Preparatory Work for M-1 Rail Begins

[SyGolden48236]

You and TennisandMath should trade talking points.

What's past is prologue.

Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

The people mover has been such a glorious success. Why wouldn't we believe that the M1 Hipster Hauler will be just as successful?

[mwilbert]

I know how flywheels work, thank you. Does your flywheel store magic energy? Or does the stored energy actually have to come from somewhere? Like, maybe the bus has to accelerate first? Even with flywheels, do you enjoy driving behind a bus or a tractor trailer? Or do you maybe get into the passing lane at the first opportunity?

I can't assess your understanding of flywheels, although you seem not to understand their different uses. The flywheel stores energy from the engine or from the previous motion of the bus. There isn't any reason the flywheel has to stop when the bus does, and in fact normally it wouldn't, right? And in fact, the flywheel doesn't have to slow down depending on how you couple the flywheel, engine, and transmission.

In any case, your notion that spinning up the flywheel is the limiting factor in accelerating a bus is fairly odd--not having to spin the engine up too much is why there's a transmission.

Or, ever. Why doesn't Cleveland's Magical Bus use your "rapidly accelerating buses"? Oh, that's right--because they don't fucking exist. Unfortunately, any transit system constructed in Detroit will have to exist in the real, physical world, and not the Land of Wouldas Couldas and Shouldas.

I have no idea what you're trying to prove, other than you value your own off-the-cuff opinion more than reality.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I didn't make the assertion that buses accelerate more slowly than LRTs as the inescapable result of the laws of physics. I was trying to understand why you would say that, since if you put a more powerful engine in the bus, or give the engine some kind of assistance during acceleration, you could make it accelerate as fast as you would ever want. So I was trying to understand your point, which turns out to be, that current buses, the vast majority of which have no reason to accelerate more quickly, accelerate more slowly than LRTs. And yes, that is because of physics [[what isn't). But the physics involved is the physics of those buses, not the physics of buses in general. And if people actually built a lot of dedicated lane BRT with really close together stops [[because otherwise it isn't going to matter enough to care), I bet people would build more rapidly accelerating buses. In fact, they already build faster-accelerating hybrid buses, and if there were a reason, they could build them to accelerate faster. The reasons they don't aren't because physics prevents it.

[dtowncitylover]

What's past is prologue.

Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

The people mover has been such a glorious success. Why wouldn't we believe that the M1 Hipster Hauler will be just as successful?

Uh no. Obviously you have not been following the plethora of transit threads on here.

The People Mover was a failure because it didn't go anywhere and used technology that was popular for 10 years.

M-1 Rail is connecting the three most vibrant neighborhoods in the city, with increasing popularity and investment, that will be using technology that is used the world over and can be expanded north or elsewhere.

[Junjie]

What's past is prologue.

Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

...and therefore Detroit should definitely do the same thing it's done for the past 50 years?

[professorscott]

There was a discussion earlier about acceleration characteristics in which some unsubstantiated numbers were tossed around, so I checked. While it is true that the maximum loaded acceleration of a typical BRT vehicle is less than the common LRT vehicles [[not streetcars), it's a negligible difference.

LRT vehicles are typically spec'd out for a maximum acceleration of 3.0 miles per hour per second. I can see no reason why you couldn't go higher, but I have yet to see one that does. BRT vehicles, more common outside the US than inside, are rated at a maximum acceleration of 1.25 meters per second per second, which works out to about 2.8 miles per hour per second. So for example, a vehicle accelerating from a dead stop to 35 MPH [[the maximum speed on Woodward), an LRT vehicle will take about 11.5 seconds to get up to that speed; a BRT vehicle will take 12.5. So I concede, to the critics, that you do lose about one second accelerating between each stop.

The deceleration rates are identical, 3 MPH/sec. Brakes, apparently, are brakes.

Someone also said, again with no substantiation, that there are five BRT projects "recognized" in the United States. I don't know who that poster's recognizing authority is, but mine is the FTA and they count seventeen of them. Here's where they are listed; links within the page provide details: http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4286.html

By the way, your kindly old professor is a big fan of rail and wishes that rail could be widely deployed in the D as it has been in so many other places. But he has been around long enough to know that his own wishes cannot provide the billions of dollars necessary for really high-speed, regional scope rail. Google the DC Metro's Silver Line for an idea of what this stuff really costs when you are trying to maximize speed. Despite being a rail fan, the prof concedes that BRT gives you the most benefit per unit cost when you are stuck [[a) operating along roadways, [[b) at grade, and [[c) with a very limited potential budget.

