M-1 to break ground this summer

[slow_motion]

Bham1982, higher speed rail to/from Chicago has been brought up in this thread, in light of connecting that higher speed rail to regional transit like the M-1 and so forth. "Connecting" Detroit to Chicago is a hell of a lot of money to benefit... Chicago [[if anyone). That's my point. SE Michigan is not more attractive to live/work if it's easier/cheaper/faster to get to Chicago. If anything, even more young alums will bail from SE Michigan with an uptick in travel to Chicago, after they get more exposure to how a functioning major city looks.

[slow_motion]

"I have no idea what any of this means. There is no high speed rail to Ann Arbor, Detroit or Chicago, and none planned." Higher speed:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/615/527/Amtrak-Michigan-2013-Improvement-Phase-1.pdf

[Bham1982]

"I have no idea what any of this means. There is no high speed rail to Ann Arbor, Detroit or Chicago, and none planned." Higher speed:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/615/527/Amtrak-Michigan-2013-Improvement-Phase-1.pdf

Like I said, no high speed rail planned. They're just improving the existing track; there have never been serious plans for high speed rail anywhere in the Midwest.

With real high speed rail you would have to electrify the whole route, you would have to eliminate every single rail crossing, and you would probably have to build a completely new set of tracks along a new right-of-way. It would cost tens of billions.

[dtowncitylover]

Obviously, if it's not to suburbanites benefit than it shouldn't be built. I have never thought of M-1 to be some "Epcot trolley". One because, both are two different technologies and serve completely different area and therefore completely idiotic to even liken one to the other. M-1 will serve the downtown-midtown-new center areas. Whether that be residents, tourists, workers, or suburbanites who are downtown. Sorry it doesn't come out the 35 Mile and Know Nothing Rd.

And I think Harold and Marge from Shelby are the same people who would call this a waste of money, I don't think they're looking to ride a trolley in Detroit. But the economic powers that be, while bad at transit planning, do know that transit is important for an urban center to thrive and succeed. Thus, and this is a familiar argument, since the public sector can't build it on their own, they decided to pour some money into this as well. I think you guys are just mad that the "let the private sector build it" has come true, when you probably thought it would never happen.

[SDCC]

It's referred to as Jerry's [[governor) crazy train...

[Eber Brock Ward]

The official sources are the CTA, and Metra, both of which deliver quarterly data to the APTA [[American Public Transit Association).

Both CTA and Metra appear to be performing worse than the other major U.S. metros, with generally flat ridership [[which makes sense, as population and economic trends in Chicagoland are kind of flat relative to other metros).

Ridership is as high as it can be, buses and trains are generally packed and often have to skip pickups. Citing "flat ridership" is meaningless.

Is that not clear enough?

[Bham1982]

Obviously, if it's not to suburbanites benefit than it shouldn't be built.

Actually, I agree. A transit system should be built to enable mobility, not as a parking shuttle for stadium visitors. 30% of Detroit households don't own a vehicle. 100,000 Detroiters ride buses daily. There is no obvious public interest in building a parking shuttle for drivers from the suburbs.

[Bham1982]

Ridership is as high as it can be, buses and trains are generally packed and often have to skip pickups. Citing "flat ridership" is meaningless.

Is that not clear enough?

So your claim that Chicago ridership is dropping, and NYC/SF/LA/Boston/Philly ridership is rising, because Chicago trains are just so jam-packed that stations are missed. LOL...

What happened to the riders who couldn't squeeze in? They all flew to their destinations? Wouldn't they just wait for the next train with room?

Chicago actually has relatively low per-mile ridership relative to most heavy rail transit systems around the world, so this is an extremely unlikely situation, unless they're only running one-car trains or something. Last time I was on the Brown Line it was a six-car train, and I suspect that is the norm on the major lines at normal times.

DC may be a system where the existing capacity is crimping ridership gains somewhat, and NYC has serious capacity issues on some lines [[esp. 4/5/6, 7, E/F, and especially L line), but Chicago generally does not have major rail capacity issues.

[Eber Brock Ward]

ah, okay. it's another one of those "bham spouts things as if fact that he doesn't know about."

