What light rail will do for Detroit

[ghettopalmetto]

I was in cleveland this past weekend. I stayed in the midtown area [[I guess), and I rode the city bus for a short stint.. the way they had it set up, the buses rode a dedicated lane[[s) in the middle of the road, separated by low-lying concrete dividers, and they had bus stop islands along the pathway. an automatic ticket kiosk was there, you could get an all day pass for $5.00 [[regular cost was $2.25 for a one-way trip without a transfer).. not saying it's a super-perfect system, but Detroit and vicinity could have this if they wanted to..

That's the famed "Health Line" along the Euclid Avenue Corridor. It was conceived as a subway line in the early 1980s, and stillborn as a sexified bus 25 years and $250 million later. The FTA under the Bush administration touted such a project as the transit system of the future. Really, the Euclid Corridor project was little more than a landscaping and paint job.

It's proponents claim that development is already starting to happen along the corridor because of the project [[most of which is the ever-growing Cleveland Clinic, which was going to happen anyway). We'll see what it looks like in 25 years. I'm skeptical, of course.

I've heard anecdotal stories that bemoan drivers missing stops along the line, cars entering the bus only lanes, and problems with fare payment. I personally haven't had the opportunity to ride it yet, but everything that I've heard suggests it operates no different than a regular bus. Lord help any city that takes 25 years to build a 6-mile, $250 million bus route.

[professorscott]

Lord help any city that takes 25 years to build a 6-mile, $250 million bus route.

Lord help, even more, any city that can't even build such a thing.

[fryar]

Ya know we own a fleet of atleast a dozen natural gas heritage trolleys just sitting in DDOT's yard[[well atleast last time I went by) http://www.detroittransithistory.inf...lley-thumb.jpg
Why the hell aren't these things running now to provide this local loop route on Woodward south of Grand Blvd? Signage and advertising can be just as effective as rails in the street.

If it was me, I'd just ride the bus instead, since I'm not real partial to the shuttles I've ridden that look like that [[King Street in Alexandria, VA, for one). But since you mention those trolleys, couldn't they be used to shuttle around people who are no longer being served by buses? As in, they're not operated by the city, but lent out to a non-profit outfit?

[3rdDegreeBurns]

Again, please don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Health Line is a significant improvement over traditional bus service. It is an express service with fewer stops, pre-paid boarding, 0 step-up ingress and egress due to raised platforms and custom-designed buses that provide a much higher level of service than the other buses available in Cleveland. They also operate in their own dedicated lane which allows them to be much more competitive with auto transportation during periods of peak congestion.

Of course, the system is not perfect. Yes, cars do sometimes drive in the bus-only lanes but just like any other traffic violation, they are issued tickets when caught [[I don't think this is a major problem on the line). Yes, it took a long time to plan the system and implement it, but they've got it now [[one more high speed transit line than Detroit). Is the service provided by BRT superior to a subway? No, it's not. However, the costs are many times lower and for a city like Cleveland with serious budget problems, this system probably makes more sense than a subway.

What is the point of tearing apart the Health Line? Is it perfect? Absolutely not! Is it many times better than what we currently have in Detroit. Yes, it is.

Why spend your time arguing for what you consider to be an ideal system [[presumably an improved and expanded DTOGS-like system)when there is no political will to build it, no where near the funding to build it, and consequently, no chance it will happen anytime soon? Wouldn't it make more sense to put your efforts behind building the first section of what could one day be a system that meets many of your criteria? Do you really believe that M1 will be so bad that it will destroy any chance of an expanded system?

I argue that all of us who are obviously concerned with improved transit service in Detroit should support M1. Not unconditionally, but in principal. If we can form a coalition of support for it, then maybe we can influence the final design. For instance, if the number of stops is the big problem then maybe we could influence decision makers to reduce the number of stops or at least design the system so that stops could be removed once the system is expanded [[there may be value to lots of stops at first, but less value as time goes on). If we approach it from a position of overall support then maybe we can make a difference. However, if all we do is poke holes in it, say it will never happen, or say it is fundamentally flawed then we will be dismissed as naysayers [[rightfully so in my opinion) and will have no influence on what actually gets built.

Who's with me?

[fryar]

Who's with me?

Fryar.

must. type. ten. characters.

[ghettopalmetto]

Again, please don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Health Line is a significant improvement over traditional bus service. It is an express service with fewer stops, pre-paid boarding, 0 step-up ingress and egress due to raised platforms and custom-designed buses that provide a much higher level of service than the other buses available in Cleveland. They also operate in their own dedicated lane which allows them to be much more competitive with auto transportation during periods of peak congestion.

I agree--the Perfect should not be the enemy of the Good. But BRT is just downright Awful. Regardless what anyone says, you cannot simply "convert" BRT to light rail in the future "after the ridership grows" because:

1) The bus line will *never* build sufficient ridership to warrant replacement with rail.

