Federal Funding [[$25 million) for M-1 Light Rail

[Richard]

We need batter public transportation - certainly. Everyone does not or cannot drive. But until we get on top of crime in Detroit I am not subjecting myself to any closed [[captive audience) public conveyance outside of a car. I do car pool with colleagues sometimes so I am not simply a 'selfish', resource-consuming, one-person-alone driver [[smile) ----!

That is a shortcoming on the transits part I been on the bus before and there has been the occasional ass for the lack of a better term , but they have a little button they push and the nearest LEO is there and ejecting that person so the message gets out quick it is not the place to start trouble,but anytime you mix people there is always that chance of one showing them self it is how the transit entity handles it is what matters.

But even driving in a car seems to have its hazards by latest news reports, sometimes it is safer in numbers.

[Honky Tonk]

That is a shortcoming on the transits part I been on the bus before and there has been the occasional ass for the lack of a better term , but they have a little button they push and the nearest LEO is there and ejecting that person so the message gets out quick it is not the place to start trouble,but anytime you mix people there is always that chance of one showing them self it is how the transit entity handles it is what matters.

But even driving in a car seems to have its hazards by latest news reports, sometimes it is safer in numbers.

I personally like public transportation, and would use it if it were convenient in my current living situation, which is either next to impossible, or would be extremely time consuming. @ my previous location, and job situation, I was within 2 blocks of a Detroit bus system. Due to car failure, I was forced to use the bus system for about 6 months. I enjoyed it. It was nice staring out the window with my Walkman on, listening to Coltrane, and not worrying about that a-ho' that just decided to make a right turn out of the left turn lane. After getting another vehicle, I continued to use the bus system by choice. It DOES integrate you with the real Detroit.

[stasu1213]

detroit won't be thriving until rail transit options here are expanded 1000%..

I hope that the money don't be rerouted by council or the Mayor into someother endeavor or project

[Shollin]

Unfortunately, I DO remember riding Detroit's streetcars [[well the bus-looking type anyway), @ a very early age. I also remember tracks being pulled out, and/or covered over @ the height of the automobile/expressway craze. Buying up right of way, laying down track, expanding lanes, seems to me like it would not be cost effective to provide a serious metro transportation system solution, in this economy, if that is the eventual game plan. The lite-rail is going to sit stuck in grid-lock on Woodward, like all the cars around it, unless they plan on just plowing through people and traffic. Everyone here keeps talking about Cleveland, but other American cities have effective bus systems too. One of the most effective, I've seen, is in ski towns out West. @ the peak of the season, they deal with massive congestion, pedestrians, and automobile traffic. [[think Red Wing play-offs, daily, 24/7) Their solution? Put the populace on the short bus. More manageable in heavy traffic. Add them and remove them as needed. Never had to wait more then 10 minutes for the next one. During non peak hours, you run one smaller vehicle for what riders there are, instead of a megabus. Very creative and effective, IMO.

It's not a bus system and it's not a bus line that other cities have. The BRT in Cleveland first uses a bus that is not the same as a DDOT or Smart Bus. It's larger and holds as many people as a light rail. It runs in dedicated lanes. It has GPS to switch street lights to give it the right of way. The bus stops are in the center of the street like light rail. You pay for your fair at the station before boarding the bus. It does everything light rail does except it's cheaper and more flexible. Cities from all over the country have gone to Cleveland to examine their BRT. Since it isn't a train and is from Cleveland we can't have it. Ironically, Cleveland has light rail as well but that is surprisingly good enough for Detroit.

[ghettopalmetto]

Cities across the US including Chicago have studied Cleveland's BRT. Even though BRT is cheaper, more flexible, and just as efficient, we can't have none of that in Detroit.

Why do you keep saying this, as if it's some positive characteristic? "Flexibility" is the death-knell of public transit. Riders want to know the route, and developers want permanent infrastructure. If you're able to change the routes at the drop of a hat, it just confuses the hell out of everyone. You know why the DC area has seen so much development adjacent to subway stations? Because the damned subway lines aren't going to be relocated four times a year.

