Woodward Avenue Light Rail

[wolverine]

If that's the case then maybe you should move downtown so that you can walk 2 blocks to the train...

The point of this streetcar isn't to get suburbanites in Royal Oak to hop on a train and be downtown in 20 minutes. The point of this streetcar is to get the people who want to live, work, and play in the downtown core an easy, reliable, car-free option to get around.

That's why I think it is pointless for now to extend the line up to 8 mile and beyond. In my own fantasy, I would have the Woodward line terminate in Highland Park at the Model T Plaza. [[If people want to use that as a Park and Ride spot, so be it.) That means that the extension north of Grand Blvd would only cover another 3 miles with stops at Seward, Holbrook, West Chicago, Woodland, Glendale, and Manchester.

Phase 1 - Woodward from Jefferson to Grand Blvd. ~3 miles
Phase 2 - E Jefferson from Woodward to Cadillac Blvd. ~4 miles
Phase 3 - Michigan/Vernor Hwy from Woodward to Lawndale St. ~5 miles
Phase 4 - Woodward extension from Grand Blvd to Manchester Blvd. ~3 miles

Having an extensive inner-city streetcar system will go a long way in attracting and retaining people and businesses to the downtown core. Once the core has reached a critical mass of residents and jobs, then we can start discussing true rapid transit that connects the suburbs to the core. While commuter rail should obviously be the first step, rapid transit along the major corridors would be a good second step.

Whatever. This is Michigan's first case study on modern urban rail. They spent money on a system that had the potential to be more effective. If this train is to give a very slow alternative to driving, then I suppose the people mover is alternative to taking taxis around downtown. Both will accomplish something with reasonable purpose...enough to eventually pay for themselves over time, but never reach the goal of being an integral spine of a citywide system.

[hudkina]

Why because it won't initially cater to the suburban set? It's probably a good thing then that it won't connect to the suburbs. If Royal Oak residents thought this was going to be the way to get them downtown with ease, then it would be a failure for its actual purpose of getting people to want to actually live and work in the downtown core.

Royal Oak residents can use a commuter rail train to get from Royal Oak to New Center and then take the train from New Center to the various points of interest along the route. Otherwise, they can move to the core and skip taking the commuter train.

[iheartthed]

If that's the case then maybe you should move downtown so that you can walk 2 blocks to the train...

The point of this streetcar isn't to get suburbanites in Royal Oak to hop on a train and be downtown in 20 minutes. The point of this streetcar is to get the people who want to live, work, and play in the downtown core an easy, reliable, car-free option to get around.

That's why I think it is pointless for now to extend the line up to 8 mile and beyond. In my own fantasy, I would have the Woodward line terminate in Highland Park at the Model T Plaza. [[If people want to use that as a Park and Ride spot, so be it.) That means that the extension north of Grand Blvd would only cover another 3 miles with stops at Seward, Holbrook, West Chicago, Woodland, Glendale, and Manchester.

Phase 1 - Woodward from Jefferson to Grand Blvd. ~3 miles
Phase 2 - E Jefferson from Woodward to Cadillac Blvd. ~4 miles
Phase 3 - Michigan/Vernor Hwy from Woodward to Lawndale St. ~5 miles
Phase 4 - Woodward extension from Grand Blvd to Manchester Blvd. ~3 miles

Having an extensive inner-city streetcar system will go a long way in attracting and retaining people and businesses to the downtown core. Once the core has reached a critical mass of residents and jobs, then we can start discussing true rapid transit that connects the suburbs to the core. While commuter rail should obviously be the first step, rapid transit along the major corridors would be a good second step.

100% on point.

[Hermod]

Having an extensive inner-city streetcar system will go a long way in attracting and retaining people and businesses to the downtown core. Once the core has reached a critical mass of residents and jobs, then we can start discussing true rapid transit that connects the suburbs to the core. While commuter rail should obviously be the first step, rapid transit along the major corridors would be a good second step.

Why have a RTA with taxing powers if not to build a regional system?

If you are just building a downtown amusement park ride for spoiled yuppies who will pay for it?