2) If you do so, you're back at Square One from a capital cost perspective, albeit after decades of inflation.

It's a sham. For a 20% increase in capital costs, Cleveland could have built light rail along Euclid Avenue, which has a higher capacity and better operating characteristics. The old Communist-era trams in Warsaw ride better than a brand new bus.

Now, Cleveland will never have rail along Euclid, and they'll have to replace those sexy buses every 12 years to boot. Never mind the service disruptions caused by the periodic repaving that will be required. And the higher operating costs they'll be paying ad infinitum. Buses are already more expensive to operate than electric rail. What's that scenario going to look like when diesel blows by 5 bucks a gallon?

Never mind the questionable return on investment that bus "rapid" transit brings. Los Angeles has had BRT for some years now. Is it spurring new, dense, pedestrian-oriented development along the corridor, as has been seen with numerous light rail lines?

Detroit doesn't have the political capital to squander by building another half-assed transit system on the cheap. If it does, quality rapid transit in Detroit will be doomed for at least another 50 years. Do it Right the First Time.

[3rdDegreeBurns]

I agree--the Perfect should not be the enemy of the Good. But BRT is just downright Awful. Regardless what anyone says, you cannot simply "convert" BRT to light rail in the future "after the ridership grows" because:

1) The bus line will *never* build sufficient ridership to warrant replacement with rail.

2) If you do so, you're back at Square One from a capital cost perspective, albeit after decades of inflation.

It's a sham. For a 20% increase in capital costs, Cleveland could have built light rail along Euclid Avenue, which has a higher capacity and better operating characteristics. The old Communist-era trams in Warsaw ride better than a brand new bus.

Now, Cleveland will never have rail along Euclid, and they'll have to replace those sexy buses every 12 years to boot. Never mind the service disruptions caused by the periodic repaving that will be required. And the higher operating costs they'll be paying ad infinitum. Buses are already more expensive to operate than electric rail. What's that scenario going to look like when diesel blows by 5 bucks a gallon?

Never mind the questionable return on investment that bus "rapid" transit brings. Los Angeles has had BRT for some years now. Is it spurring new, dense, pedestrian-oriented development along the corridor, as has been seen with numerous light rail lines?

Detroit doesn't have the political capital to squander by building another half-assed transit system on the cheap. If it does, quality rapid transit in Detroit will be doomed for at least another 50 years. Do it Right the First Time.

Well... as far as the ridership issue goes, we could debate that back and forth all day long. It all depends on what number of average daily riders you need to "qualify" for upgraded service. If Woodward qualifies based on ridership then at least Gratiot would qualify already. Parts of the Gratiot corridor in Macomb County have higher ridership than Woodward. Regardless, I think we could both agree that increased level of service would result in increased ridership. Increases could be used to justify additional investment such as light rail. One advantage of going BRT first would be establishing ridership numbers to help qualify for FTA new starts money. Another would be establishing a dedicated right of way so that when LRT comes along, it has it's own right of way already in-place [[not shared with cars).The argument that you are back as square one with capital cost falls short. Once a corridor is converted to LRT, you can move the BRT buses to the next corridor designated for upgraded service. If designed properly, BRT stops, kiosks, stations, etc... could still be used with relatively minor changes.

I agree with you on operating costs and maintenance costs. Yes. LRT is a better system. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I would love to see how you came up with the 20% figure for price difference between the BRT in Cleveland and modern light rail. Also, since you haven't ridden the Health Line, I don't know why you claim it isn't a comfortable ride. I haven't ridden either, but I've heard from several people that the ride is very comparable to light rail.

One last potential benefit of a dedicated bus way is that regular circulating buses could use the dedicated right of way to reduce overall travel times. This could be of tremendous benefit to travelers because they could get some of the benefits of BRT without ever needing to transfer. To my knowledge, this is not the way they are doing things in Cleveland, but the potential is there... Circulate on one end, then hit the bus way and speed to the other end. Circulate on the other end. Repeat forever.

[DetroitDad]

I was in cleveland this past weekend. I stayed in the midtown area [[I guess), and I rode the city bus for a short stint.. the way they had it set up, the buses rode a dedicated lane[[s) in the middle of the road, separated by low-lying concrete dividers, and they had bus stop islands along the pathway. an automatic ticket kiosk was there, you could get an all day pass for $5.00 [[regular cost was $2.25 for a one-way trip without a transfer).. not saying it's a super-perfect system, but Detroit and vicinity could have this if they wanted to..

You can get an all day DDOT or People Mover pass for $10 [[each) in Detroit. You can get a five day DDOT pass for $14.