BRT is not cheaper. Cleveland could have built a light rail line for the same amount of money. Instead, they used federal TRANSIT funds for a road repaving, landscaping, and sidewalks--along a road that, as U.S. Route 20, qualifies for federal highway dollars!!!

Where is your metric that BRT is more efficient than rail? In what regard--operating cost? Capacity? The Euclid Avenue bus is slower than the parallel Red Line, which, despite its horrific location along a railroad right-of-way, still carries more passengers on a daily basis.

If BRT were so great, you wouldn't see cities like Denver, Salt Lake, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte and Norfolk all building RAIL. Cleveland is the only major city in the United States that has a bus "rapid" transit line. There could be a reason for that, don't you think?

[ghettopalmetto]

It's not a bus system and it's not a bus line that other cities have. The BRT in Cleveland first uses a bus that is not the same as a DDOT or Smart Bus. It's larger and holds as many people as a light rail. It runs in dedicated lanes. It has GPS to switch street lights to give it the right of way. The bus stops are in the center of the street like light rail. You pay for your fair at the station before boarding the bus. It does everything light rail does except it's cheaper and more flexible. Cities from all over the country have gone to Cleveland to examine their BRT. Since it isn't a train and is from Cleveland we can't have it. Ironically, Cleveland has light rail as well but that is surprisingly good enough for Detroit.

It's a fucking bus, despite what RTA calls it. Dedicated lanes and prepaid fares don't make it "rapid transit". You could do those things on regular bus routes, and it wouldn't cost $30 million+ per mile.

[Shollin]

Why do you keep saying this, as if it's some positive characteristic? "Flexibility" is the death-knell of public transit. Riders want to know the route, and developers want permanent infrastructure.

It does have permanent infrastructure, but it allows for easier expansion or to change the route if there is a demand for it. With light rail, you have fixed tracks and overhead wires that would be costly to re-route

{quote]If you're able to change the routes at the drop of a hat, it just confuses the hell out of everyone. You know why the DC area has seen so much development adjacent to subway stations? Because the damned subway lines aren't going to be relocated four times a year.[/quote]

They won't be relocated at the drop of a hat, but it's easier to relocate if demand dictates it.

BRT is not cheaper. Cleveland could have built a light rail line for the same amount of money. Instead, they used federal TRANSIT funds for a road repaving, landscaping, and sidewalks--along a road that, as U.S. Route 20, qualifies for federal highway dollars!!!

Cleveland's BRT cost 200 million, Minneapolis Hiawatha line was 715 million. Over 3 times as much but not even twice as long.

Where is your metric that BRT is more efficient than rail? In what regard--operating cost? Capacity? The Euclid Avenue bus is slower than the parallel Red Line, which, despite its horrific location along a railroad right-of-way, still carries more passengers on a daily basis.

Where is your metric that light rail is more effecient?

If BRT were so great, you wouldn't see cities like Denver, Salt Lake, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte and Norfolk all building RAIL. Cleveland is the only major city in the United States that has a bus "rapid" transit line. There could be a reason for that, don't you think?

Minneapolis just finished building the I-35 BRT. Houston also has a BRT. Cities like Seattle, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles have a BRT

[ghettopalmetto]

It does have permanent infrastructure, but it allows for easier expansion or to change the route if there is a demand for it. With light rail, you have fixed tracks and overhead wires that would be costly to re-route

Why would you want the ability to change the route? That kind of thing is why developers don't build next to bus stops. You do know that Boston and New York have been running the same subway lines for over 100 years, right? Seems like they haven't needed to move them. I wonder why that is.

You're advocating a self-fulfilling prophecy for failure.

Cleveland's BRT cost 200 million, Minneapolis Hiawatha line was 715 million. Over 3 times as much but not even twice as long.

And included in the scope of Cleveland's BRT work:

-sewer replacement
-road repaving
-new curbs and sidewalks
-new buses
-pretty flowers

Yee haw. Where's the transit component? Only took 25 years to get that done, too.

The Hiawatha Line isn't even comparable. I've ridden it. It's grade-separated most of the way, and involved a LOT of expensive tunneling work through the airport.

Where is your metric that light rail is more effecient?

The FTA's National Transit Database. Look at cost per passenger mile.

