Detroit Public Transportation: 2014 and beyond.

[brizee]

-The SEMCOG RTA website is still a damn mess. Bunch of cancelled meetings and a news section that hasn't been updated in a year. Way to prove your worth!

-MDOT has proposed to study a rail line connecting Detroit, Lansing and Grand Rapids. Their own officials are downplaying it. So expect the typical Mich/Detroit feet dragging and eventual announcement of a bus line in 20fuckin43.

-M1 was approved by city council. Stay tuned for the announcement of the next delay of construction. Any day now.

-The RTA's CEO pick STILL hasn't signed on. He DID however receive a retroactive raise from his old job. So a month on it looks like the "Authority" is being jerked around again.

-The rail line poison pill has been ever so slightly relaxed. Instead of unanimous approval it now just requires 7/9 supermajority. Relax though, it ONLY applies to M1 and a potential Ann Arbor/Detroit train. And ONLY after 2024. So this area's head is still firmly lodged in it's ass

That's Detroit Area Transit for the first half of 2014.

Still stupid, still unacceptable, still bottom of the barrel.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Detroit-Lansing [[assuming it means or includes East Lansing)-Grand Rapids is one of the few rail lines in Michigan that would warrant a subsidy [[assuming the subsidy per rider isn't ridiculous). Connecting Eastern & Western Michigan, through the state capital, is a good idea. I would think it could have a fair number of riders, presuming it's service were fast, frequent, reasonably priced, and connected to local transit at each stop. I would not seek to have Amtrak operate the line, if it were to go forward, though.

I am in favor of a Detroit-AA rail line if 2 conditions are met: it connects with the airport directly, and if the operating subsidy were low on a per passenger basis.

[ABetterDetroit]

I am in favor of a Detroit-AA rail line if 2 conditions are met: it connects with the airport directly, and if the operating subsidy were low on a per passenger basis.

And of course, if the big chunk of cash we send to uncle sugar does not come back here for rail, but goes to other states rail plans. On account of we have plenty of money right here in MI for public transport if thats what the people want.
Almost forgot about your 3rd condition Mikey.

[ghettopalmetto]

Detroit-Lansing [[assuming it means or includes East Lansing)-Grand Rapids is one of the few rail lines in Michigan that would warrant a subsidy [[assuming the subsidy per rider isn't ridiculous). Connecting Eastern & Western Michigan, through the state capital, is a good idea. I would think it could have a fair number of riders, presuming it's service were fast, frequent, reasonably priced, and connected to local transit at each stop. I would not seek to have Amtrak operate the line, if it were to go forward, though.

I am in favor of a Detroit-AA rail line if 2 conditions are met: it connects with the airport directly, and if the operating subsidy were low on a per passenger basis.

See, this is problematic. When skeptics of Anything-Other-Than-Roads start using such vague definitions, achieving anything becomes an impossible dream. How did you decide, for example, that a Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit train is worthwhile, presumably much more so than a Detroit-Ann Arbor train? What do you consider "fast", "frequent", and "reasonably priced"? What do you consider a "low" operating subsidy? And why the "subsidy per passenger" metric--when was the last time MDOT calculated subsidy-per-new-driver on one of their gold-plated highway projects?

And if Amtrak doesn't operate any of the proposed routes, who do you suggest? There isn't ANYONE else in the State of Michigan with experience in passenger rail operations.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

See, this is problematic. When skeptics of Anything-Other-Than-Roads start using such vague definitions, achieving anything becomes an impossible dream. How did you decide, for example, that a Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit train is worthwhile, presumably much more so than a Detroit-Ann Arbor train? What do you consider "fast", "frequent", and "reasonably priced"? What do you consider a "low" operating subsidy? And why the "subsidy per passenger" metric--when was the last time MDOT calculated subsidy-per-new-driver on one of their gold-plated highway projects?

On the first question, I would answer by saying Det-Lans-GR is a good idea because it links the state's two largest [[by far) cities, through the state capital/home of the state's largest university. One can imagine a lot of people having use for service on that route. Additionally, each of those three cities has substantial existing transit operations that can be tied into the rail stations. The other questions you posed are legitimate and need to be studied and answered before going forward with something like this.

