Detroit Public Transportation: 2014 and beyond.

**Bham1982** · August-07-15, 10:23 AM

I'm sure the businesses along Woodward will appreciate a torn-up street for another year or two. Should be great for the bottom line.

And the screwed-over bus riders on one of the busiest transit lines in the Midwest are of no consequence; gotta get the stadium parking trolley ready for drunks from Shelby.

**dtowncitylover** · August-07-15, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I'm sure the businesses along Woodward will appreciate a torn-up street for another year or two. Should be great for the bottom line.

And the screwed-over bus riders on one of the busiest transit lines in the Midwest are of no consequence; gotta get the stadium parking trolley ready for drunks from Shelby.

Actually the construction will be done on time, it's the streetcars that will be late. But please go on like you know what you're talking about.

**stasu1213** · August-08-15, 08:26 AM

I don't blame the so called naysayers for being suspicious of this delay. I was one of the chief naysayers saying that a roadblock would be put up stalling the construction of it. One had been put up. Many cities had installed their light rail system through sun, rain, snow, and cold. Detroit is the only one that make flimsy excuses over the years for not having light rail though streets had been repaved during inclement weather. I still say that there are forces who are more powerful than the backers of this light rail who either don't want to see it go to 8 mile road or want to sabatoge the project as a whole. Yes the tracks will be completed but what good is the tracks without the trains and that could be stalled for months and months. There are too many entities who are greasing the palms of our elected officials and non elected officials to stall this project; even for a lousy 3 miles. Most of the backers of this project are or may not be affiliated with Ann Arbor. Transit riders need a strong lobby in Washington as well as Michigan.

**stasu1213** · August-08-15, 08:28 AM

The excuse of cold weather and snow is the reason for stalling this project is the biggest crap of bullshit anyone could give. I just feel sorry for those who are so damn gullible to believe that line

**MSUguy** · August-08-15, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by stasu1213

I don't blame the so called naysayers for being suspicious of this delay. I was one of the chief naysayers saying that a roadblock would be put up stalling the construction of it. One had been put up. Many cities had installed their light rail system through sun, rain, snow, and cold. Detroit is the only one that make flimsy excuses over the years for not having light rail though streets had been repaved during inclement weather. I still say that there are forces who are more powerful than the backers of this light rail who either don't want to see it go to 8 mile road or want to sabatoge the project as a whole. Yes the tracks will be completed but what good is the tracks without the trains and that could be stalled for months and months. There are too many entities who are greasing the palms of our elected officials and non elected officials to stall this project; even for a lousy 3 miles. Most of the backers of this project are or may not be affiliated with Ann Arbor. Transit riders need a strong lobby in Washington as well as Michigan.

WTF are you blabbering about? M-1's deal with another manufacturer fell through and they ended up choosing a different company which will delay their delivery. So this stuff about powerful forces is idiotic nonsense.

**stasu1213** · August-09-15, 05:59 AM

MSU Guy you are very naive when it comes to the history of Detroit's stalling or halt any plans of mass transportation other than the crappie bus system that is already in place. What had happened to the cars that are sitting in a warehouse that were going to be used on tracks to take commuters from Detroit to Ann Arbor ? This so changing of who the contract for the trolley or rail cars for M1 will go to is just another excuse to stall a project that was moving along in a timely manner. I had said on this site last year that the process may be stalled for some lame excuse. Sure the tracks will be completed but the politics could come in during the process of implementing the cars on the tracks. Come again

**Hermod** · August-09-15, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by MSUguy

WTF are you blabbering about? M-1's deal with another manufacturer fell through and they ended up choosing a different company which will delay their delivery. So this stuff about powerful forces is idiotic nonsense.

Never blame malignity for a result that can be adequately explained by incompetence.

**Hypestyles** · August-09-15, 01:10 PM

a horrible legacy is being left for the city/region without comprehensive mass transit. Shameful.

**brizee** · January-04-16, 02:45 PM

2016 and some things are a little clearer and some more bullshit in the game.

-Cheap airport shuttle service fell through with no business being interested, it's being rebid.

-A single fare card is still being discussed. More talk.

-Woodward and Gratiot have their stops pretty much determined and it'll be bus, because of course it'll be bus.

Woodward :8 Mile -> 7 Mile -> 6 Mile -> Manchester -> Webb/Woodland -> Clairmount/Owen ->Grand Boulevard -> Warren -> MLK/Mack -> Temple -> GCP -> RPTC

Gration: 8 Mile -> 7 Mile -> McNichols/Seymour -> Outer Drive -> Harper -> Warren -> Mack -> Russell -> Brush -> Downtown

Michigan is kind of a clusterfuck right now. Folks are having to consider a vague BRT idea vs a commuter rail line. [[They don't seem to serve the same purpose at all to me so I'm not quite sure why they're in competition.)