Minneapolis just finished building the I-35 BRT. Houston also has a BRT. Cities like Seattle, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles have a BRT

And all of those cities have built rail systems. Philadelphia has an extensive regional rail system, two subway lines, and several trolley lines. Funny enough, I don't recall seeing the BRT when I was there 3 weeks ago. Maybe you can enlighten me some more.

Los Angeles is expanding its rail system. They haven't added any new Sexy Bus Routes since the Orange Line.

Minneapolis is expanding light rail into St. Paul. A bus running on a freeway, as you know, is called an "express bus". Unless you think they're somehow making stops along the interstate.

I don't know why you think this stupid Third World idea is somehow a one-size-fits-all failproof solution in a sprawling, car-dependent First World metropolis.

You'll be interested to know that Curitiba, the Brazilian city so bold to dare run BUSES!!! down its streets is now building a metro system:

http://curitibainenglish.com.br/gove...o-moves-ahead/

Ottawa, with its famed busway, is also building a light rail system:

http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/#&panel1-1

Must be because those BUSES!!! work so well.

[Shollin]

Wait, so if the rail worked so well in those cities, why are they building bus routes? You asked whether the cities mentioned were building BRT, I said they were, now the framework of the post changes.

With building a light rail down Woodward, wouldn't you need to resurface the street? You also forgot to mention all the median bus stops that were constructed with those funds, that resemble the exact same stops as a light rail.

The buses in Minneapolis are making stops along the interstate. That's why Minneapolis spent so much money constructing bus stops in the middle of the freeway. It's the same exact system as in Cleveland except in runs in the freeway.

You still haven't explained how a train, in the middle of traffic that shares all the same characteristics as the Cleveland BRT, is any better. The only difference is one is on tracks and the other is on wheels. Both carry the same amount of passengers, both have dedicated right of ways, both have fare and boarding terminals in the median but because one rolls on wheels it is deemed as being the inferior mode of transportation. We all know how great the People Mover is and all the development it created with its fixed stations and routes.

[Richard]

Woodward is not the "gateway" into the city? It was scheduled for rehabilitation anyways and needs to have a certain wow effect,nicely landscaped and inviting and although buses are not the end of the world they hardly create a wow effect,the goal is to improve and move a step up not just resurface and put back the same thing that was there.

Eventually the rail will run the length of Woodward so what do you do ,have rail and then get off and switch into a bus for a couple of miles then back to rail?

Although it is desirable to invest or your property may have a slight advantage when marketing to a wider audience with a bus line a rail line or street car line is a large long term investment that cannot be changed at a whim like a bus so the investment aspect is a bit more solid.Like GP said.

When visiting other cities what is your most memorable experience riding the bus or riding the street car, but it does not really matter,it needs to be funded and the currant administration like it or not is more apt to fund street car before bus.Yes they were going to maybe divert funding to the bus but given the currant situation it sounds like even the bus situation needs a ground up overhaul ,if you have that many issues on the bus who wants to ride it.So millions would have been spent on admin and little on the wheels.

This little run as it may, comes with security,if private funds are involved it is in the best interests of all to protect the investment,I guarantee you the first people that wish to do others harm and disrupt their experience will be made an example of and hard.

Shollin you seem to be upset that the street car is taking funds from the bus it is not really and the buses will still have their need but in a large transit picture it will probably end up with rail as the main lines and the smaller nimble buses reaching deeper into the neighborhoods to serve a more diverse group.

If you lived in a historic district which would you rather see a vintage historic looking street car or a everyday bus?

[mwilbert]

You'll be interested to know that Curitiba, the Brazilian city so bold to dare run BUSES!!! down its streets is now building a metro system:

http://curitibainenglish.com.br/gove...o-moves-ahead/

Curitiba is building a subway line to be integrated into their BRT-based system. Not really evidence that the BRT isn't working for them, or that BRT isn't a reasonable substitute for LRT, as opposed to a subway.

I'd like to see real transit in Detroit, but I don't see any reason to think that the probably crippled-at-birth M-1 is going to be any better than a BRT line on Woodward would be. The argument about future relocation hindering development is not plausible in this case, as whatever happens Woodward will be a prime transit route.

