Where Detroit public transportation goes from here.

[Al Publican]

I use to be a light rail supporter, but now I see buses as more practical and less expensive. A bus can alter its route with changing demographics and also stop on residential streets to pick up disabled and elderly folks. The Columbia River Crossing project here in Portland-Vancouver was recently cancelled largely over light rail arguments. A bus system could have dedicated lanes like in Ottawa, Canada and be powered on CNG. What are the arguments for light rail against buses?

[Detroitnerd]

I use to be a light rail supporter, but now I see buses as more practical and less expensive. A bus can alter its route with changing demographics and also stop on residential streets to pick up disabled and elderly folks. The Columbia River Crossing project here in Portland-Vancouver was recently cancelled largely over light rail arguments. A bus system could have dedicated lanes like in Ottawa, Canada and be powered on CNG. What are the arguments for light rail against buses?

One of the main arguments against buses is that "a bus can alter its route." When you put rails in the ground, that represents a capital improvement and a commitment to providing that transit service in perpetuity. That, in turn, convinces developers to shell out the tens of millions of dollars to build transit-oriented development in the vicinity.

Developers are smart folks, and used to hearing "promises" of bus service in an area, only to see it cut. Their eyes glaze over when they hear this talk. But putting rails in the ground and wires in the air gets their attention, and they do take out their checkbook when they see it.

[antongast]

Monroe County is part of SMART. They even have a person on the Board of Directors.
http://www.smartbus.org/aboutus/over...directors.aspx

Huh. Thanks for the correction. So do they assess any millages there or provide any service? Monroe County isn't included on any SMART system maps or anything, which is why I didn't think they were part of it. Their own FAQ says "SMART provides service in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties."

[professorscott]

One of the main arguments against buses is that "a bus can alter its route." When you put rails in the ground, that represents a capital improvement and a commitment to providing that transit service in perpetuity. That, in turn, convinces developers to shell out the tens of millions of dollars to build transit-oriented development in the vicinity.

This is a good point which brings up an interesting question, and I'll just pose the question: what if you design a system in which a bus cannot easily alter its route? That is, you invest in fixed bus guideways, stations and so on, so that moving the route would involve abandonment of sunk capital.

[mwilbert]

One of the main arguments against buses is that "a bus can alter its route." When you put rails in the ground, that represents a capital improvement and a commitment to providing that transit service in perpetuity. That, in turn, convinces developers to shell out the tens of millions of dollars to build transit-oriented development in the vicinity.

Developers are smart folks, and used to hearing "promises" of bus service in an area, only to see it cut. Their eyes glaze over when they hear this talk. But putting rails in the ground and wires in the air gets their attention, and they do take out their checkbook when they see it.

People say this all the time, but I feel compelled to point out that it makes no sense. The routes that are candidates for LRT are routes that have a lot of passengers anyway. There is no reasonable likelihood that Woodward and Gratiot are going to lose bus service.

What I think is actually true is that people have a somewhat [[not entirely, but more than is justified by the relative merits of the modes) irrational preference for trains over buses, and developers both share that preference and are aware of it on the part of their potential customers. I doubt it has much to do with possibly shifting routes.

[professorscott]

What I think is actually true is that people have a somewhat [[not entirely, but more than is justified by the relative merits of the modes) irrational preference for trains over buses, and developers both share that preference and are aware of it on the part of their potential customers.

The first part of that is well known in the transit community, and the second part is certainly a reasonable speculation.

[DetroitPlanner]

One of the main arguments against buses is that "a bus can alter its route." When you put rails in the ground, that represents a capital improvement and a commitment to providing that transit service in perpetuity. That, in turn, convinces developers to shell out the tens of millions of dollars to build transit-oriented development in the vicinity.

Developers are smart folks, and used to hearing "promises" of bus service in an area, only to see it cut. Their eyes glaze over when they hear this talk. But putting rails in the ground and wires in the air gets their attention, and they do take out their checkbook when they see it.

Weak argument. What is wrong with altering routes anyways? Say a bus gets used during the peak hour to get folks downtown, then it also gets used to bring people to a basketball game at the Palace during off peak hours? What if after starting a BRT route there is a huge development that goes in 4 blocks away, would it not make better sense to move that bus towards it a few blocks so it serves riders better?

Is it not better to save tens of millions in capital costs so you can use those dollars to operate service?

[DetroitPlanner]

Huh. Thanks for the correction. So do they assess any millages there or provide any service? Monroe County isn't included on any SMART system maps or anything, which is why I didn't think they were part of it. Their own FAQ says "SMART provides service in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties."