[mwilbert]

Why have a RTA with taxing powers if not to build a regional system?

Because it seems much harder to get federal funding without an RTA?

[dtowncitylover]

I could very well see Detroit being the Melbourne [[the largest urban streetcar system in the world) of the USA. Our streets are wide enough, but the city has the propensity to be a dense, liveable place.

Also Melbourne, along with other Australian cities and I believe BART in SF, had metro-sytle trains as their commuter rail cars, not bulky ones like in Chicago or Toronto.

[iheartthed]

I could very well see Detroit being the Melbourne [[the largest urban streetcar system in the world) of the USA. Our streets are wide enough, but the city has the propensity to be a dense, liveable place.

Also Melbourne, along with other Australian cities and I believe BART in SF, had metro-sytle trains as their commuter rail cars, not bulky ones like in Chicago or Toronto.

Didn't Detroit once have the largest streetcar system in the world?

[wolverine]

Why because it won't initially cater to the suburban set? It's probably a good thing then that it won't connect to the suburbs. If Royal Oak residents thought this was going to be the way to get them downtown with ease, then it would be a failure for its actual purpose of getting people to want to actually live and work in the downtown core.

Royal Oak residents can use a commuter rail train to get from Royal Oak to New Center and then take the train from New Center to the various points of interest along the route. Otherwise, they can move to the core and skip taking the commuter train.

I'm not even thinking about the suburbanites. I'm thinking about the M1 Rail being a collector or major spine for improved transit across the city. Making two or more transfers with the "last miles" possibly being slower than a bus is not effective. It should be totally separated and only stop to pick up passengers.

But your thoughts on transit and the suburbs I disagree with and contradict your earlier statements. The core should become a major attractive job center that is well serviced by transit....so yes it should reach the suburbs. If you want alternatives to driving, provide direct acces to downtown, not transfers or modal switches when it's so much more convenient to drive.

Is anybody here even a regular transit rider? You don't have to have the academic or professional credentials to know what makes sense and what doesn't. Just experiencing and observing how transit works or serves cities and has lead to their economic growth is enough to say that the M1 rail will only be an accessory to the existing network, not a critical backbone for better transit.

I guess some people here are okay with that, but you spent the money regardless of options. It will work as designed, and most definitely will get riders. My principle concern in this debate is that its ultimately going to be difficult to expand or plug into this system in the future because it cannot be upgraded into something faster and reliable like so many other LRT lines in the US that are planned comprehensively

[hudkina]

It really won't be that difficult to expand and connect to the streetcar system. The central city streetcar will act as a means for people in the central city to get around. At the same time, commuter rail will come from all corners of the metro, dumping people at the New Center station. Those people will then reach their final destination using the streetcar. If the streetcar only had five stations [[Grand Blvd, Warren, Mack, Grand Circus Park, and Jefferson) they would still have to switch trains, but they would have a much more difficult time getting to their specific destination.

You have to remember that when the city was a dense mass of people, the streetcars and interurbans were the only means of getting around, and they were still pretty efficient. I don't see how this setup would be any different.

BTW, I agree that the suburbs will eventually need to be connected to the city via LRT/BRT or subway. I would put such a system along the major spokes [[Gratiot, Woodward, Grand River, Michigan, and Fort) and even along major arterials like Telegraph, 8 Mile, 16 Mile, and M-59) In the system would work best as a subway.

However, that would be completely unrelated to the current streetcar system that is being built to facilitate the movement of residents and workers within the downtown core.

Look at Toronto as an example. There is a subway system, but there is also an extensive streetcar system. I don't see why Detroit can't have a similar set up. While I understand your disappointment that Gilbert & Co. chose to start with the streetcar system as opposed to the rapid transit system, you have to understand it was done for a good reason.

[wolverine]

It really won't be that difficult to expand and connect to the streetcar system. The central city streetcar will act as a means for people in the central city to get around. At the same time, commuter rail will come from all corners of the metro, dumping people at the New Center station. Those people will then reach their final destination using the streetcar. If the streetcar only had five stations [[Grand Blvd, Warren, Mack, Grand Circus Park, and Jefferson) they would still have to switch trains, but they would have a much more difficult time getting to their specific destination.