Still no word on addition lines. Grand River seems to be screaming for it. Van Dyke would be nice too but that's just me being greedy.

-RTA documents are now making a distinction between "BRT" and "Premium BRT". I probably should have seen this coming but it's still disappointing that wiggle words have already infiltrated the process.

-Special shoutout to 375 removal proposal. It's going on more than a year and a half from when a decision was gonna be announced. Guess those in charged have just determined they don't have tell the peasants anything.

**Junjie** · January-04-16, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by brizee

2016 and some things are a little clearer and some more bullshit in the game.

-Cheap airport shuttle service fell through with no business being interested, it's being rebid.

-A single fare card is still being discussed. More talk.

-Woodward and Gratiot have their stops pretty much determined and it'll be bus, because of course it'll be bus.

Woodward :8 Mile -> 7 Mile -> 6 Mile -> Manchester -> Webb/Woodland -> Clairmount/Owen ->Grand Boulevard -> Warren -> MLK/Mack -> Temple -> GCP -> RPTC

Gration: 8 Mile -> 7 Mile -> McNichols/Seymour -> Outer Drive -> Harper -> Warren -> Mack -> Russell -> Brush -> Downtown

Michigan is kind of a clusterfuck right now. Folks are having to consider a vague BRT idea vs a commuter rail line. [[They don't seem to serve the same purpose at all to me so I'm not quite sure why they're in competition.)

Still no word on addition lines. Grand River seems to be screaming for it. Van Dyke would be nice too but that's just me being greedy.

-RTA documents are now making a distinction between "BRT" and "Premium BRT". I probably should have seen this coming but it's still disappointing that wiggle words have already infiltrated the process.

-Special shoutout to 375 removal proposal. It's going on more than a year and a half from when a decision was gonna be announced. Guess those in charged have just determined they don't have tell the peasants anything.

Yeah. Just read through the Tier 1 evaluations on rtamichigan.org for Michigan and Gratiot and it's pretty depressing. Whoever is writing them seems to have little understanding of transit, and the obvious railroading [[haha) of repainted buses as "BRT" for the preferred alternative will quickly kill any enthusiasm for what was supposed to be a "rapid transit" system. Hint: it won't be rapid unless it has dedicated right-of-way. Otherwise, don't bother.

I think my favorite part was when they used "flexibility" as a criteria for the Gratiot report, but not the Michigan one, and then declared anything on rails to be inflexible, anything off rails to be flexible, and finally extolled the idea of moving these routes around in the future as though routing off Gratiot or Michigan in response to some imaginary local development a few blocks away would be a good way to run a transit line. [[Yes, I know the RTA was specifically set up to kill any rail proposals. Doesn't make the part where they have to invent reasons to do so any less pathetic.)

I also especially liked when they called out the fact that BRT "wouldn't need any dedicated lanes" as a positive in the Michigan report.

Overall, just sad for the region.

**tkelly1986** · January-04-16, 05:10 PM

A few points here:

1. I feel that this whole process has been disingenuous from the start. They hold these "community meetings", which I have attended in person, to hear what people want.....as long as it's BRT. It got to the point where when someone extoled the benefits of rail they come back and respond with "yes, but BRT..." If there was a poll done of the 30 people in attendance, 25 would say they support rail and the RTA folks would count "25 in favor of BRT!"

2. If you also follow their facebook feed it reads like a propaganda service for BRT. A few weeks ago they had a post comparing BRT to commuter rail, mentioning nothing about LRT, and I actually commented on it explaining that they are confusing commuter with LRT, or just plain do not understand the difference. It seems to me that the person in charge of their social media has no clue what they are doing.

3. If they are highlighting the "flexibility" of BRT on Gratiot and Michigan as a positive over fixed rail they are ignoring every publication and study produced by transportation economist over the past 80 years. BRT has nowhere near the multiplier effects of LRT and a fixed asset is what developers want! Why would you build a big residential or commercial complex when there is at the risk of the route moving. I hate to use Chicago as an example, but why is real estate so much more desirable [[even considering the noise) along the red line than another random bus line [[including the Ashland/Western BRT line).

4. I'm convinced none of these people have worked out of SE Michigan and understand the benefits to having a functional transit system and that what has been successful is going big-ish, or going home. Look at Minneapolis, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver ect....Cleveland is a horrible example, as the Health Line connected two fairly active neighborhoods, but has not really created the spillover development promised.

5. People equate rail with functional, world class cities. They equate buses with being poor. How many of you have visited New York or DC and come back to brag about riding the buses. None, but people certainly discuss the subway and how great it would be if Detroit had that......not realizing that we could if people spoke up....and before everyone says, "yea, but we're broke ect"..read John Maynard Keynes to understand the benefits "investing" as a way of pulling ones self out of a rut and look where Michigan ranks on the list of states and transit spending. We'er a joke.