[dtowncitylover]

Actually, I agree. A transit system should be built to enable mobility, not as a parking shuttle for stadium visitors. 30% of Detroit households don't own a vehicle. 100,000 Detroiters ride buses daily. There is no obvious public interest in building a parking shuttle for drivers from the suburbs.

You're the only person claiming this is some sort of parking shuttle. [[And wait, is something wrong with that? Aren't most commuter train systems a parking shuttle. Most have parking lots and people park there and take into the city. Are you gonna bitch about commuter rail too as a parking shuttle?) It is shitty that this isn't going into the neighborhoods [[yet). If we extended it to Manchester/Model T Plaza, I think that extra 3 miles could be even better for the line.

And this isn't for stadium visitors. Who said anything that this will cater to stadium visitors?

[SDCC]

Convenience versus cost; one example, a family member and her husband, plus one brat, want to attend the Padres game [[downtown). They have driven most of the time – they live in east county [[Spring Valley). Just to change it up, they opt to take the trolley; so they hop in their car and go to their nearest trolley station [[many trolley stations have adjacent parking lots) and purchase their trolley tickets: 3 x $5.00 = $15.00, and get dropped off right next to Petco Park.
Driving involves the short trip downtown and parking in one of the Ace Parking lots, which are usually $15.00, I’ve seen $10.00, and I’ve seen $20.00, but usually its $15.00 for a Padres game.
6 or ½ dozen
They prefer driving themselves, she stated its more convenient for their family to drive. I’ve been on the trolleys during Padres games, as well as Charger games, they are not anywhere near “crush load” capacity.
I would assert most people that ride the bus or trolley don’t own a personal vehicle; public transportation is their only option. I’ve seen posts referring to riders as unprofessional looking and poor; I prefer to classify them as low income working class people, truly poor people don’t have the $5.00 daily rate, let alone the $73.00 for the monthly pass. There is an entire class of people that can’t afford public transportation. Most riders are going to work or school, in the early mornings the trolleys are filled with maids, bellmen, cooks, and any other service related jobs in this expensive, hotel heavy city.

[Bham1982]

ah, okay. it's another one of those "bham spouts things as if fact that he doesn't know about."

No, it's more like "official APTA statistics show Chicago ridership dropping while other cities ridership is increasing, even though those other cities already have higher passenger loads per mile, leading to skepticism that extreme Calcutta-like overcrowding is the main contributing factor to Chicago passenger declines".

http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...hipreport.aspx

[Hermod]

Like I said, no high speed rail planned. They're just improving the existing track; there have never been serious plans for high speed rail anywhere in the Midwest.

With real high speed rail you would have to electrify the whole route, you would have to eliminate every single rail crossing, and you would probably have to build a completely new set of tracks along a new right-of-way. It would cost tens of billions.

1. You don't need to electrify the route to get high speed rail. Diesel or gas turbine locomotives use electric motors to turn the wheels, they just carry their own on-board generator plant.

2. You don't have to have grade separation at crossings. You need four quadrant gates and sensors with communications to the locomotive so that it can stop on time if it senses that the gates haven't functioned or there is something stuck between the gates at the grade crossing.

[Bham1982]

You're the only person claiming this is some sort of parking shuttle.

No, everyone on this thread, including yourself, has made such a reference. That's the whole reason Gilbert and other downtown property owners want to contribute to it.

[[And wait, is something wrong with that? Aren't most commuter train systems a parking shuttle. Most have parking lots and people park there and take into the city. Are you gonna bitch about commuter rail too as a parking shuttle?)

No, I have never heard of a commuter rail system that functions as a parking shuttle. Most are public transit from a bedroom community to a jobs center.

It is shitty that this isn't going into the neighborhoods [[yet). If we extended it to Manchester/Model T Plaza, I think that extra 3 miles could be even better for the line.

Yeah, extending to a half-empty strip mall in the most depopulated city in Michigan will really send that trolley ridership to Comerica on fire. Oh, wait, we already have bus service to Highland Park that's piss-poor yet good ridership. Why not invest in the bus?

And this isn't for stadium visitors. Who said anything that this will cater to stadium visitors?