You have to remember that when the city was a dense mass of people, the streetcars and interurbans were the only means of getting around, and they were still pretty efficient. I don't see how this setup would be any different.

BTW, I agree that the suburbs will eventually need to be connected to the city via LRT/BRT or subway. I would put such a system along the major spokes [[Gratiot, Woodward, Grand River, Michigan, and Fort) and even along major arterials like Telegraph, 8 Mile, 16 Mile, and M-59) In the system would work best as a subway.

However, that would be completely unrelated to the current streetcar system that is being built to facilitate the movement of residents and workers within the downtown core.

Look at Toronto as an example. There is a subway system, but there is also an extensive streetcar system. I don't see why Detroit can't have a similar set up. While I understand your disappointment that Gilbert & Co. chose to start with the streetcar system as opposed to the rapid transit system, you have to understand it was done for a good reason.

Well I can agree with much of the above until your last point. I just don't understand the rationality of curbside running rail. Because transit agencies study these things to death, they always present multiple options [[center running and curbside). The point is each option is financially feasible, but it's matter of dealing with traffic capacity or what neighborhood residents and businesses really want. If you can provide data that shows that Detroit city residents insisted on curbside service, than I have no right to criticize. Hey, it's probably going to run slower, but ultimately it's what the people want. If the decision is in the hands of a few, I'd ask they ride around on these systems for awhile. We keep saying "it's not rapid transit." but if you are going to spend the same amount of money with little disruption to vehicular traffic, why not go all out and solve problems in the long run with minimal extra cost to the whole project. Sure we could mention other cities that have LRT, but Detroit's configuration is very different. I guess we'll have to see.

[professorscott]

Well I can agree with much of the above until your last point. I just don't understand the rationality of curbside running rail. Because transit agencies study these things to death, they always present multiple options [[center running and curbside). The point is each option is financially feasible, but it's matter of dealing with traffic capacity or what neighborhood residents and businesses really want. If you can provide data that shows that Detroit city residents insisted on curbside service, than I have no right to criticize. Hey, it's probably going to run slower, but ultimately it's what the people want. If the decision is in the hands of a few, I'd ask they ride around on these systems for awhile. We keep saying "it's not rapid transit." but if you are going to spend the same amount of money with little disruption to vehicular traffic, why not go all out and solve problems in the long run with minimal extra cost to the whole project. Sure we could mention other cities that have LRT, but Detroit's configuration is very different. I guess we'll have to see.

My question to everyone who brings this up is, what is supposed to be the benefit of median streetcars? Keep in mind that, wherever the streetcar is running, removing a lane of traffic in each direction so the trains can run in exclusive lanes is not an option no matter which configuration you choose. [[If that's an option, you almost automatically select the median because it's cheaper - one station serves trains in both directions. But it's not an option.) I can't fathom how running trains in the center lanes, in traffic, is better in any way than running trains near the curb, in traffic. Are there any modern examples where this has been done?

[hudkina]

Also consider the fact that many streetcars run on roads with a single lane of traffic in either direction. If the system were to expand along Vernor Hwy through Southwest Detroit, it would be a perfect example of such. You couldn't possibly argue for a separate ROW along Vernor Hwy.

Again, this isn't a rapid transit system were speed, efficiency, and capacity are the ultimate goal. Having a center-running train with a separate ROW is absolutely ideal once you leave the central core. However, for a system that runs within the core, it's not necessary.

Also, once the route extends north of Grand Blvd, I believe Gilbert & Co. have already said that they prefer a switch to the center with fewer stops and a focus on speed and efficiency. At that point the trains will run in a more "rapid transit" mode. So for 14 miles from Birmingham to New Center, you'd have your fast, efficient "express" train, but for the remaining 3 miles, it switches over to a "local" train.