[Richard]

But will it be prime transit route in the sense that it is because it is the entry way or because an investment has been made to make it more inviting and end results becomes a pleasure in a sense to drive along or ride.

You guys talk about how depressing it is to drive around and see all the non fixed buildings,a nice comfortable way to work is kinda mental thing also.

It is just little things combined to make the bigger picture.

[mwilbert]

It will be a prime transit route in the sense of having the most transit users.

[ghettopalmetto]

Curitiba is building a subway line to be integrated into their BRT-based system. Not really evidence that the BRT isn't working for them, or that BRT isn't a reasonable substitute for LRT, as opposed to a subway.

I'd like to see real transit in Detroit, but I don't see any reason to think that the probably crippled-at-birth M-1 is going to be any better than a BRT line on Woodward would be. The argument about future relocation hindering development is not plausible in this case, as whatever happens Woodward will be a prime transit route.

From what I've read, Curitiba is building its metro to replace one of the BRT lines, as is Ottawa. If a city is building anything called bus "rapid" transit, it is likely an "improved" bus route where ridership would not warrant a higher-capacity mode [[like rail). Aside: The Euclid Corridor project was always conceived as a rail line, since the early 1980s, with subway components downtown and in University Circle. It was only during the Bush Administration [[which promoted this Third World BRT idea) that the project evolved at the last minute. Questions have been raised about the cost metrics, i.e. a completely at-grade light rail was never considered.)

It's not that bus "rapid" transit is a terrible idea. It's faster than a typical bus route that stops every couple blocks. It's that once you construct a route robust enough to offer similar performance to light rail, you've spent at least as much money as you would on constructing rail. So, from a capital standpoint, this sounds like a wash.

But then you start looking at more technical aspects. Rail offers a better ride quality [[It's only a matter of time before Euclid Avenue starts getting massive chuckholes), and better acceleration/deceleration. There are less moving parts on a rail vehicle, which is why they can last 50 years, as opposed to 12 years for a bus. Add to that the increasing gap in cost between diesel fuel and electricity, and its easy to see that maintenance costs for buses start to skyrocket very quickly--and even more so when buses are pressed into such long-distance runs [[This is why SMART is one of the highest operating cost bus systems in the nation). Light rail vehicles can operate in trains of up to three cars, and you can integrate controls systems that allow closer spacing--characteristics that are impossible with buses.

The truth is, no major city relies on buses [[in any form) as its long-haul high-capacity transit--except Detroit. Bus service can be improved by adopting measures like coherent route maps and signage, prepaid fares, low-floor vehicles, and signal pre-emption. These are relatively low-cost measures that can be implemented *right now*, without the pretense of calling it "rapid" transit. But you'll never match the performance or capacity of rail, and you'll never have the permanance of infrastructure that causes developers to buy and develop property adjacent to stops.

There simply is no bus line that matches the capacity and performance of rail. The oft-repeated claim that bus "rapid" transit is "just like trains, but cheaper" has no supporting evidence whatsoever.

[southofbloor]

Toronto has a combination of bus, streetcar, subway and light rail. Some streetcars are completely integrated with car traffic on the smaller urban streets, some have dedicated central boulevards with waiting platforms on the boulevard, some are completely dedicated rail lines, separate from the roads completely. The system could be better but is flexible and works pretty well. My commute to work starts by streetcar with a transfer onto the subway, or [[most times) I walk the last subway leg. Sometimes I drive to work, sometimes I bike.

We have two limited subway lines and I doubt that they will be vastly increased. And they are not my favorite way to get around - streetcars are a pretty civilized way of traveling - no jostling that you get in a bus, lots of light and views, and electrically driven so a cleaner/quieter way to travel. Subways are extremely expensive and at this point beyond the budget of even a thriving city like Toronto let alone Detroit. Toronto though is in the process of putting in more light rail - increasing frequency of streetcars on existing lines, adding new light rail lines to underserved neighbourhoods and improving the equipment so that the process is more efficient. The streetcars are heavily used and one of my favorite things about this city.