If you are clueless when it comes to transit routes, and want to start taking the bus, you should pay the new information kiosk/window at the new Downtown transit center a visit.

[Sstashmoo]

Atlanta is drastically reducing their mass transit service. So much for "if we only had mass transit". They have it, and no money to operate it.

http://www2.wsav.com/news/2010/jun/2...tes-ar-466876/

ATLANTA [[AP) Metro Atlanta's cash-strapped transit system is shutting down 40 bus lines and closing some restrooms.
The board of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority voted on Monday to cut the bus lines and shut the restrooms, eliminate shuttle service to Atlanta Braves games after this season and start rail service more than an hour later on weekend mornings.
Officials say more than 300 employees will lose their jobs.

[Russix]

The lesson here[[as with Dallas) is not to rely on a sales tax for operating expenses. A sales tax could be used to fund development or capital expenses but the operating expense needs a more stable source of income.

[ghettopalmetto]

Increases could be used to justify additional investment such as light rail. One advantage of going BRT first would be establishing ridership numbers to help qualify for FTA new starts money. Another would be establishing a dedicated right of way so that when LRT comes along, it has it's own right of way already in-place [[not shared with cars).

You haven't been reading this thread. In order to "convert" a BRT route to light rail transit, you would need to completely shut down the BRT route for a period of years. You don't just wake up and slap down rails. What you're proposing is two entirely separate transit projects.

The argument that you are back as square one with capital cost falls short. Once a corridor is converted to LRT, you can move the BRT buses to the next corridor designated for upgraded service. If designed properly, BRT stops, kiosks, stations, etc... could still be used with relatively minor changes.

My argument does not fall short. Creating a BRT route is Project #1. Converting it to rail is Project #2. You'd be starting from scratch, as you'd have to rip up the roadbed, relocate utilities, reconstruct the foundation, lay rails, and add overhead electric wires [[as well as substations) and lengthen the stations. The only things you might be able to keep are any shelters and ticket machines. Never mind that by going the "incremental" route, you're constructed two entirely new facilities for vehicle maintenance--one for the BRT buses, which, due to their length, will not fit in a standard bus garage, and another for light rail vehicles.

I would love to see how you came up with the 20% figure for price difference between the BRT in Cleveland and modern light rail.

The Euclid Avenue line cost $250 million for 6 miles, or not quite $42 million a mile. A 20% increase would be $50 million per mile. Real-world construction of light rail systems at-grade has cost between $30 million and $60 million per mile.

Also, since you haven't ridden the Health Line, I don't know why you claim it isn't a comfortable ride. I haven't ridden either, but I've heard from several people that the ride is very comparable to light rail.

The ride is only comfortable because the pavement is new. Cleveland goes through about 10 freeze/thaw cycles a year. Let's see how Euclid Avenue looks three years from now.

One last potential benefit of a dedicated bus way is that regular circulating buses could use the dedicated right of way to reduce overall travel times.

How do you reduce travel times by increasing vehicle congestion along the route? This is yet another positive for rail--you can string 3 or 4 railcars together, using one operator, to boost capacity. Buses can only follow each other so closely--which is why Ottawa has been resigned to the expensive undertaking of "converting" its BRT system to light rail.

[ghettopalmetto]

Atlanta is drastically reducing their mass transit service. So much for "if we only had mass transit". They have it, and no money to operate it.

http://www2.wsav.com/news/2010/jun/2...tes-ar-466876/

ATLANTA [[AP) Metro Atlanta's cash-strapped transit system is shutting down 40 bus lines and closing some restrooms.
The board of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority voted on Monday to cut the bus lines and shut the restrooms, eliminate shuttle service to Atlanta Braves games after this season and start rail service more than an hour later on weekend mornings.
Officials say more than 300 employees will lose their jobs.

This is also the same city that spent billions upon billions of dollars to "Fix the Freeways" in the 1980s.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "This is also the same city that spent billions upon billions of dollars to "Fix the Freeways" in the 1980s."

What should they have done otherwise? I'm just applying a control to the "If we only had this" argument. They have mass transit, their city core is still declining, revenues lost etc.

This area and country needs jobs, all else will follow.

[3rdDegreeBurns]

Ghetto,

I didn't say there would be no capital improvement cost converting BRT ot LRT. However, many of the costs of start BRT wouldn't be lost when converting to LRT. Most of the costs you mentioned are savings to the initial establishment of BRT. They are the most expensive parts of putting in an LRT and are the very reason why people suggest BRT before LRT. Is it a perfect idea? Of course not. Is it significantly better than what we have now? Yes, it is. Is there any chance that the Detroit Metro Region will build a comprehensive LRT system in the next ten years? No, there isn't. So, I suggest that we build what we can build.

