Imagine That... Concerns over BRT downtown stops, off-Woodward loop

[casscorridor]

Some sort of hybrid or combination of commuter rail and light-rail lines serving the metro area seems like the best option. BRT is kind of a joke unless implemented properly, which is usually in super high-density and fast growing cities that can't build heavy-rail fast enough... i.e. not Detroit, much less anywhere in America.

We should be looking at Minneapolis, Phoenix, Denver, Los Angeles, and others for examples of what we should be doing.

If we connect the major job centers in the metro - Downtown, Southfield, Dearborn, Troy and the Airport it would be a total game changer. This should be the priority.

[ghettopalmetto]

Yes, I do know that this would also disqualify an at grade rail system too. But I just want us to be on the same page that despite the misnomer of calling it "bus rapid transit", we're talking about an expensive bus system and not an actual rapid transit system.

Exactly.

I'm not against improvements to the bus system. I'm not even against what SEMCOG is proposing [[although a 27-mile long bus route is patently absurd).

What I *am* against is that SEMCOG is acting wholly irresponsibly, telling the region that they're going to get rapid transit at a bargain basement price. When people are able to see and ride and realize that they've been hosed, you'll never see another nickel spent on transit in Southeast Michigan. You don't tell someone they're getting Wagyu beef and then pull into the drive through--they're not going to trust you after that.

Also, when rail vehicles start having window-rattling, bone-jarring encounters with chuckholes and cracks and uneven pavement, and start falling at the mercy of snow and ice, we might begin talking about comparing buses with rail. SEMCOG is setting up the entire region for major, major disappointment.

[Bham1982]

To me, electing to go with BRT is holding up a big sign that says "I'm an also-ran metro!" It's conceding that you'll never have the transportation options of an elite metropolitan area. Even Bham's beloved Houston has light rail.

Actually, I think you nailed it. This is a vanity project, and the "flavor of the month". It has almost nothing to do with mobility, or economic development, or really anything. It's "we need it because [[insert city) has it".

Light rail, along with sports venues, are the current iterations of the festival marketplace craze of the 1980's and the convention center boom of the 1990's [[or, if you want to go way back, fortress mixed use complexes and pedestrian malls in the 70's, and clear-cutting and towers in the park in the 50's and 60's).

I remember reading an article on why St. Louis built Pruitt Igoe [[an infamous housing project, demolished 10 years after completion). Essentially the mayor said they built the complex because he had visited New York, saw housing projects going up everywhere, and thought St. Louis needed the same, because it was a marker of a city going places.

[animatedmartian]

I'm pretty sure that there is no implementation of non-grade separated "BRT" anywhere in the world where a bus has not had to sit at a red light because of non-BRT system related traffic. That would technically disqualify it from being a rapid transit system. So unless they're building it to be grade separated then this is not rapid transit.

Yes, I do know that this would also disqualify an at grade rail system too. But I just want us to be on the same page that despite the misnomer of calling it "bus rapid transit", we're talking about an expensive bus system and not an actual rapid transit system.

So go argue the definition with the Federal government then!

http://www.fta.dot.gov/about/12351_4240.html

[ghettopalmetto]

So go argue the definition with the Federal government then!

http://www.fta.dot.gov/about/12351_4240.html

While FTA may have adopted that terminology for funding allocation purposes, in no way does it imply a warranty or guarantee of the level of performance of the system. Take that as you will.

[animatedmartian]

While FTA may have adopted that terminology for funding allocation purposes, in no way does it imply a warranty or guarantee of the level of performance of the system. Take that as you will.

That can be said of any form of mass transportation. That can even be said of freeways. Hell, what's going to happen when there are going to be reports of car accidents involving the M-1 Rail? What would be the point of getting new buses for DDOT if that doesn't guarantee an improvement in service? Will it all just be a waste?

[ghettopalmetto]

What would be the point of getting new buses for DDOT if that doesn't guarantee an improvement in service? Will it all just be a waste?

Exactly. Although, in this case, where SEMCOG and the RTA are working very very hard to sell this idea, it will be worse than a waste. It will be the death knell of public transportation in Southeast Michigan. This outright lying to the public is *not* going to go over well.

[Detroitnerd]

You are right that you can do most of that without calling it BRT, but I really don't get your point. BRT is not a replacement for trains.

If that's the case, why does every weenbag carrying water for the BRt plans claim that "It's just like trains, but with rubber wheels on pavement"? Every. Freaking. Time.