[wolverine]

My question to everyone who brings this up is, what is supposed to be the benefit of median streetcars? Keep in mind that, wherever the streetcar is running, removing a lane of traffic in each direction so the trains can run in exclusive lanes is not an option no matter which configuration you choose. [[If that's an option, you almost automatically select the median because it's cheaper - one station serves trains in both directions. But it's not an option.) I can't fathom how running trains in the center lanes, in traffic, is better in any way than running trains near the curb, in traffic. Are there any modern examples where this has been done?

I explained a few posts back on how it's done. What they do is utilize the left center turn lane. As the train approaches, the left signal automatically turns green to clear cars out of the turn lane so the trains can pass. So as the train moves down the street, the signals are choreographed to allow it to pass.

Obviously, one turn lane isn't wide enough so one lane of parking is sacrificed. Yes some people will holler about losing a dozen parking spots per block, but the benefit outweighs this. You never want to lose through lanes of traffic. You are right, it's not an option. But sacrificing parking is always an option. It doesn't have to be studied or require all that much community input. It's just eliminated. But removing lanes, or sharing lanes of traffic requires a lot more planning and clever signaling. The best usage is the center of the street since it receives the lightest traffic [[turning vehicles only) and the vehicles can directed when signaled. Plus you can place collapsable bollards in the median to discourage drivers from entering the center lane where no turning occurs, but permit emergency vehicles to enter the trackway if necessary.


This is more difficult to do in the right lane. If cars are attempting to park and merging in front of trains, the operator will be hitting the brakes alot. It's just like a bus.

Hopefully that answers the question.

In hindsight I had thought all along they were running center which is why I was a huge proponent of this line. But now I'm concerned and I think BRT would have been a better option since it accomplishes the same at a lower cost. At least it would had been a bit more flexible for expanding capacity or modifying travel-way in the future.

Oh well, I'm still going to ride it anyway. At least for the basic purpose hudkina described, it will get me from New Center to downtown when I'm visiting in town.

[Hermod]

I explained a few posts back on how it's done. What they do is utilize the left center turn lane. As the train approaches, the left signal automatically turns green to clear cars out of the turn lane so the trains can pass. So as the train moves down the street, the signals are choreographed to allow it to pass.

Obviously, one turn lane isn't wide enough so one lane of parking is sacrificed. Yes some people will holler about losing a dozen parking spots per block, but the benefit outweighs this. You never want to lose through lanes of traffic. You are right, it's not an option. But sacrificing parking is always an option. It doesn't have to be studied or require all that much community input. It's just eliminated. But removing lanes, or sharing lanes of traffic requires a lot more planning and clever signaling. The best usage is the center of the street since it receives the lightest traffic [[turning vehicles only) and the vehicles can directed when signaled. Plus you can place collapsable bollards in the median to discourage drivers from entering the center lane where no turning occurs, but permit emergency vehicles to enter the trackway if necessary.


This is more difficult to do in the right lane. If cars are attempting to park and merging in front of trains, the operator will be hitting the brakes alot. It's just like a bus.

Hopefully that answers the question.

In hindsight I had thought all along they were running center which is why I was a huge proponent of this line. But now I'm concerned and I think BRT would have been a better option since it accomplishes the same at a lower cost. At least it would had been a bit more flexible for expanding capacity or modifying travel-way in the future.

Oh well, I'm still going to ride it anyway. At least for the basic purpose hudkina described, it will get me from New Center to downtown when I'm visiting in town.

You can also eliminate left turns entirely by using a form of "Michigan lefts". You get in the right turn lane continue on to the next right turn [[the street after the one you want). You turn right there, go to the next block, turn right again, go one block to the street you want and turn right again. Now you are going in the direction you want on the street you want.

My problem with center running is getting large amounts of people across two or three lanes of traffic to the center safety island. That is why I think the rails should run in an alley or in the smaller street directly behind the major route.

Attachment 21418

[mwilbert]

My problem with center running is getting large amounts of people across two or three lanes of traffic to the center safety island. That is why I think the rails should run in an alley or in the smaller street directly behind the major route.

If you are claiming people can't figure out how to cross streets with medians, I think that is unlikely.