Its complicated. St. Clair was once part of SEMTA as well, but broke off when it reorganized to SMART.

[professorscott]

Its complicated. St. Clair was once part of SEMTA as well, but broke off when it reorganized to SMART.

There are still a couple SEMTA bus stop signs in Port Huron. The last time a SEMTA bus stopped there was nearly a quarter of a century ago. [[Well, hell, the last time SEMTA existed was nearly a quarter of a century ago.)

[dtowncitylover]

Here's some more SEMCOG propaganda that the commuter line is coming soon!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFtxB4RjgwM#at=248

[DetroitPlanner]

Here's some more SEMCOG propaganda that the commuter line is coming soon!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFtxB4RjgwM#at=248

It has been well documented and even mentioned several times on this board that the only reason why this is not running is because there are no operating funds that are available. Instead of being so snarky why don't you contact your government representative and work to get funding to operate this and other transit improvements?

[wolverine]

Weak argument. What is wrong with altering routes anyways? Say a bus gets used during the peak hour to get folks downtown, then it also gets used to bring people to a basketball game at the Palace during off peak hours? What if after starting a BRT route there is a huge development that goes in 4 blocks away, would it not make better sense to move that bus towards it a few blocks so it serves riders better?

Is it not better to save tens of millions in capital costs so you can use those dollars to operate service?

No it wouldn't make sense to move that bus toward that development because that's not the way transit agencies plan or operate routes. Transit first, development follows. 4 blocks isn't that much of a walk either. So it would be outlandish to modify a route to serve one big development even if it had up to 3000 residents. But who would build that? Part of the marketability of a development is being as close to a transit line as possible.

Also a route that changes on peak needs or runs a non-linear path is extremely inefficient and will lose riders because of the small detour.

[Hermod]

Also a route that changes on peak needs or runs a non-linear path is extremely inefficient and will lose riders because of the small detour.

Ever seen a route map of the old DSR streetcar system? It was just full of detours. Only The radial lines followed more or less straight routes.

[DetroitPlanner]

Also a route that changes on peak needs or runs a non-linear path is extremely inefficient and will lose riders because of the small detour.

Ever ride a CTA bus?? http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...ap/200806N.htm

[professorscott]

Ever seen a route map of the old DSR streetcar system? It was just full of detours. Only The radial lines followed more or less straight routes.

Well, Detroit never had rapid transit, and in any local service situation, buses or streetcars, you design the service to go where people need to go. So the routes can vary from quite straight-line [[Woodward, Seven Mile) to quite circuitous [[Clairmount).

For a rapid or express service, though, a reasonably direct path is necessary, otherwise the speed isn't there. So we're talking about two completely different levels of service.

As a matter of fact, one level of service the region could use once there's some kind of rapid-ish transit - and has never had - is neighborhood circulators to connect people to the rapid-ish transit stations. Imagine, for instance, you live at 13 and Crooks in Royal Oak; you have no decent access to transit. Now a rapid bus system starts operating on Woodward, and there's a station at Woodward and 12 mile. Well, perhaps there's a small bus that just runs from that station, up around the neighborhoods of northwest RO, and back to the station. One little bus, just doing about a 20 minute round trip loop, all day. Well, now you have an option you didn't have before.

My friend Neil Greenberg has said the most important thing in any transportation system is the person. When we discuss transit, we should be discussing people: where are they, where do they need to get to and when? And then design a system that solves the transportation problem for as many people, and as efficiently, as possible. This is going to require local bus service such as we have now, though completely redesigned from the ground up; but it will also require different modes, be they bus rapid transit, M1 Rail, neighborhood circulators, jitneys, Detroit Bus Company or whatever. Think holistic.

[wolverine]

Ever ride a CTA bus?? http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...ap/200806N.htm

Yes reliable linear routes. On one right now matter of fact. And yes we have peak demand seperate buses labeled with an X. But no the cta does not flex routes for single development as you suggest.

[wolverine]

Ever seen a route map of the old DSR streetcar system? It was just full of detours. Only The radial lines followed more or less straight routes.

Didn't seem to work out well though. Keep in mind rapid transit is to get people from point a to b as fast as possible.

Few stations as possible
Fewer turns.
No detours

[Detroitnerd]

Weak argument. What is wrong with altering routes anyways?

I just told you what's wrong with altering routes. Developers look at routes that can be easily altered and say, "NFW am I investing $20 million to build transit-oriented development here. NEXT!"

Is it not better to save tens of millions in capital costs so you can use those dollars to operate service?

One of the serious problems with metro Detroit transit planning is this mentality: Doing it on the cheap. Do it on the cheap and you'll get lousy results that don't attract riders of choice, don't earn the respect to get proper funding, and end up being loser cruisers. Keep at it, you "experts!"