[ghettopalmetto]

By the way, your kindly old professor is a big fan of rail and wishes that rail could be widely deployed in the D as it has been in so many other places. But he has been around long enough to know that his own wishes cannot provide the billions of dollars necessary for really high-speed, regional scope rail. Google the DC Metro's Silver Line for an idea of what this stuff really costs when you are trying to maximize speed. Despite being a rail fan, the prof concedes that BRT gives you the most benefit per unit cost when you are stuck [[a) operating along roadways, [[b) at grade, and [[c) with a very limited potential budget.

But again, that's the sticking point: any bus system built with "a very limited potential budget" is NOT going to be Rapid Transit. Cleveland's HealthLine [[and it's debatable how "rapid" this is) cost just as much per mile as the M1 Streetcar. In fact it cost just as much per mile as many other light rail projects throughout the United States. So I'm not really seeing where these much-touted cost savings are. And I'm of the opinion that if two products are the same price, you might as well buy the one of higher quality--and the one that will help generate investment in real estate along the corridor. THAT yardstick is where the benefit/cost ratio of "BRT" versus light rail completely goes to shit.

[SDCC]

By the way, your kindly old professor is a big fan of rail and wishes that rail could be widely deployed in the D as it has been in so many other places.

I am as well

[ScienceFair]

To me, the biggest efficiency of the street car is loading and unloading of passengers in a timely manner. If you ride the bus, you undoubtedly have experienced significant delays because of the time it takes for people to 1.) get up on the bus 2.) figure out how to pay for the bus 3.) get themselves in order before they move back and take a seat. Add in the lengthy process for ADA access and it's a big factor in the efficiency of the bus. If there are more than 5 people getting on at any one time, the problem is compounded. If people are able to board the street car like the people mover, it will save a lot of time. That will wash out any kind of difference in fly wheel acceleration or what have you.

[professorscott]

To me, the biggest efficiency of the street car is loading and unloading of passengers in a timely manner. If you ride the bus, you undoubtedly have experienced significant delays because of the time it takes for people to 1.) get up on the bus 2.) figure out how to pay for the bus 3.) get themselves in order before they move back and take a seat. Add in the lengthy process for ADA access and it's a big factor in the efficiency of the bus. If there are more than 5 people getting on at any one time, the problem is compounded. If people are able to board the street car like the people mover, it will save a lot of time. That will wash out any kind of difference in fly wheel acceleration or what have you.

Yes, but unlike the local-service bus of which you speak, one of the features of BRT systems - and this is an inexpensive feature to implement, so it's done nearly all the time - is pre-board fare payment [[usually kiosks at the bus stops) and multiple-door boarding. So, just like light rail, you've paid before you get on the bus, then when it arrives, everybody just walks right on. Typically fare validation [[making sure people have actually paid) is done by random spot-checks coupled with heavy fines; nobody actually checks to make sure someone's paid as they board.

There are other models, but that's the most common.

[Hermod]

To me, the biggest efficiency of the street car is loading and unloading of passengers in a timely manner. If you ride the bus, you undoubtedly have experienced significant delays because of the time it takes for people to 1.) get up on the bus 2.) figure out how to pay for the bus 3.) get themselves in order before they move back and take a seat. Add in the lengthy process for ADA access and it's a big factor in the efficiency of the bus. If there are more than 5 people getting on at any one time, the problem is compounded. If people are able to board the street car like the people mover, it will save a lot of time. That will wash out any kind of difference in fly wheel acceleration or what have you.

When Detroit had light rail before, it was subject to the same procedures. Unless you have a ticket turnstile and a holding pen for paid passengers with multidoor access to the vehicle, you are going to have old Miss Ditz fumbling in her purse for fare money while everyone waits behind her. The admissions and fare collecting work the same for rubber and steel tired vehicles.

[ghettopalmetto]

Yes, but unlike the local-service bus of which you speak, one of the features of BRT systems - and this is an inexpensive feature to implement, so it's done nearly all the time - is pre-board fare payment [[usually kiosks at the bus stops) and multiple-door boarding. So, just like light rail, you've paid before you get on the bus, then when it arrives, everybody just walks right on. Typically fare validation [[making sure people have actually paid) is done by random spot-checks coupled with heavy fines; nobody actually checks to make sure someone's paid as they board.

There are other models, but that's the most common.

Explain to us why DDOT can't implement this now, instead of waiting years and years, applying for federal funding, and studying Sexybuses to death.