If it isn't for the stadium now, then it isn't for anyone. It has no purpose whatsoever. It's not built as typical rapid transit, with widely spaced stations, separated from traffic, high capacity and the like. It's built as a parking shuttle for downtown eventgoers.

[Bham1982]

1. You don't need to electrify the route to get high speed rail. Diesel or gas turbine locomotives use electric motors to turn the wheels, they just carry their own on-board generator plant.

2. You don't have to have grade separation at crossings. You need four quadrant gates and sensors with communications to the locomotive so that it can stop on time if it senses that the gates haven't functioned or there is something stuck between the gates at the grade crossing.

I'm not doubting you, and I have no engineering background, but have they implemented such a system anywhere? I am not aware of any high speed rail running on diesel or gas, or without grade separation.

[Bham1982]

I would assert most people that ride the bus or trolley don’t own a personal vehicle; public transportation is their only option. I’ve seen posts referring to riders as unprofessional looking and poor; I prefer to classify them as low income working class people, truly poor people don’t have the $5.00 daily rate, let alone the $73.00 for the monthly pass. There is an entire class of people that can’t afford public transportation. Most riders are going to work or school, in the early mornings the trolleys are filled with maids, bellmen, cooks, and any other service related jobs in this expensive, hotel heavy city.

Exactly. The City/State should invest transit dollars in serving this demographic. This is where you will actually get a public policy benefit [[ie get people to jobs).

[dtowncitylover]

No, everyone on this thread, including yourself, has made such a reference. That's the whole reason Gilbert and other downtown property owners want to contribute to it.



No, I have never heard of a commuter rail system that functions as a parking shuttle. Most are public transit from a bedroom community to a jobs center.



Yeah, extending to a half-empty strip mall in the most depopulated city in Michigan will really send that trolley ridership to Comerica on fire. Oh, wait, we already have bus service to Highland Park that's piss-poor yet good ridership. Why not invest in the bus?


If it isn't for the stadium now, then it isn't for anyone. It has no purpose whatsoever. It's not built as typical rapid transit, with widely spaced stations, separated from traffic, high capacity and the like. It's built as a parking shuttle for downtown eventgoers.

So then tell me how stadium users are supposed to use this? Most park within 5-7 blocks of the stadium, they will have no use for it.

I have never made the argument this is just a parking shuttle, please show me. I have always believed this will be used by various groups, like a normal transit system. It can definitely be used by stadium goers, but I don't see how this is being built for them, specifically.

Model T isn't exactly half-empty. There are plenty of stores there that cater the community around them. And on a Saturday afternoon, that area can be quite busy with cars and pedestrians alike.

There is no "typical" transit system; each city has had to create and grow a system that will cater to them. Melbourne has the largest streetcar system in the world. While NYC has one of the most extensive subway systems in the world. Toronto has subway, streetcar, buses, and the Scarborough LRT. Growth on Woodward between the Boulevard and Jefferson has lead the leaders to believe that transit, that is not in the form of a bus, is needed. I don't see why streetcars aren't considered a valid form of mass transit. They are. We are just building one line that could be catalyst for further expansion and more lines.

[Eber Brock Ward]

No, it's more like "official APTA statistics show Chicago ridership dropping while other cities ridership is increasing, even though those other cities already have higher passenger loads per mile, leading to skepticism that extreme Calcutta-like overcrowding is the main contributing factor to Chicago passenger declines".

http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...hipreport.aspx

you're talking about systems generally. we're talking about select prime routes/corridors [[remember, the thrust of this thread is about m1/the woodward corridor?).

you have to compare woodward to ashland, halsted, milwaukee, the train lines, etc. apples to apples, not apples to "whole system" oranges.

i forgot why i quit responding to you. you're "mister move the goalposts, manipulate context guy." as i recall, you were the one that argued that yuppie-town -- possibly more than even river north -- west loop was "unsafe" or "undeveloped" or something like that.

just not worth it man.

[professorscott]

2. You don't have to have grade separation at crossings. You need four quadrant gates and sensors with communications to the locomotive so that it can stop on time if it senses that the gates haven't functioned or there is something stuck between the gates at the grade crossing.