**RO_Resident** · January-04-16, 08:16 PM

The West Detroit Junction bypass wrapped up not too long ago.
http://www.progressiverailroading.co...tleneck--46840

**Eber Brock Ward** · January-04-16, 09:16 PM

Rta staff is hamstrung because rail requires a unanimous board vote or some sort of large supermajority, per the RTA legislation. Brt can be built with something like a simple majority of the board.

So if all you can realistically get thru is brt or express bus, and not lrt or rapid rail [[except you might have the votes lined up for commuter rail), then doesn't it make sense to cheerlead for something you can actually get?

**Hermod** · January-05-16, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by tkelly1986

.and before everyone says, "yea, but we're broke ect"..read John Maynard Keynes to understand the benefits "investing" as a way of pulling ones self out of a rut and look where Michigan ranks on the list of states and transit spending. We'er a joke.

To be Keynesian, you have to be able to print money. Michigan and Detroit can't do that.

**canuck** · January-05-16, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

To be Keynesian, you have to be able to print money. Michigan and Detroit can't do that.

Yes. But do I read you well? Do you mean to say the federal government is responsible for transit equity?

**Bham1982** · January-05-16, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by tkelly1986

5. People equate rail with functional, world class cities. They equate buses with being poor.

No, they don't. The only cities in the U.S. where rail ridership tops bus ridership are NYC and DC. That's it. Anywhere else in the U.S., the bus rules.

No one says "but LA isn't a functional, world class city because they have extremely limited rail service."

**canuck** · January-05-16, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

No, they don't. The only cities in the U.S. where rail ridership tops bus ridership are NYC and DC. That's it. Anywhere else in the U.S., the bus rules.

No one says "but LA isn't a functional, world class city because they have extremely limited rail service."

Well maybe, but L.A. has a lot of work ahead to make bus or rail ridership more attractive. I mean the traffic problems in L.A. are tremendous but the same traffic problems exist in cities with very high transit usership numbers. Toronto and Montreal have pretty bad car traffic and yet the transit use is higher than most U.S. cities per capita. Paris is incredibly efficient at moving people in rapid transit, but I listen to traffic reports on Internet radio sometimes and there are hundreds of kilometers of blockage on highways around the city every rush hour.

The idea is that Detroit needs transit solutions for the less fortunate, but ideally, like NYC and Washington metro, a multiplicity of users of all backgrounds, all social levels. Nothing will ever solve all commuting problems but I do believe modern solutions are what may help Detroit capture some lost opportunities. I think that a city primed for accepting novelty in automotive
technology should be able to accept the best new transit designs for the future.

**dtowncitylover** · January-05-16, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

No, they don't. The only cities in the U.S. where rail ridership tops bus ridership are NYC and DC. That's it. Anywhere else in the U.S., the bus rules.

No one says "but LA isn't a functional, world class city because they have extremely limited rail service."

I think what's trying to be said, as stated many times here, is that rail transportation has a certain gravitas more so than bus transportation.

Boston also has more rail ridership than bus ridership.

**dtowncitylover** · January-05-16, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by tkelly1986

A few points here:

1. I feel that this whole process has been disingenuous from the start. They hold these "community meetings", which I have attended in person, to hear what people want.....as long as it's BRT. It got to the point where when someone extoled the benefits of rail they come back and respond with "yes, but BRT..." If there was a poll done of the 30 people in attendance, 25 would say they support rail and the RTA folks would count "25 in favor of BRT!"

2. If you also follow their facebook feed it reads like a propaganda service for BRT. A few weeks ago they had a post comparing BRT to commuter rail, mentioning nothing about LRT, and I actually commented on it explaining that they are confusing commuter with LRT, or just plain do not understand the difference. It seems to me that the person in charge of their social media has no clue what they are doing.

3. If they are highlighting the "flexibility" of BRT on Gratiot and Michigan as a positive over fixed rail they are ignoring every publication and study produced by transportation economist over the past 80 years. BRT has nowhere near the multiplier effects of LRT and a fixed asset is what developers want! Why would you build a big residential or commercial complex when there is at the risk of the route moving. I hate to use Chicago as an example, but why is real estate so much more desirable [[even considering the noise) along the red line than another random bus line [[including the Ashland/Western BRT line).

4. I'm convinced none of these people have worked out of SE Michigan and understand the benefits to having a functional transit system and that what has been successful is going big-ish, or going home. Look at Minneapolis, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver ect....Cleveland is a horrible example, as the Health Line connected two fairly active neighborhoods, but has not really created the spillover development promised.

5. People equate rail with functional, world class cities. They equate buses with being poor. How many of you have visited New York or DC and come back to brag about riding the buses. None, but people certainly discuss the subway and how great it would be if Detroit had that......not realizing that we could if people spoke up....and before everyone says, "yea, but we're broke ect"..read John Maynard Keynes to understand the benefits "investing" as a way of pulling ones self out of a rut and look where Michigan ranks on the list of states and transit spending. We'er a joke.