I've ridden regular old buses and trams in Poland [[i.e. Not BRT or Sexybus or whatever Revolutionary New Name! you want to call it) that have fare prepayment. In Krakow, there are ticket vending machines at each tram stop. In Warsaw and Gdansk, you buy tickets from news kiosks anywhere in the city. Once you board, you put your ticket into one of several machines on each bus/tram, and the ticket is then validated with the date and time.

Seems to me a pretty idiot-proof idea that doesn't require millions of dollars and decades of planning, don't you think?

[PeachLaser]

By the way, your kindly old professor is a big fan of rail and wishes that rail could be widely deployed in the D as it has been in so many other places.

I've asked this before but don't believe I got an answer. Maybe, you can assist...

With all of the heavy rail infrastructure in Detroit connecting it to the rest of the country and with many heavy industry factories standing vacant, is there any way these could be used to build and/or maintain an advanced system of modern rail systems that would be used elsewhere?

Here in Atlanta, I know that the new streetcars are built by Siemans in California. It seems that Detroit has so much unused infrastructure and assets that would fit right in building trains for the future. Detroit changed the world building autos, maybe it can change the world again building trains?

[professorscott]

Explain to us why DDOT can't implement this now, instead of waiting years and years, applying for federal funding, and studying Sexybuses to death.

I've ridden regular old buses and trams in Poland [[i.e. Not BRT or Sexybus or whatever Revolutionary New Name! you want to call it) that have fare prepayment. In Krakow, there are ticket vending machines at each tram stop. In Warsaw and Gdansk, you buy tickets from news kiosks anywhere in the city. Once you board, you put your ticket into one of several machines on each bus/tram, and the ticket is then validated with the date and time.

Seems to me a pretty idiot-proof idea that doesn't require millions of dollars and decades of planning, don't you think?

Well, first of all, the whole idea is that you don't interact with machinery on the bus at all when you board, you just walk on. But having said this, what you describe is a sight better than what we have now. Now, there are two reasons DDOT just doesn't implement changes. First of all, DDOT hasn't got any money; they can't keep the buses they have in operating order. Second, DDOT hasn't got any credibility; you aren't going to get people out of their cars by telling them DDOT has wonderful new buses. Third, the treatments that make any system [[bus or rail) faster - signal prioritization, partial or full dedicated lanes, the vending machines, stations that are powered [[so you can have things such as the vending machines) - cost a significant amount of money that nobody in the region has or is willing to pony up. That's why you go hat in hand to Uncle Sugar, and then following his rules is what takes all the many years.

If this could be done fully with local money and no federal involvement, it'd be easier and you'd have more options; but it can't.

[professorscott]

I've asked this before but don't believe I got an answer. Maybe, you can assist...

With all of the heavy rail infrastructure in Detroit connecting it to the rest of the country and with many heavy industry factories standing vacant, is there any way these could be used to build and/or maintain an advanced system of modern rail systems that would be used elsewhere?

Here in Atlanta, I know that the new streetcars are built by Siemans in California. It seems that Detroit has so much unused infrastructure and assets that would fit right in building trains for the future. Detroit changed the world building autos, maybe it can change the world again building trains?

The companies that build rail components can locate wherever they like. I don't have time to go into great depth here, but there are a number of reasons why they haven't chosen to locate in Michigan. One can look at the "transplant" automakers in the same vein, and they haven't chosen to locate in Michigan despite the state's wealth of knowledge and experience in automotive. States don't get to decide what industries locate within their borders; private companies make such decisions. States, and regions within states, can only strive to create an infrastructure that will be attractive to the kinds of companies they want. It's not just a matter of Gov. Snyder putting out a press release saying, hey, come build trains in Michigan. The railroad companies are where they are, and aren't where they aren't, for complex layers of reasons not easily manipulated.

[ghettopalmetto]

you aren't going to get people out of their cars by telling them DDOT has wonderful new buses.

Wait--isn't that what you're advocating?

The fact is, as you aptly described above--there are inadequate funding mechanisms for transit in the State of Michigan. No half-baked SEMCOG plan is going to change that, and neither will a toothless RTA.

Good research is incumbent upon an unbiased, objective study of the subject at hand. By reaching the conclusion [[Sexybus!) before conducting a proper alternatives analysis--including relatively inexpensive interim improvements such as fare prepayment--they're just setting up the region to fail.

[Hermod]

Wait--isn't that what you're advocating?

The fact is, as you aptly described above--there are inadequate funding mechanisms for transit in the State of Michigan. No half-baked SEMCOG plan is going to change that, and neither will a toothless RTA.

Good research is incumbent upon an unbiased, objective study of the subject at hand. By reaching the conclusion [[Sexybus!) before conducting a proper alternatives analysis--including relatively inexpensive interim improvements such as fare prepayment--they're just setting up the region to fail.