Depends on what you mean by high speed rail. If you're just talking about the 110 mph Amtrak routes, sure. If you want true high speed rail like in the advanced nations, then under Federal regulations you absolutely must grade-separate with no exceptions or waivers. It's not about the physical capability of a system - what you propose would probably work just fine - it's about the need to be approved by the government.

[Hermod]

Depends on what you mean by high speed rail. If you're just talking about the 110 mph Amtrak routes, sure. If you want true high speed rail like in the advanced nations, then under Federal regulations you absolutely must grade-separate with no exceptions or waivers. It's not about the physical capability of a system - what you propose would probably work just fine - it's about the need to be approved by the government.

They will have to be flexible. In Florida, you would either need to elevate the train throughout the entire route or have a hill and bridge on every road the rail line crosses. You can't "go down" in Florida.

I was reading an article the other night on high [[or at least higher) speed rail. The US rail lines are working on systems such as i described. For high speed rail, you just need to get the data from the crossing earlier than for a lower speed train. Right now, each rail system is developing their own and compatibility may be an issue down the pike.

[chicagoforlife]

I ride the L every day, I mainly use the Red, Blue and Orange line otherwise I use the bus. The reason that bus ridership is higher than rail ridership in Chicago is because the bus is much more extensive, there are about 140 bus routes, about 12,000 bus stops while the L only has 8 lines and 144 stations, much of the SW side doesn't have L service, the only lines that serve the Southside are the Red, Orange and Green, otherwise the entire Southside pretty much depends on bus service for public transportation, a lot of the bus routes feed into L stations though.

[Mackinaw]

Exactly. The City/State should invest transit dollars in serving this demographic. This is where you will actually get a public policy benefit [[ie get people to jobs).

Amen brother! That's why I say give the '94 widening funds to RTA and lots rock and roll with all sorts of new BRT and light rail!!

But M1 ain't getting in the way of THAT, now is it?

[Honky Tonk]

Amen brother! That's why I say give the '94 widening funds to RTA and lots rock and roll with all sorts of new BRT and light rail!!

But M1 ain't getting in the way of THAT, now is it?

Well, Seeing how the Blight Rail is a questionable crap-shoot, and millions of Michi-Ganders own cars, have to get to work, pay outrageous gasoline, Local, and State taxes, where do you think the money should go?

[Mackinaw]

Bham1982, higher speed rail to/from Chicago has been brought up in this thread, in light of connecting that higher speed rail to regional transit like the M-1 and so forth. "Connecting" Detroit to Chicago is a hell of a lot of money to benefit... Chicago [[if anyone). That's my point. SE Michigan is not more attractive to live/work if it's easier/cheaper/faster to get to Chicago. If anything, even more young alums will bail from SE Michigan with an uptick in travel to Chicago, after they get more exposure to how a functioning major city looks.

Why such mercantile view of the world? I'd say struggling little Baltimore is way better off due to its speedy connections to DC, Philly, and NYC. Connectivity is always better. Building walls, worse. Let's impose a 200 toll at the borders on I-94 to keep people from wanting to come back to see their family! That'll teach 'em for moving to 'Chi, and totally bring them back home.

I think you just have an unusual amount of friends who ditched to Chi, man. Did you go to MSU? That is like a pipeline to Chi.

Anyhow, upgrading intercity rail is neither here nor there re the above phenomenon, and in my view, it would only make Detroit more relevant.

In terms of branching out, though, I think rail from DTW needs to be job 1. Could this fall under the RTA's ambit? I hope so....well, as long as the RTA has funding. The other job 1 is speedy BRT down all of the major avenues from suburbia.

Doubling service to Chicago should happen, but honestly getting a swift passenger rail connection to the I-80 corridor with service to Pitt and NYC would be just as great. Should not be overlooked.

[ghettopalmetto]

Well, Seeing how the Blight Rail is a questionable crap-shoot, and millions of Michi-Ganders own cars, have to get to work, pay outrageous gasoline, Local, and State taxes, where do you think the money should go?

Correction: Millions of Michiganders are de facto *required* by the State to own cars.