Its a different idea that has some validity. It isn't light rail nor a subway nor a monorail or PRT. It has its application.

Where?

Where money is limited. Where ridership is dispersed. Where urban leaders have alienated out-state voters.

Well that's Detroit. BRT is the right choice for us right now. In 20 years, if we behave, we can invest in rail.

Oh poppycock. You don't see rail as an investment. Not when it will benefit urban residents. To you it's a welfare program on wheels.

[iheartthed]

So go argue the definition with the Federal government then!

http://www.fta.dot.gov/about/12351_4240.html

I don't have to. They didn't say that BRT is rapid transit.

[animatedmartian]

I don't have to. They didn't say that BRT is rapid transit.

Then the name "Bus Rapid Transit" would certainly be contradictory, wouldn't it?

[animatedmartian]

Exactly. Although, in this case, where SEMCOG and the RTA are working very very hard to sell this idea, it will be worse than a waste. It will be the death knell of public transportation in Southeast Michigan. This outright lying to the public is *not* going to go over well.

So many people are probably going to ride that bus down Woodward and show up to work 10 minutes earlier and be totally outraged. Though honestly I can't even tell if I'm being sarcastic or not because it might actually end up happening.

[iheartthed]

Then the name "Bus Rapid Transit" would certainly be contradictory, wouldn't it?

Yes, because it is a misnomer. They gave it the proper name of "Bus Rapid Transit," yet it is not by definition "rapid transit."

[animatedmartian]

Yes, because it is a misnomer. They gave it the proper name of "Bus Rapid Transit," yet it is not by definition "rapid transit."

So then how does that change its function and why does that make a difference?

[iheartthed]

So then how does that change its function and why does that make a difference?

Are you serious?

[animatedmartian]

Are you serious?

You mentioned earlier that a separate grade bus lane would be more expensive but a separate grade light rail line would still be more expensive. To which point, I still don't understand what difference it makes if buses are the cheaper alternative and why a big deal is made about whether its rapid or not. It could be called a spaceship, it's still going to do exactly as the FTA, the RTA, and SEMCOG say it's going to do and why they would build it.

[Hypestyles]

I want counties-wide light rail systems. Any cross-county buses need to be faster than regular city buses.

[iheartthed]

You mentioned earlier that a separate grade bus lane would be more expensive but a separate grade light rail line would still be more expensive.

That is not necessarily true.

To which point, I still don't understand what difference it makes if buses are the cheaper alternative and why a big deal is made about whether its rapid or not. It could be called a spaceship, it's still going to do exactly as the FTA, the RTA, and SEMCOG say it's going to do and why they would build it.

Because this is being sold as a rapid transit project, by nuance of terminology, when it is not a rapid transit project. It's just an expensive bus project for which I don't really see the point. If people recognized that this is not a rapid transit project then I'm sure it would be harder to sell the public on spending hundreds of millions of dollars on another bus line.

[ghettopalmetto]

You mentioned earlier that a separate grade bus lane would be more expensive but a separate grade light rail line would still be more expensive. To which point, I still don't understand what difference it makes if buses are the cheaper alternative and why a big deal is made about whether its rapid or not. It could be called a spaceship, it's still going to do exactly as the FTA, the RTA, and SEMCOG say it's going to do and why they would build it.

Let's be frank: SEMCOG and the RTA don't know the slightest thing about transit. They have no idea what a "bus rapid transit" line will or will not do. But they *have* stated it will "Be just like a train, but on tires!"

It most certainly will NOT be just like a train. Not at the price point they're budgeting.

A fair basis of comparison would be the Washington Street portion of the MBTA Silver Line in Boston. This segment cost $5.77 million per mile [[slightly higher than SEMCOG's proposed 110 miles for $500 million), and opened in 2004. It's reasonable to conclude then, based on the projected project budget, to expect that Detroit will get--at best--the slow, plodding Silver Line bus, and not anything close to a modern high-speed rapid transit network.

http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Insert...ies/boston.pdf

[nain rouge]

Light rail, along with sports venues, are the current iterations of the festival marketplace craze of the 1980's and the convention center boom of the 1990's [[or, if you want to go way back, fortress mixed use complexes and pedestrian malls in the 70's, and clear-cutting and towers in the park in the 50's and 60's).

Nice throwing my own comments back at with me. You've upgraded your logic software.