Fare prepayment works best with a limited number of stops. You can't build a pay as you enter holding pen for every bus stop in the city because there is no way to justify the expense.

[canuck]

In Montreal, the suburban rail network is the only part of our transit scheme that has divided fares according to distance. The metro and bus networks are run on a single fare basis and include two hour correspondances, I believe. Frequent users buy a microchip card [[Opus card) good for two years and fill it for 6,10,20 passages or else a.monthly reduced fee. Students and seniors have a discount. The card is read by a scanner on the bus or at metro turnstiles. It was a very expensive service to implement, but efficient.

[ghettopalmetto]

Fare prepayment works best with a limited number of stops. You can't build a pay as you enter holding pen for every bus stop in the city because there is no way to justify the expense.

Why not? See my post above. Warsaw, a bustling city of 1.7 million, uses fare prepayment on its tram and bus network, where the trams stop every 4 blocks or so. They don't have pens at the stops. You simply insert your bar-coded ticket into a small scanning machine [[conveniently located near the doors) once you board. The Jerusalem Light Rail operates in an identical manner.

This isn't rocket science, so I'm not sure why Detroit feels it needs to reinvent the wheel.

[stasu1213]

HELLO Spartan. The People Mover only go around a three mile circle not into other neighborhoods. Duh

[SyGolden48236]

HELLO Spartan. The People Mover only go around a three mile circle not into other neighborhoods. Duh

And the M1 Hipster Hauler only goes in a 2 mile straight line back and forth on Woodward. What is your point?

[SpartanDawg]

And the M1 Hipster Hauler only goes in a 2 mile straight line back and forth on Woodward. What is your point?

3.3 mile first of all...

second of all it operates BOTH directions SIMULTANEOUSLY... not a one way like the people mover. and it has much easier access than the people mover.

it's honestly day and night between these two modes of transport i'm shocked at how little people understand it

[Wings]

3.3 mile first of all...

second of all it operates BOTH directions SIMULTANEOUSLY... not a one way like the people mover. and it has much easier access than the people mover.

it's honestly day and night between these two modes of transport i'm shocked at how little people understand it

The comparisons to the People Mover need to stop. You're right, it is not the DPM, it is nothing like the DPM, and will be more popular than the DPM; how much more popular I don't know. The M1 connects areas of the city, unlike the No One Mover which is just an inefficient way of getting around downtown with stops at places no ones goes to [[Cobo, the Joe in the summer). And let us not forget, the M1 is just a start of what could be a huge improvement to Detroit's infrastructure in the next 10-15 years if they continue building this out to the suburbs.

[dtowncitylover]

It is surprising the level of ignorance that some people just spout about transit. Google, Wikipedia, the many hundreds of transit threads on here, and yet the same talking points are made against transit here and no true argument comes from them.

And then when they are presented with new thoughts and the truth, they ignore them and keep spouting them. I know when presented with new facts and ideas I can swallow my pride and change my mind and that's OK.

[Mackinaw]

The comparisons to the People Mover need to stop. You're right, it is not the DPM, it is nothing like the DPM, and will be more popular than the DPM; how much more popular I don't know. The M1 connects areas of the city, unlike the No One Mover which is just an inefficient way of getting around downtown with stops at places no ones goes to [[Cobo, the Joe in the summer). And let us not forget, the M1 is just a start of what could be a huge improvement to Detroit's infrastructure in the next 10-15 years if they continue building this out to the suburbs.

Amen, I am not sure how many times this needs to be said on this forum. It's getting repetitive.

Duggan, at the unofficial groundbreaking, called for expansion to Pontiac. So we can all see where the winds are blowing and what this is a part of. Stay tuned for late 2016 when this is actually carrying passengers.

[dmike76]

People seem to forget or don't know that this will be near an amtrak station that connects to Ann Arbor. You should be able to get from AA to Hart Plaza without even getting in a car. The cheapest ticket from Ann Arbor to Detroit is $13 bucks in about an hour plus whatever the m-1 rail fare/time would be. It looks to be about 47 miles. So probably around $15 to go 47 miles in roughly 70 minutes [[Amtrak plus M1 time). In comparison, I looked up fares/times/distance for the DC Metro. The distance between the Shady Grove station and Franconia-Springfield is 30 mi and costs $5.90 at peak time which is a lot cheaper, but it also takes 76 minutes to go 17 less miles. It's obvious that DC's system is much more expansive and useful, but I think this is a step in the right direction for us. M1 does need to expand of course.