As for our "gold-plated highway projects", I honestly have NO IDEA what you could be referring to. By nearly all accounts, we have not exactly spent even an adequate amount of money on roads. Also, please recognize that my skepticism of spending on transit is not unique to transit: I am skeptical of all spending. I do not advocate massive spending of any kind. I think legislators should make sure every project is: A) worth taking people's hard earned money to build; B) planned in the most modest way practical to reduce the cost to taxpayers; C) designed with long-term use and ongoing financial obligations in mind; and D) done honestly, transparently, and efficiently. I favor that for ALL spending, not just transit projects. Lacking skepticism about public spending leads to things such as Detroit declaring bankruptcy. Points A,B,C and D were not followed by any council or administration in the last half century.

And if Amtrak doesn't operate any of the proposed routes, who do you suggest? There isn't ANYONE else in the State of Michigan with experience in passenger rail operations.

Amtrak does not have a good track record in terms of either operations or finances. It is also constantly under fluctuating mandates and rules issued by Congress. I am not sure who would run it; I would be open to putting out the operations of the railroad to bid. If no qualified bidders stepped forward, then perhaps a reconsideration would be necessary. I am in the restaurant business. I have had to hire chefs, and I have had to fire them. When I am hiring, I may not know who will work out in the position; but I am certain that I am not going to hire someone I have had to fire previously for ineptitude.

[ghettopalmetto]

Amtrak does not have a good track record in terms of either operations or finances. It is also constantly under fluctuating mandates and rules issued by Congress. I am not sure who would run it; I would be open to putting out the operations of the railroad to bid. If no qualified bidders stepped forward, then perhaps a reconsideration would be necessary. I am in the restaurant business. I have had to hire chefs, and I have had to fire them. When I am hiring, I may not know who will work out in the position; but I am certain that I am not going to hire someone I have had to fire previously for ineptitude.

I bet every chef you hired was given saute pans, a stove, and a regular budget for purchasing produce that they used to do their job, too.

[professorscott]

Detroit-Lansing [[assuming it means or includes East Lansing)-Grand Rapids is one of the few rail lines in Michigan that would warrant a subsidy [[assuming the subsidy per rider isn't ridiculous)... I would not seek to have Amtrak operate the line, if it were to go forward, though.

If you don't want Amtrak to operate the line, then it won't be operated at all. In municipal bus systems there are private companies out there who will operate service under contract for you if you don't want to do it yourself [[First Transit, for example); in passenger rail there are precisely zero such contractors.

I am in favor of a Detroit-AA rail line if 2 conditions are met: it connects with the airport directly, and if the operating subsidy were low on a per passenger basis.

There is zero chance of it connecting with the airport directly, as there are no railroad tracks into the airport and there won't be any. No plan for service has ever proposed this. The proposal is for a stop on the existing tracks in a place where shuttles [[similar to what everyone uses who parks off-property) will be in place to get people to and from the terminals.

[mwilbert]

If you don't want Amtrak to operate the line, then it won't be operated at all. In municipal bus systems there are private companies out there who will operate service under contract for you if you don't want to do it yourself [[First Transit, for example); in passenger rail there are precisely zero such contractors.

I am pretty sure this is wrong. Check out Keolis, the company which will start operating the Boston-area commuter rail system starting July 1st, and which already operates a system in Virginia.

[Danny]

The Smart Bus RTE. 560 Gratiot Ave. is getting very crowded these days. Due to more regional jobs in the area. I propose light rail in Gratoit Ave. from Gilberttown Detroit to to Port Huron might be in the works.

[Danny]

See, this is problematic. When skeptics of Anything-Other-Than-Roads start using such vague definitions, achieving anything becomes an impossible dream. How did you decide, for example, that a Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit train is worthwhile, presumably much more so than a Detroit-Ann Arbor train? What do you consider "fast", "frequent", and "reasonably priced"? What do you consider a "low" operating subsidy? And why the "subsidy per passenger" metric--when was the last time MDOT calculated subsidy-per-new-driver on one of their gold-plated highway projects?

On the first question, I would answer by saying Det-Lans-GR is a good idea because it links the state's two largest [[by far) cities, through the state capital/home of the state's largest university. One can imagine a lot of people having use for service on that route. Additionally, each of those three cities has substantial existing transit operations that can be tied into the rail stations. The other questions you posed are legitimate and need to be studied and answered before going forward with something like this.