[bailey]

If you are claiming people can't figure out how to cross streets with medians, I think that is unlikely.

also problematic is using pictures of christmas shoppers lining the stop as an example of what M1 would look like on a daily basis. Maybe on a game day...and that is only if people haven't given up on it and just driven in and parked on a surface lot because it's the same amount of hassle.

[DetroitPlanner]

Because it seems much harder to get federal funding without an RTA?

You have it kind of backwards, but understandable. It is hard to get non-formula federal funds without a local match. The RTA will give us the opportunity to get a reliable source of funding. DDOT's General Fund, and AATA and SMART's millages are not bringing in the kind of money needed if we want to have a system that works on a regional basis. Heck with the exception of Ann Arbor, the remainder is pretty underfunded as it is.

[Hermod]

If you are claiming people can't figure out how to cross streets with medians, I think that is unlikely.

No, they figure it out quite easily. A two or three car magic choo choo pulls up to a safety island in the middle of Woodward. Two hundred people swarm across Woodward stopping traffic. They do not proceed down to the cross walk at the end of the block and wait for a "walk" signal from the traffic light.

[Hermod]

also problematic is using pictures of christmas shoppers lining the stop as an example of what M1 would look like on a daily basis. Maybe on a game day...and that is only if people haven't given up on it and just driven in and parked on a surface lot because it's the same amount of hassle.

OK, Harper street car during a normal rush hour:

Attachment 21425

You and DetroitNerd can lounge on the streetcar playing with your laptops while you whiz effortlessly to your destination.

[chicagoforlife]

I don't quite understand why private people are building a public transit line. Doesn't Detroit have a Transit Authority? I know Detroit has an extensive bus system.

I'm just confused because in Chicago the CTA runs both the trains and the buses.

[professorscott]

I don't quite understand why private people are building a public transit line. Doesn't Detroit have a Transit Authority? I know Detroit has an extensive bus system.

I'm just confused because in Chicago the CTA runs both the trains and the buses.

Thank the Gods; a reasonably easy question to answer.

A private nonprofit is going to build, and for a time operate, the streetcar line using a combination of public and private money. The RTA is brand new and, as yet, has no funding with which it can operate its own offices for very long, much yet transit. That'll come, but we aren't there yet.

There are three existing transit operators which might have been tapped to run the system:

1. DDOT is flat effing broke and has a history of running a crappy and underfunded system. It has never built any operational transit infrastructure and has very little credibility with the public. The last thing it built was the Rosa Parks Transit Center, too far from downtown to make it a reasonably convenient place, and go back and reread the articles about it shortly after it opened.

2. The People Mover runs a rail system, and it runs reasonably well; but the People Mover is funded largely by the City, which is broke [[arguably, bankrupt) and it wouldn't be responsible to ask the City to take on such an extra cost.

3. SMART is a well-run, though underfunded, bus system; but SMART's charter is that it should operate in cities and towns which pay for its service - and that excludes Detroit. SMART runs buses at peak commute times into Detroit for rider convenience, but it would be beyond SMART's charter to run a service entirely in Detroit [[or any opt-out community).

That being said, the idea is that eventually the RTA will run the streetcars, and probably much more than that.

[wolverine]

I don't quite understand why private people are building a public transit line. Doesn't Detroit have a Transit Authority? I know Detroit has an extensive bus system.

I'm just confused because in Chicago the CTA runs both the trains and the buses.

It will have an rta to oversee its operation. Nothing wrong at all with private contributions. Also the CTA receives a large share of funding from the state and federal government...$2.8 billion for this year alone. The system's operation is mostly covered by the CTA through fare revenues which are not part of capitol improvement. The funding for new rail lines, stations, rolling stock, and renovations are provided by state and federal taxpayers and a ton of odds and ends grants....and that's why an RTA is necessary so that there is a receiver of this money, not a bunch of investors.

Obviously the state of Michigan is not ready or willing to hand out that kind of money just for one year....yet. Someone must start the project.

It's no different than the CTA's roots where the L system was run by a ton of different private operators...hence all the legacy names they continue to use [[ex. The Ravenswood Line instead of the brown line). The money had to start from some company, or some individual to get it going. Eventually the companies went out of business and the system was combined under a public transit authority.