That said, light rail has one key difference - it's tried and true. When urban America [[rather than suburban America) was at its peak light rail was used all over the nation with great results. BRT, if anything, is the new fad, a compromise to satisfy both urban and suburban officials. Urbanites supposedly get rapid transit. Suburbanites are able to minimize the level of investment in the dreaded inner city, though of course they'd prefer nothing at all.

I'll say this. I'd support BRT IF the following specifications were met:
1. BRT is given its own exclusive lane separated form other lanes by a curb [[BRT is generally given its own lane, though you never know with Metro Detroit).
2. Lights are prioritized exclusively for BRT, even if it costs motorists time.
3. Buses arrive AT LEAST every 15 minutes.
4. Stops are sheltered and have fare boxes.
5. Zoning along the BRT line is AGGRESSIVELY URBAN.

The advantage of light rail is that it necessitates most of those steps. Also, light rail is electric and can transport more passengers.

We can already see by the projected budget that planners are prepared to cut corners on Detroit's BRT. Once you cut even one corner it's inherently inferior to light rail.

[ABetterDetroit]

Ok, I'm convinced after reading thousands of post on this forum that light rail is the way to go.

Understated is how it would be paid for. Any practical ideas on funding? Please share.

[professorscott]

I'll say this. I'd support BRT IF the following specifications were met:
1. BRT is given its own exclusive lane separated form other lanes by a curb [[BRT is generally given its own lane, though you never know with Metro Detroit).
2. Lights are prioritized exclusively for BRT, even if it costs motorists time.
3. Buses arrive AT LEAST every 15 minutes.
4. Stops are sheltered and have fare boxes.
5. Zoning along the BRT line is AGGRESSIVELY URBAN.

I agree with you; these are critical. MDOT and the county road commissions have been squeamish about #2, because in cities where you have a bus coming every 5 minutes or less, full signal prioritization can be massively disruptive. But I think we are going to be talking about 10 minute headways during peak hours and 15 minutes off-peak at best, and in that situation the bus doesn't disrupt any particular signal often enough to screw up cross-street traffic all that badly.

Zoning is difficult because that has to be done community by community. I have great hopes for Ferndale and Royal Oak, for example. Other communities, we'll have to see.

I won't support a plan that doesn't include #4, by the way. To me that is absolutely essential. [[And I've studied this a bit.)

Excellent post; good points.

[animatedmartian]

Ok, I'm convinced after reading thousands of post on this forum that light rail is the way to go.

Understated is how it would be paid for. Any practical ideas on funding? Please share.

To get federal funding [[for either rail or bus) usually has to be matched by local taxes [[for Metro Detroit, that'd have to be a region-wide tax). Pretty much similar to SMART's property tax funding except that no community can opt out even if there's no station or light rail route in their city.

[animatedmartian]

Let's be frank: SEMCOG and the RTA don't know the slightest thing about transit. They have no idea what a "bus rapid transit" line will or will not do. But they *have* stated it will "Be just like a train, but on tires!"

It most certainly will NOT be just like a train. Not at the price point they're budgeting.

A fair basis of comparison would be the Washington Street portion of the MBTA Silver Line in Boston. This segment cost $5.77 million per mile [[slightly higher than SEMCOG's proposed 110 miles for $500 million), and opened in 2004. It's reasonable to conclude then, based on the projected project budget, to expect that Detroit will get--at best--the slow, plodding Silver Line bus, and not anything close to a modern high-speed rapid transit network.

http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Insert...ies/boston.pdf

So then do you support having higher taxes in order to have a better system? Because that's pretty much the main limiting factor and there's no way around it.

[ghettopalmetto]

So then do you support having higher taxes in order to have a better system? Because that's pretty much the main limiting factor and there's no way around it.

Absolutely. Transit is an essential public service. And every large metropolitan area in the country [[save Southeast Michigan) has a dedicated source of funding.
I don't know enough about law or finance to comment on how a dedicated funding mechanism could be established in Michigan. But it has to be done if the region is going to have a fully-functioning economy. State support would be helpful too, although I understand it would take a constitutional amendment to increase the amount of state funding for transit.

[ABetterDetroit]

So then do you support having higher taxes in order to have a better system? Because that's pretty much the main limiting factor and there's no way around it.

Yep, no problem. Could you imagine a new international bridge going up at the same time as a doubling down on our roads with a pile of light rail going in too? It would rock. But without ringing the same bell again what other tax could achieve the goal besides the rent tax [[plenty of people have lost their homes around here because it wasn't paid) would a regional sales tax of 1 point work? Any other ideas?