to Royal Oak, on existing tracks, would cost on the order of $3-5 million/mile [[if you use other cities as a guide)--hardly the "couple billion" estimate you've provided.

The capital costs proposed for the BRT system in Southeast Michigan, however, are insufficient to implement anything even resembling "rapid" transit.

You're usually very knowledgeable about transit issues, professorscott. I'm very disappointed in such a misleading post.

The difficulty with regional rail on existing tracks is permission. The owners of the tracks would never permit frequent passenger trains. MDOT has asked. That would be a very nice solution [[other than the last-mile problem downtown), if it were feasible, which it isn't.

[jt1]

Just to interject some facts into the discussion:

SMART 2012 ridership: 11MM
DDOT 2012 ridership: 32.4MM [[per http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship-APTA.pdf)

So of course with DDOT having triple the riders [[and 75% of the total between the two systems) it would only make sense that they get less than 50% of the capital dollars. Of course facts are all too often left out of discussions like this. It's easier for people to insist that SMART was getting screwed and DDOT was just a welfare department

[TexasT]

Just to interject some facts into the discussion:

SMART 2012 ridership: 11MM
DDOT 2012 ridership: 32.4MM [[per http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship-APTA.pdf)

So of course with DDOT having triple the riders [[and 75% of the total between the two systems) it would only make sense that they get less than 50% of the capital dollars. Of course facts are all too often left out of discussions like this. It's easier for people to insist that SMART was getting screwed and DDOT was just a welfare department

I believe the reason that it's not supposed to be based on ridership is that it is circular. Yes, the better funded transit will have more riders obviously - it has better capability to service them. If you started giving DDOT 90%, I'm sure their ridership would increase even more.

And again, this money is for fleet upkeep, not operating costs. Both sides agree that SMART's buses are older than DDOT's.

"But a top leader at SMART, the suburban bus system, said the new funding formula, expected to be approved on Friday, will correct what he called an arbitrary and unfair way of doling out federal fund for fleet upkeep of the two bus systems"

"Both sides agree SMART’s buses are generally two to three years older."

[RO_Resident]

This must be that whole suburbs floating Detroit's transportation thing I was hearing so much about from suburban commenters.

If this is a preview of things to come, then this is going to be an even worse clusterfuck than I imagined.

RTA or no RTA, the process for allocating funds had to change. From SEMCOG's last Certification Review from the feds:

Currently, the Regional Transit Coordinating Council [[RTCC) is the designated recipient of Section 5307 formula funds in the Detroit UZA with the authority to sub-allocate funding to the local transit operators. By the RTCC’s Articles of Incorporation, the funding allocation between the Detroit Department of Transportation [[DDOT) and Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation [[SMART) was set at 65% for DDOT and 35% for SMART and has not changed since it was established.

and,

Recommendation 9: It is strongly recommended that SEMCOG develop a process to evaluate the current approach to considering transit in its multimodal systems planning activities, as well as the process by which transit needs are identified and used as the basis of programming transit funding in the Metropolitan Planning Area. Programming these funds based on pre-determined sub-allocation percentages or formulas is inconsistent with Federal law. This will involve an assessment of the current and forecast transit service needs of the region, as an alternative to a percentage-based, formula, or other alternative approaches for directing funds to meet the transit needs of the region, including the ability to accomplish the goals in the MTP and transit plans. SEMCOG should establish an approach to complete this assessment through the development of an Action Plan by January 1, 2013

and,

23 CFR 450.324[[j) Procedures or agreements that distribute sub-allocated Surface Transportation Program funds or funds under 49 U.S.C. 5307 to individual jurisdictions or modes within the MPA by pre-determined percentages or formulas are inconsistent with the legislative provisions that
require the MPO, in cooperation with the State and the public transportation operator, to develop a prioritized and financially constrained TIP and shall not be used unless they can be clearly shown to be based on considerations required to be addressed as part of the metropolitan transportation planning process.

Finally,

Note: FTA expects local officials, operating through the MPO, and designated recipients to determine the allocations together. The designated recipient[[s) and the MPO should determine any sub-area allocation fairly and rationally through a process agreeable to the designated recipients. To assist in making such sub-area allocations, any UZA may request the appropriate
FTA regional office to coordinate with FTA Headquarters staff in providing the necessary disaggregate data used in apportioning the total UZA’s share of the entire Urbanized Area Formula Program resource.

You can read the certification review here:http://www.semcog.org/uploadedFiles/...tification.pdf

I'm sure that the suballocation will change as needs change.

[Rocko]

I realize my comment is more about operating costs than capital costs, but this change in funding allocation might make a good case for DDOT to raise its baseline ride fares to a generally-industry standard $2.00 per ride. Not only will this match the SMART system [[making it easier for future system integration, nevermind eliminate the additional inter-line transfer fee), but bring in some extra needed revenue for DDOT. I'm sure there will be pushback, but $1.50 is definitely on the cheaper end for systems of Detroit's size. I suggest they step the fare up gradually - up to $1.75 for 6 months, and then up to $2.00 and leave it there. Just my 2 cents.

In the meantime, it'll be interesting to see what kinds of new buses SMART gets next. The SMART standard has been Gillig low-floor varieties since about 12 years ago, but they're inheriting some former DDOT New Flyers to help maintain service which should be going into service soon. Meanwhile, DDOT has been purchasing mostly low floor New Flyers for several years, and still maintains a fleet of high-floor RTS coaches, but their most recent order was for new Gillig coaches similar to SMART's. A future RTA roster of New Flyers and Gilligs seems assured....and they're working to acclimate both fleet's mechanics to each type of coach.....