[Detroitnerd]

This is a good point which brings up an interesting question, and I'll just pose the question: what if you design a system in which a bus cannot easily alter its route? That is, you invest in fixed bus guideways, stations and so on, so that moving the route would involve abandonment of sunk capital.

So, um, why not just built the MFing light rail?

Oh, because you can still cheap out on BRT systems so that they [[a) aren't rated well or [[b) aren't even mother-effin' BRT!

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...none-are-gold/

It isn't that gold standard BRT is impossible in the United States. Certainly it's possible. But it isn't built here because nobody really wants to build it.

The same community leaders who choose BRT over rail, because BRT is cheaper, then make the same choice when faced with other potential cost-cutting measures. They eliminate the most expensive features, until the gold standard that was promised isn't actually what's delivered.

That sort of feature cutting is called BRT creep, and so far it's happened to some extent on every major BRT project in American history.

[ghettopalmetto]

So, um, why not just built the MFing light rail?

Oh, because you can still cheap out on BRT systems so that they [[a) aren't rated well or [[b) aren't even mother-effin' BRT!

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...none-are-gold/

It isn't that gold standard BRT is impossible in the United States. Certainly it's possible. But it isn't built here because nobody really wants to build it.
The same community leaders who choose BRT over rail, because BRT is cheaper, then make the same choice when faced with other potential cost-cutting measures. They eliminate the most expensive features, until the gold standard that was promised isn't actually what's delivered.
That sort of feature cutting is called BRT creep, and so far it's happened to some extent on every major BRT project in American history.

If you just wish hard enough, dreams DO come true!!!

[Eber Brock Ward]

One of the serious problems with metro Detroit transit planning is this mentality: Doing it on the cheap. Do it on the cheap and you'll get lousy results that don't attract riders of choice, don't earn the respect to get proper funding, and end up being loser cruisers. Keep at it, you "experts!"

Agreed completely, if not said in such an inflammatory manner. Better one or two good lines and a regionwide system of crap.

[Detroitnerd]

If you just wish hard enough, dreams DO come true!!!

Hahaha. Thanks for the laughs, GP.

For those unfamiliar with the differences between bus-based systems and light rail-based systems, see this informative website.

http://beyonddc.com/log/?p=1733

[professorscott]

Hahaha. Thanks for the laughs, GP.

For those unfamiliar with the differences between bus-based systems and light rail-based systems, see this informative website.

http://beyonddc.com/log/?p=1733

That is an interesting and informative article. I agree with much of it. It isn't necessarily true that streetcars are more environmentally friendly than buses, and in the case of CNG vehicles I think it may be completely false. The difference is that diesel bus pollution is at the place where the bus is, and streetcar pollution is somewhere else, where the power is being generated. But each pollutes.

One point the author made is very significant, but glossed over: "streetcars require a much larger initial capital investment than buses". This is where the rubber [[or steel) hits the road [[or track). We can't buy transit vehicles that cost more than what we have.

As to whether BRT brings economic development, that is a function of how R the BRT is. If you do it on the dirt-cheap, then you get dirt-cheap results. If you do a decent job of it, then you get decent results.

Overall, any system is good if it accomplishes a reasonable goal. In the case of subrapid transit [[true of either a streetcar or a below-silver-level BRT system), if it is quick enough and reliable enough to attract riders, provide accessibility and get some folks to think about a way to get around other than driving, then it's accomplished something.

[Eber Brock Ward]

I was initially very anti-BRT, but think it could be a good incremental step to true rapid transit if it has a dedicated ROW, signal prioritization, and all those other goodies.

Were that the case, the region could substitute rail in the already created and built-up ROW and move the rolling stock and other BRT goodies to the next most deserving corridor. Sort of a "ladder up" approach.

[ghettopalmetto]

One point the author made is very significant, but glossed over: "streetcars require a much larger initial capital investment than buses". This is where the rubber [[or steel) hits the road [[or track). We can't buy transit vehicles that cost more than what we have.

The federal government provides capital funding [[i.e. for vehicle purchases). The federal government does NOT provide operational funding [[where buses are more expensive to operate per passenger mile than a light rail vehicle on the same route).

As to whether BRT brings economic development, that is a function of how R the BRT is. If you do it on the dirt-cheap, then you get dirt-cheap results. If you do a decent job of it, then you get decent results.

I don't know how you can even make this claim when there are exactly ZERO examples of real estate investments made in the United States as a direct function of "BRT"...regardless of what Greater Cleveland RTA wants you to believe.