Woodward is IMO ideally scaled for light rail. Its a huge street that could accommodate the lines, and building them could be combined with boulevards, bike lanes, general street improvements. Woodward is packed during the outflow from a Tigers' game but few other times, and if you had reliable safe transit, of which this might be an important piece, then you would have fewer people driving to events, needing surface parking lots downtown, driving drunk etc. People living along the first leg between the Boulevard and downtown already are throwing off car dependency - putting this line up the M1 would support that and encourage further development along that corridor. And architecturally Woodward is such a beautiful spine of the city - some streetscape improvements would really nail it.

Yes the streetcars do cut into the amount of space you have on the street, but Detroit has very large streets. And as a car driver who many times am late for work and attempting to negotiate the downtown network of narrow roads, streetcars, bikes, and pedestrians, you learn to figure it out - not that tough.

[Pickford-Bentler]

From what I've read, Curitiba is building its metro to replace one of the BRT lines, as is Ottawa. If a city is building anything called bus "rapid" transit, it is likely an "improved" bus route where ridership would not warrant a higher-capacity mode [[like rail). Aside: The Euclid Corridor project was always conceived as a rail line, since the early 1980s, with subway components downtown and in University Circle. It was only during the Bush Administration [[which promoted this Third World BRT idea) that the project evolved at the last minute. Questions have been raised about the cost metrics, i.e. a completely at-grade light rail was never considered.)

It's not that bus "rapid" transit is a terrible idea. It's faster than a typical bus route that stops every couple blocks. It's that once you construct a route robust enough to offer similar performance to light rail, you've spent at least as much money as you would on constructing rail. So, from a capital standpoint, this sounds like a wash.

But then you start looking at more technical aspects. Rail offers a better ride quality [[It's only a matter of time before Euclid Avenue starts getting massive chuckholes), and better acceleration/deceleration. There are less moving parts on a rail vehicle, which is why they can last 50 years, as opposed to 12 years for a bus. Add to that the increasing gap in cost between diesel fuel and electricity, and its easy to see that maintenance costs for buses start to skyrocket very quickly--and even more so when buses are pressed into such long-distance runs [[This is why SMART is one of the highest operating cost bus systems in the nation). Light rail vehicles can operate in trains of up to three cars, and you can integrate controls systems that allow closer spacing--characteristics that are impossible with buses.

The truth is, no major city relies on buses [[in any form) as its long-haul high-capacity transit--except Detroit. Bus service can be improved by adopting measures like coherent route maps and signage, prepaid fares, low-floor vehicles, and signal pre-emption. These are relatively low-cost measures that can be implemented *right now*, without the pretense of calling it "rapid" transit. But you'll never match the performance or capacity of rail, and you'll never have the permanance of infrastructure that causes developers to buy and develop property adjacent to stops.

There simply is no bus line that matches the capacity and performance of rail. The oft-repeated claim that bus "rapid" transit is "just like trains, but cheaper" has no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Here in DC, the bus system feeds the metro stops. An analogy is the metro being the major arteries and the busses being capillaries in a circulatory system. It is great for the core and the suburbs. It is pretty fast. I can only beat my commute to Alexandria Va from Glenmont by about ten minutes using a car. That's in good weather. Bad weather makes the metro faster and safer. One inch of snow around here creates an urban highway clusterfuck.

[detroitbob]

Yes the streetcars do cut into the amount of space you have on the street, but Detroit has very large streets. And as a car driver who many times am late for work and attempting to negotiate the downtown network of narrow roads, streetcars, bikes, and pedestrians, you learn to figure it out - not that tough.

A great point...the city has streets ready to accept this mode again...remember we already had streetcars!

[rbdetsport]

What are the chances they could be making a bigger funding announcement than the already stated $25 million? They keep saying a major announcement. They leads me to believe it is more than we already expect. Maybe there was a real reason LaHood wanted a regional authority.. Just speculating, but who knows.

[bailey]

It's not that bus "rapid" transit is a terrible idea. It's faster than a typical bus route that stops every couple blocks. It's that once you construct a route robust enough to offer similar performance to light rail, you've spent at least as much money as you would on constructing rail. So, from a capital standpoint, this sounds like a wash.
....
There simply is no bus line that matches the capacity and performance of rail. The oft-repeated claim that bus "rapid" transit is "just like trains, but cheaper" has no supporting evidence whatsoever.