[Honky Tonk]

I realize my comment is more about operating costs than capital costs, but this change in funding allocation might make a good case for DDOT to raise its baseline ride fares to a generally-industry standard $2.00 per ride. Not only will this match the SMART system [[making it easier for future system integration, nevermind eliminate the additional inter-line transfer fee), but bring in some extra needed revenue for DDOT. I'm sure there will be pushback, but $1.50 is definitely on the cheaper end for systems of Detroit's size. I suggest they step the fare up gradually - up to $1.75 for 6 months, and then up to $2.00 and leave it there. Just my 2 cents.

In the meantime, it'll be interesting to see what kinds of new buses SMART gets next. The SMART standard has been Gillig low-floor varieties since about 12 years ago, but they're inheriting some former DDOT New Flyers to help maintain service which should be going into service soon. Meanwhile, DDOT has been purchasing mostly low floor New Flyers for several years, and still maintains a fleet of high-floor RTS coaches, but their most recent order was for new Gillig coaches similar to SMART's. A future RTA roster of New Flyers and Gilligs seems assured....and they're working to acclimate both fleet's mechanics to each type of coach.....

They need to put riders on the short bus. They cost less and are cheaper to run. Not everywhere, but on routes where ridership isn't that large or falls off after a certain time of day.

[Rocko]

I want to beat this guy over the head with an unabridged Webster's hard cover dictionary. Right now. Maybe the concept of "regional" hasn't dawned on him yet.

FROM THE DETROIT FREE PRESS
May 2, 2013

Bill would let suburbs opt out of regional transit agency


A Wayne County lawmaker introduced a bill Thursday that would allow suburbs across metro Detroit to opt out of paying for or benefitting from a new Regional Transit Authority the state Legislature approved last year after decades of failed attempts at coordinating southeast Michigan’s public transportation options.

State Rep. Kurt Heise, R-Plymouth Township, one of the lawmakers who voted against the RTA, said Thursday that he wants to give local communities the right to withdraw or opt into the transit authority as communities now do with the suburban SMART bus system. All of Macomb County participates in SMART, but 53 communities in Wayne and Oakland counties opt out and don’t pay the property tax millage for suburban buses, leaving scattershot bus service and much less funding for SMART’s operations.

“This legislation is meant to be a tool in the tool box for local communities,”said Heise, whose district represents communities that have opted out of SMART’s millage. “These are the types of decisions that should be left to local municipalities. Local taxpayers also deserve this check-and-balance against the RTA if it goes ‘off-track.’ This is their way to get off the bus if the system fails us.”

Critics immediately denounced the proposal, noting that metro Detroit was the nation’s last big-city region to create an RTA, and then only after more than two dozen attempts failed in the last 40 years. The RTA board had its first meeting last month and ultimately will ask voters to pay a regional tax — perhaps a vehicle registration fee in Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and Washtenaw counties — to build a new rapid-transit bus system and force more coordinated service on SMART and the Detroit Department of Transportation.

Megan Owens, executive director of Transportation Riders United, said the RTA was created without the opt-out provision to prevent weaknesses that hurt SMART’s ability to provide good bus service.

“The idea of the RTA is to put together a system that brings the whole region together,” Owens said. “It’s not going to be the same thing for every part of the region, but it recognizes that our lives don’t end at our cities’ boundaries, and our transportation shouldn’t either. I’m optimistic there are enough regional leaders who recognize the value of this type of coordinated planning, that this won’t pass, but it is a shame that there is still some thinking in this parochial way.”

A spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Snyder, who backed the RTA as a way for southeast Michigan to improve its substandard public transportation systems and qualify for new federal funding for rail and modernized bus rapid transit lines, couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

A spokesman for Mayor Dave Bing, who took considerable political risk in supporting the RTA against critics who said it would lead to a loss of control over funding and bus service in Detroit, declined comment Thursday.

State Sen. Bert Johnson, D-Highland Park, was more critical of Heise’s legislation, House Bill 4637.

“It’s precisely what’s wrong with this environment, that there are people who still think in those terms,” Johnson said. “I doubt very seriously whether there are members of his community that are making this a priority. It’s a threat of a prolific nature to the conversation about metropolitan Detroit as a region coming back.”

But Heise said voters were never given a chance to vote on the RTA — approved in the lame-duck Legislature last year — and the law only gives communities the choice to to fund or not fund projects through tax proposals at the ballot box.

“The hardworking taxpayers of southeast Michigan deserve protections from programs that are untested, and to have the final say in joining a massive regional taxing authority,” Heise said.”We already have the right to opt-out of SMART; our communities should have the same option with the RTA.”

http://www.freep.com/article/2013050...an-Legislature

[stasu1213]

I am sure that the big 3 are enjoying the fly in the ointment especially if that fly is one of theirs

[brizee]

Kind of offtopic, but not really.

The dean of Detroit Mercy College of Engineering & Science is retiring this summer.

He's been pushing for transportation pretty heavily, and it seems like he's going to continue to do that.

There were models/posters/props for M1 all over the engineering building.

Never actually met the guy, but I saw him around.

He seemed nice, if a little stuffy.

[Hypestyles]

I wonder has Kevin Orr weighed in at all on the regional transit council, and funding issues for Detroit's bus service.

[RO_Resident]

I wonder has Kevin Orr weighed in at all on the regional transit council, and funding issues for Detroit's bus service.

Yes. His report brought up several issues relating to transportation, CBAs, DDOT, and possibly regionalizing services.

Formatting the quotes is a bit wonky, but this gets to the heart of the matter.

Public transportation is being evaluated to focus on key transportation corridors, improve services and begin upgrading systems and equipment. The Emergency Manager will also evaluate the potential for regional solutions to certain of these issues.

Note, some of "these issues" seem to include public lighting.