As for our "gold-plated highway projects", I honestly have NO IDEA what you could be referring to. By nearly all accounts, we have not exactly spent even an adequate amount of money on roads. Also, please recognize that my skepticism of spending on transit is not unique to transit: I am skeptical of all spending. I do not advocate massive spending of any kind. I think legislators should make sure every project is: A) worth taking people's hard earned money to build; B) planned in the most modest way practical to reduce the cost to taxpayers; C) designed with long-term use and ongoing financial obligations in mind; and D) done honestly, transparently, and efficiently. I favor that for ALL spending, not just transit projects. Lacking skepticism about public spending leads to things such as Detroit declaring bankruptcy. Points A,B,C and D were not followed by any council or administration in the last half century.

And if Amtrak doesn't operate any of the proposed routes, who do you suggest? There isn't ANYONE else in the State of Michigan with experience in passenger rail operations.

Amtrak does not have a good track record in terms of either operations or finances. It is also constantly under fluctuating mandates and rules issued by Congress. I am not sure who would run it; I would be open to putting out the operations of the railroad to bid. If no qualified bidders stepped forward, then perhaps a reconsideration would be necessary. I am in the restaurant business. I have had to hire chefs, and I have had to fire them. When I am hiring, I may not know who will work out in the position; but I am certain that I am not going to hire someone I have had to fire previously for ineptitude.

That's exactly what L.B. Patterson say.

[Danny]

-The SEMCOG RTA website is still a damn mess. Bunch of cancelled meetings and a news section that hasn't been updated in a year. Way to prove your worth!

-MDOT has proposed to study a rail line connecting Detroit, Lansing and Grand Rapids. Their own officials are downplaying it. So expect the typical Mich/Detroit feet dragging and eventual announcement of a bus line in 20fuckin43.

-M1 was approved by city council. Stay tuned for the announcement of the next delay of construction. Any day now.

-The RTA's CEO pick STILL hasn't signed on. He DID however receive a retroactive raise from his old job. So a month on it looks like the "Authority" is being jerked around again.

-The rail line poison pill has been ever so slightly relaxed. Instead of unanimous approval it now just requires 7/9 supermajority. Relax though, it ONLY applies to M1 and a potential Ann Arbor/Detroit train. And ONLY after 2024. So this area's head is still firmly lodged in it's ass

That's Detroit Area Transit for the first half of 2014.

Still stupid, still unacceptable, still bottom of the barrel.

They scared of those lobbyists from the car and oil industries. If there any light rail transit lines being installed in Detroit and suburban streets. They will take to Lansing and stop it.



The another reason M1-rail delay is not enough $$$$ money $$$$.

Look what happen to Los Angeles, CA. Public transit lines being cut many years ago thanks to General Motors. When GM and other car companies release the EV-1 vehicles to solve it's pollution problems. Lobbyists for oil companies [[$$$ bribed $$$) C.A.R.B. The Caifornia Air Reduction Board. EV-1's were taken off the main Californian highways and to be dismantled and the pollution came back.

[Oddz313]

A decent public transportation system is a longggg....ways away in this area. They made a poor system worse when Smart started only going downtown during peak hours, at the end of 2011.

[That Great Guy]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ails-in-August

[brizee]

M1 Streetcar finally began construction.

Suburban Bus millage renewal won in all the places it was on the ballot.

Wayne County - 63% -37%

Oakland County - 74% - 26%

Macomb County - 60% - 40%

The RTA has FINALLY put out an RFP for Gratiot and Michigan alternative analysis studies.

-Though by it's very nature it HAS to be superbus so I don't know why it's gonna take more than a year.

-As expected the republicans in the legislature didn't give them any extra money so I don't know why these studies weren't began last year.

They have to perform Environmental Impact studies which take 12+ months by themselves. If they insist on delaying a funding vote to 2016 the LEAST they could have done was assure a yes vote meant projects would be shovel ready by summer 2017. As it is it will be 2022 before passenger one rides on anything developed by this group.

-Ford STILL hasn't signed on as CEO. He did parlay the job offer into a raise in Ann Arbor though.

Going on to four months now. Board is not pressing the issue just like their first retread choice.

Not only is this group slow. They apparently don't learn lessons.

[professorscott]

Ford STILL hasn't signed on as CEO. He did parlay the job offer into a raise in Ann Arbor though.

Going on to four months now. Board is not pressing the issue just like their first retread choice.

It would have been entirely reasonable to have put a time limit on the job offer. Mr. Ford, you're hired, as long as you accept by X date. Why they didn't [[and it certainly appears that they didn't), especially after the first event, I can't say.