Bravo. A well done post.

As much as we needed the RTA and I'm glad it's here, it has some major flaws that need to be addressed when we have a governor and legislature that's actually committed to transportation and not just paying lip service.

It's not well known that BRT is written into the RTA legislation to be the near mandatory service to be set up over LRT, which is why in those FB posts by the RTA, LRT is never mentioned. And here we have, if I may sound like a conservative for a minute, a great example of why politicians think they know better when in fact it they don't know anything about transit They see the HealthLine in Cleveland [[horrible, narrow example) and think it will work here! Without any other trip to see other transit developments.

In the context RTA is putting BRT in the regional plan, BRT is a joke. There used to be a discussion about BRT first then LRT but there isn't now. It's only BRT. BRT is just a lazy way to do it because Detroit can't have vision or progress.

**Hermod** · January-05-16, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by canuck

Yes. But do I read you well? Do you mean to say the federal government is responsible for transit equity?

No, but only the feds can go ruinously in debt. Detroit is just emerging from bankruptcy and the state is drawn tight. They don't have the financial flexibility to be "Keynesian".

**tkelly1986** · January-05-16, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

No, they don't. The only cities in the U.S. where rail ridership tops bus ridership are NYC and DC. That's it. Anywhere else in the U.S., the bus rules.

No one says "but LA isn't a functional, world class city because they have extremely limited rail service."

That is because New York and DC are the only two cities that made a serious commitment to rail. Chicago could be included there too, and I can tell you as a former Chicago resident, I would take the L 10 times out of 10 if it went the same place as the bus.

And if bus was the preferred option, then why is the CTA's long-term master plan so rail focused? [[extending lines ect..). Why is DC building more lines, and not doing BRT instead?[[see Silver and Purple Lines). Why is Minneapolis building more LRT, same as Dallas, Seattle, Denver and Phoenix. Why are these cities not scrapping LRT in favor of LRT?

**mwilbert** · January-05-16, 02:35 PM

Leaving aside the arguments between LRT and BRT, it seems clear that what is actually going to be created here is closer to an express bus than what a normal person would call BRT. I don't really have anything against express buses, but if that is what you are doing that is what you should say you are doing. It will be interesting to see what BRT features actually show up assuming it ever happens at all.

**rbdetsport** · January-05-16, 03:40 PM

I am a transportation planning consultant in the City of Atlanta with hopes of one day returning to the City of Detroit to work on transit projects. I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you all are saying; however, it is important to note that "these people" are the RTA running the show. The consultants, while my firm's competitors, know transit and have worked on projects around the country including concurrently the well-done Minneapolis LRT system. The RTA is running the show here and are leaving out LRT. It is unfortunate and as a citizen, I wish I knew the way to throw away this idea that LRT or Heavy Rail could never happen in Metro Detroit. I truly believe that we have the density and roadway network to make a rail system useful.

I attended the public meeting for the Michigan Avenue BRT and I only ever saw options for exclusive right-of-way. I had no idea they were considering shared lanes.. If that is the case, why are they doing this massive Alternatives Analysis effort at all.. Just realign SMART and DDOT routes to work the same way. I also asked the question of comparing the Commuter Rail to Ann Arbor with the BRT and I got the answer that they were not competing. I didn't believe that answer. I talked to the consultant specifically about why they were showing BRT all the way to Ann Arbor [[which makes it look like they are competing projects) and he acknowledged how unrealistic that was and that it would likely be Commuter Rail to AA and BRT to the airport. Now this was mentioned to me, the fellow consultant, and not to the public.

**rbdetsport** · January-05-16, 03:43 PM

Also, I wanted to mention that I rode the train from Detroit to Chicago on 12/31 and the West Detroit Connection made the ride SO much more enjoyable and fast. It was amazing how fast we got through Michigan. The train is now faster than driving and taking Greyhound/Megabus. When I looked at this option in July from Chicago to Detroit, it was not.

Unfortunately, the ride through Indiana is still as slow as ever. Freight rules along that section of the corridor.

**MicrosoftFan** · January-05-16, 04:21 PM

Sad to see LRT go away in Detroit. Even LRT is scaled back from Heavy Rail. Now LRT is being scaled back into "premium" BRT. And then just BRT. Before you know it, putting bus lanes on Gratiot will be billed as a "transit revolution". We can spend oodles of money into our roads but when various transit authorities try to get together and work towards better public transportation it just gets scaled back more, and more, and more.

[[also, I rode Cleveland's HealthLine. It was just ok. Minneapolis has a good BRT/LRT/Commuter Rail system. It'd be great to see a combination system like that work here.)