I get what you're saying and agree. However, you're using rational design and expert opinions to make your point. The Gilbertonians are building it through Sim City apparently.

M-1 is not a light rail system. its curb running, in traffic, with no grade separation along a tiny portion of one road with no plan to expand it past the city limits. It's, in reality, an expensive bus route that half serves one route because it's so short.

In this case if it actually were a bus it would be more economical because what is being planned is apparently going to have all the extra cost of light rail and all the failings of BRT. It's a "wash" of the worst kind.

[Eber Brock Ward]

BRT can be successful and an intermediate step to rail, provided it has a dedicated right of way and full signal prioritization.

[Richard]

M-1 is not a light rail system. its curb running, in traffic, with no grade separation along a tiny portion of one road with no plan to expand it past the city limits. It's, in reality, an expensive bus route that half serves one route because it's so short.

The hold up was because it was at the time considered not part of a regional system,that is why the funds were originally rejected until the RTA was formed, of course it will go past city limits but at this point it is considered the first leg and the first leg of a regional system.

[Cincinnati]

To all of the detractors of the streetcar/light rail line, I think you are missing something.

A lot of you have mentioned that a bus will do the same thing as a rail line at a lower up-front cost. This is completely true. Rail is more expensive to implement than buses. It is also true that rail is cheaper to operate. In the extremely long-term scope, rail is cheaper the longer you operate the system.

This isn't the reason to build rail though. The reason to build rail is for the permanent investment that has been mentioned before. People feel better investing along a rail line because it isn't going to moved and it is seen as a higher-class amenity. People will ride rail who won't ride a bus. Put your own preferences aside. I, and many of my friends, will ride a bus any day. I personally don't mind riding a bus. I do know people who will not ride the bus. You may call that ignorant, or stupid, but the point is that people view rail differently. The M-1 will help revitalize the Woodward corridor, but there must be more done than just putting the line in.

Detroit should implement Form-Based Codes for Woodward Avenue. These codes would determine the relationship the buildings have with the street, forcing developers to build mixed-use structures that abut the sidewalk. They would require corner buildings to interact with both streets it joins. Buildings near stops would need to meet height requirements and density requirements to ensure that it is a destination throughout the whole route.

The new regional bus system would need to interact better with the city. Simple bus routes that travel large corridors would be required to feed into the rail. Free transfers from bus to rail would ensure people aren't turned away by the new system. There is a lot to be done besides the rail part of the project, but the rail portion is essential if any of you want Woodward to be a lively destination with improved economic conditions. You can't just sit on you hands and say "buses should be fine" because I agree, buses should be fine. But that isn't how most people feel.

Also, Greetings from Cincinnati!

[AGinthe313]

Interesting video of the Portland streetcar system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKSt8...layer_embedded

[mwilbert]

I get what you're saying and agree. However, you're using rational design and expert opinions to make your point. The Gilbertonians are building it through Sim City apparently.

M-1 is not a light rail system. its curb running, in traffic, with no grade separation along a tiny portion of one road with no plan to expand it past the city limits. It's, in reality, an expensive bus route that half serves one route because it's so short.

In this case if it actually were a bus it would be more economical because what is being planned is apparently going to have all the extra cost of light rail and all the failings of BRT. It's a "wash" of the worst kind.

Exactly. Although I think BRT has its place, it isn't as good as LRT, and it isn't really what I'd like to see on Woodward. The problem is that the M-1 as currently conceived may actually be worse--are they really intending to have parking between the "curbside" line and the curb?. And the idea of a mode shift at New Center is insane, but things would be pretty jammy if they tried to run both of them below Grand Blvd.

[Hermod]

Exactly. Although I think BRT has its place, it isn't as good as LRT, and it isn't really what I'd like to see on Woodward. The problem is that the M-1 as currently conceived may actually be worse--are they really intending to have parking between the "curbside" line and the curb?. And the idea of a mode shift at New Center is insane, but things would be pretty jammy if they tried to run both of them below Grand Blvd.

Curbside running on Woodward is nothing new.

Attachment 17920