[That Great Guy]

It would have been entirely reasonable to have put a time limit on the job offer. Mr. Ford, you're hired, as long as you accept by X date. Why they didn't [[and it certainly appears that they didn't), especially after the first event, I can't say.

There is a Henry Ford Whiz Kid coming soon who can offer a decent job and bus service for an honest day of work sans hefty tax increases and new yet to be invented tax mechanisms, if the majority of voters ever get SMART and learn the TRUth.

Or, Mr. Ford who can raise taxes the most for those who can least afford to pay for basic needs. Then everyone will again and again be forced to live in a car only world with little bus service, if any. And lots of jobs at Wally Mart and other places that pay little more then the federal minimum wage.

Your Choice at the voting booth.

If we do nothing on this forum except post, there is hope. Maybe industry will pay out of the kindness of their big hearts? So, anyone in favor of competition? How about public debates? How about Lowell starting a new forum to make all of us SMART. Like Mr. John Hertel and Mr Ford of AA who should meet the customer, me who knows everything as in the customer is always right. Then we will have a real public bus system, if only they listen, do and respond. They won't have to if you voters just give them another $27 Million more a year for no reason except to balance their budgets and fill their big fat pockets. Like most of ya did last Tuesday.

Thank You very much for my SMART bus ride. I'm saving thousands every year. I just hope I can keep my job, so I don't have to work at Wally Mart or collect bottles and cans.

Also, the trucking industries thank ya all for shifting money to build larger freeways for more and larger trucks by keeping gas prices low. This will keep prices low and create more low wage jobs, so more people can collect mental disability by going insane with all that new concrete and sleeping under bridges cuz housing is soooo high. Maybe a warm bus for the homeless will work?

[RO_Resident]

If you are going to go to one RTA Board meeting this year, today's should be the one.

Regional Transit Agency reaches agreement to hire head of Ann Arbor authority

Michael Ford has reached an agreement to become the Regional Transit Authority’s first CEO, taking a job at an agency that will seek a tax increase in two years to fund improved transit options and help shape transportation goals in an area wed to cars.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz3Aw7xhnmK

[ghettopalmetto]

Here's more info on this Bus Rapid Transit business. Cleveland's HealthLine vehicles are getting a mid-life overhaul after--get this--6 years. This means that in another 6 years, RTA will have to purchase 24 more of these bad boys--at $850,000 a pop.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index..._most-comments

A rail car can operate in excess of 50 years. Not including the cost of overhauls, RTA will spend $102 million [[current dollars) on buses for the HealthLine over this time frame, when an equivalent number of light rail vehicles would have cost about $67 million. This is to say nothing of the fuel costs incurred.

So you take that additional $35 million spent over 60 years. Add the cost of four mid-life overhauls [[one for each batch of buses), deduct the cost of 1 mid-life overhaul for rail cars, and the obscene amounts of diesel fuel burned as well as oil changes and other engine maintenance, and you have an enormous cost increase of buses over rail--easily an extra $1 million a year. And that's just for one piddly 7-mile long route. I'm left wondering how in the hell bus "rapid" transit is cheaper [[but just as good!) as light rail or streetcars.

But the BRT proponents just want you to focus on the word "cheaper", facts be damned.

[Detroitnerd]

But the BRT proponents just want you to focus on the word "cheaper", facts be damned.

Fear and loathing go hand in hand with lack of understanding. When you fear and loathe mass transit, why understand it?

[DetroitPlanner]

A rail car can operate in excess of 50 years. Not including the cost of overhauls, RTA will spend $102 million [[current dollars) on buses for the HealthLine over this time frame, when an equivalent number of light rail vehicles would have cost about $67 million. This is to say nothing of the fuel costs incurred.

Sorry Charlie, in order to get a railcar to last that long it will need several overhauls over its lifetime as well. Lets compare apples to apples.

[stasu1213]

A decent public transportation system is a longggg....ways away in this area. They made a poor system worse when Smart started only going downtown during peak hours, at the end of 2011.

Totally agree. I had always felt that DDOT was losing some of it's customers to SMART after 6pm especially on the Michigan and Jefferson routes

[stasu1213]

TRU and other mass transit supporting groups need to lobby the Governor, legistors, the Mayor, Council with a bag of money if they want to have any form of decent mass transit in Southeast Michigan especially Detroit. I would not be surprise if the Oil, Auto, Auto Insurance, and any other entities that deals with the automobile, lobby the same people to make sure that mass transit remain inefficient in Southeast Michigan especially Detroit

[ghettopalmetto]

Sorry Charlie, in order to get a railcar to last that long it will need several overhauls over its lifetime as well. Lets compare apples to apples.