Eventually when this thing starts building, money from the state and feds will [[hopefully) come flowing in to fund additional lines.

[Russix]

When the money runs out, I will be the first one to help throw these into the river. In the mean time, I'm curious how such a top-down transit system will earn or burn some powerful peoples reputations.

[Believer1]

Oh, yes. This curbside light rail is going to be wonderful. Of course, even though it seems that every transit planner in the world thinks curbside light rail is an idiotic idea, deep down they really just resent Dan Gilbert's money.

When cars are zipping by light rail vehicles that are stuck behind somebody's illegally parked hooptie, waiting for a tow truck, metro Detroiters will have even more reasons to laugh at "mass transit."

Who in God's name would want a street car in the middle of the road? Let me get this straight: Put stations in the middle of the road where riders have to stand around feeling unsafe, waiting for a street car after they have crossed over a busy street and enter into a station that blocks the entire road and divides Woodward into a cluttered mess? The entire purpose of the street car is to allow riders to easily and simply get on at the curb to ride down to some other relatively close location. It fuels commerce. It allows people to go to lunch up up to 3.5 miles away without having to worry about parking their car. It will be incredible for downtown citizens and visitors to move around and circulate from the river all the way to the Boulevard and back or any where else in between. These systems are wildly successful in downtowns all over America for the very reason they are curbside and NOT foolishly in the middle. In addition, some of you malcontents, don't even understand how this thing is going to work. The stations are going to jet out one lane to meet the street car at the second lane of Woodward from the curb on each side. No car parked on the curb would ever block the trains' route. Some of you nasty and bitter people deep down want to continue to wallow in your misery. You hate progress and you hate when people [[like Penske, Gilbert, Ilitch, etc...) actually do things and get things done. You are the problem and you are the reason Detroit has been so F'd up all of these years. Progress. Investment. Jobs. Business. Commerce. Energy. Optimism. Light over darkness. Connectivity over barriers. Some of you pathetic old hippie souls need to get a life. Detroit is coming back big with or without you. How about taking that rage that stirs inside of you and try putting to good use like creating something instead of typing venom into a keyboard? That would be a change, huh? Wake up brothers, the train is moving and if you stand there on the tracks with your stinky and polluted outlooks you gonna be flat ran over. Literally and figuratively. Maybe that would be best for everyone, though?!

[Believer1]

Who in God's name would want a street car in the middle of the road? Let me get this straight: Put stations in the middle of the road where riders have to stand around feeling unsafe, waiting for a street car after they have crossed over a busy street and enter into a station that blocks the entire road and divides Woodward into a cluttered mess? The entire purpose of the street car is to allow riders to easily and simply get on at the curb to ride down to some other relatively close location. It fuels commerce. It allows people to go to lunch up up to 3.5 miles away without having to worry about parking their car. It will be incredible for downtown citizens and visitors to move around and circulate from the river all the way to the Boulevard and back or any where else in between. These systems are wildly successful in downtowns all over America for the very reason they are curbside and NOT foolishly in the middle. In addition, some of you malcontents, don't even understand how this thing is going to work. The stations are going to jet out one lane to meet the street car at the second lane of Woodward from the curb on each side. No car parked on the curb would ever block the trains' route. Some of you nasty and bitter people deep down want to continue to wallow in your misery. You hate progress and you hate when people [[like Penske, Gilbert, Ilitch, etc...) actually do things and get things done. You are the problem and you are the reason Detroit has been so F'd up all of these years. Progress. Investment. Jobs. Business. Commerce. Energy. Optimism. Light over darkness. Connectivity over barriers. Some of you pathetic old hippie souls need to get a life. Detroit is coming back big with or without you. How about taking that rage that stirs inside of you and try putting to good use like creating something instead of typing venom into a keyboard? That would be a change, huh? Wake up brothers, the train is moving and if you stand there on the tracks with your stinky and polluted outlooks you gonna be flat ran over. Literally and figuratively. Maybe that would be best for everyone, though?!