My understanding is that rail cars usually go through one mid-life overhaul during their service life. Greater Cleveland RTA [[to compare apples-to-apples) is just now overhauling the Red Line cars it acquired in 1984. The expected service life of a bus [[even a Sexybus) is 12 years, including an overhaul.

[Wesley Mouch]

Here's more info on this Bus Rapid Transit business. Cleveland's HealthLine vehicles are getting a mid-life overhaul after--get this--6 years. This means that in another 6 years, RTA will have to purchase 24 more of these bad boys--at $850,000 a pop.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index..._most-comments

A rail car can operate in excess of 50 years. Not including the cost of overhauls, RTA will spend $102 million [[current dollars) on buses for the HealthLine over this time frame, when an equivalent number of light rail vehicles would have cost about $67 million. This is to say nothing of the fuel costs incurred.

So you take that additional $35 million spent over 60 years. Add the cost of four mid-life overhauls [[one for each batch of buses), deduct the cost of 1 mid-life overhaul for rail cars, and the obscene amounts of diesel fuel burned as well as oil changes and other engine maintenance, and you have an enormous cost increase of buses over rail--easily an extra $1 million a year. And that's just for one piddly 7-mile long route. I'm left wondering how in the hell bus "rapid" transit is cheaper [[but just as good!) as light rail or streetcars.

But the BRT proponents just want you to focus on the word "cheaper", facts be damned.

Back of Napkin analysis like that is pointless. But if you're doing it, you should include the costs for track maintenance.

I think its pretty well 'established fact' that rail is less expensive in the long run, if you have sufficient traffic.

But what we don't have here is the capital to invest. So it doesn't matter that BRT might cost more per mile to operate. It is the only affordable solution.

If I was transit czar, I'd ignore Woodward for now. Keep busses running there -- perhaps some dedicated lanes in middle for true express and suburban service, and focus attention on a great BRT system on a long line like Grand River. Get it running. And prove that you can get the traffic necessary for a heavier but more efficient system on Woodward.

But all that said, the difference between rail and BRT is shrinking every day. Technology will make each more like the other. Smaller and more frequent trains will predominate over larger, less frequent. Power solutions will evolve. Busses are getting quite fancy. And trains are getting lighter and more flexible. So in the end the best thing to do is build something that isn't too customized. Make sure you can run new cars when the technology changes. I look at the European trams that run without wires in certain areas. Things are changing. Its not 1950 for busses nor light rail.

[ghettopalmetto]

Back of Napkin analysis like that is pointless. But if you're doing it, you should include the costs for track maintenance.

I think its pretty well 'established fact' that rail is less expensive in the long run, if you have sufficient traffic.

But what we don't have here is the capital to invest. So it doesn't matter that BRT might cost more per mile to operate. It is the only affordable solution.

If I was transit czar, I'd ignore Woodward for now. Keep busses running there -- perhaps some dedicated lanes in middle for true express and suburban service, and focus attention on a great BRT system on a long line like Grand River. Get it running. And prove that you can get the traffic necessary for a heavier but more efficient system on Woodward.

But all that said, the difference between rail and BRT is shrinking every day. Technology will make each more like the other. Smaller and more frequent trains will predominate over larger, less frequent. Power solutions will evolve. Busses are getting quite fancy. And trains are getting lighter and more flexible. So in the end the best thing to do is build something that isn't too customized. Make sure you can run new cars when the technology changes. I look at the European trams that run without wires in certain areas. Things are changing. Its not 1950 for busses nor light rail.

Well, Detroit *could* obtain capital funding from the FTA--IF they had a funded regional transit authority with a dedicated source of revenue to support operations. Woodward already has the ridership to justify a light rail line.

I'm not sure what you mean by trains "becoming flexible"--does that mean they can bend in the middle now? I also don't know what kind of technological upgrades can fundamentally overcome the friction and heat inherent in a diesel engine with moving parts, and with rubber tires on pavement. But your faith in science is astounding.

There are dozens of light rail systems in the United States alone--many of them in areas much more thinly-populated than Detroit. There are only 5 bus rapid transit systems, though. So it makes one wonder why on earth a city would spend so much more money to construct light rail if trains and buses are effectively the same, as you claim.