Also, converting BRT to LRT would involve service interuptions. However, it isn't as bad as you make it out to be. Buses are flexible. The BRT buses could operate in another lane while the LRT infrastructure is being constructed. This could be done in sections [[1 or 2 miles at a time).

Can you please provide your source for the financial figures? I'm interested in seeing finer detail than just blanket figures like $30-$60 Million per mile, which is obviously a very wide range. Let's get more specific and talk about what the component costs are, and how they apply to the realities of the Detroit area.

Should Cleveland have built nothing as opposed to a system that will require periodic road maintenance? Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As for the bus way, congestion will only be a problem if they try to fit more buses down the right of way then it can handle efficiently. If we just spend some time planning and monitoring the system, this could easily be avoided.

Just curious, has anyone researched ridership numbers for the Cleveland BRT? I will look into this later if nobody on the thread has the info readily available. I'm interested to see the change from before the BRT to today.

[ghettopalmetto]

Ghetto,

I didn't say there would be no capital improvement cost converting BRT ot LRT. However, many of the costs of start BRT wouldn't be lost when converting to LRT. Most of the costs you mentioned are savings to the initial establishment of BRT. They are the most expensive parts of putting in an LRT and are the very reason why people suggest BRT before LRT. Is it a perfect idea? Of course not. Is it significantly better than what we have now? Yes, it is. Is there any chance that the Detroit Metro Region will build a comprehensive LRT system in the next ten years? No, there isn't. So, I suggest that we build what we can build.

Again, you're not reading what I'm writing. Or choosing not to comprehend it. Most of the investment you make in BRT would necessarily have to be destroyed in order to convert to light rail, as I've described above. You claim that these assets could be "saved". How so?

Starting with BRT and then converting to light rail later is drastically more expensive than just constructing light rail from the get-go. Where are the savings???

Also, converting BRT to LRT would involve service interuptions. However, it isn't as bad as you make it out to be. Buses are flexible. The BRT buses could operate in another lane while the LRT infrastructure is being constructed. This could be done in sections [[1 or 2 miles at a time).

So then what you've done is build up service on a route [[and hypothetically, travel times and ridership) in order to downgrade the service to a plain old regular bus for a number of years in order to start over. Yeah, none of the riders will be pissed about that. How do you expect to maintain the same quality of service and ridership through the complete reconstruction of the roadway?

Again--the "flexibility" of buses is precisely what makes them unattractive compared to rail. The real goal in the system is "redundancy", not "flexibility".

Can you please provide your source for the financial figures? I'm interested in seeing finer detail than just blanket figures like $30-$60 Million per mile, which is obviously a very wide range. Let's get more specific and talk about what the component costs are, and how they apply to the realities of the Detroit area.

You have to look at construction costs for each individual project. The costs depend on the nature of the right-of-way, the amount of utilities that need to be relocated, soil geology, local labor costs, etc. If you want to talk specific costs as pertains to Detroit, you'd need to have a professional construction cost estimator put those numbers together, based on the scope of proposed work.

Should Cleveland have built nothing as opposed to a system that will require periodic road maintenance? Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Cleveland's "project" amounts to little more than landscaping the street and purchasing expensive new buses. It's worth noting that you don't need to call it a "rapid transit" project in order to implement most of what they have done on a regular bus route. For example, there is nothing stopping DDOT from putting shelters, proper signage, and ticketing machines at bus stops along Woodward, and having the buses operate in dedicated lanes. That doesn't cost $42 million a mile to do.

As for the bus way, congestion will only be a problem if they try to fit more buses down the right of way then it can handle efficiently. If we just spend some time planning and monitoring the system, this could easily be avoided.

No level of planning and monitoring can increase the theoretical physical capacity of a bus route to match that of a rail line along the same route.

Just curious, has anyone researched ridership numbers for the Cleveland BRT? I will look into this later if nobody on the thread has the info readily available. I'm interested to see the change from before the BRT to today.

I would like to see the differences as well. Prior to building The Emperor's New Bus Route, the #6 was the busiest route in the RTA system. If you find numbers, please share.

I really don't know why you're so enamored with the idea of bus "rapid" transit. The only argument people seem to make for this mode is that it's "cheaper" than rail. It's not. And it's still a regular fucking bus, no matter how pretty you paint it.

[professorscott]

One aspect of the BRT vs. light rail argument that seems not to have surfaced here is that if we expect Uncle Sugar to help pay for it, we have to follow his rules.

If you want to build BRT or light rail and pay for it yourself, go for it! Nobody is likely to stop you. If, however, you want Federal funding, the corridor needs to qualify, and there are corridors which have enough existing ridership to qualify for funding for BRT but not enough to qualify for light rail.

For instance, in the DTOGS study, Woodward was the only corridor which qualified for light rail funding. Gratiot would qualify for BRT but not light rail. Michigan wouldn't qualify for anything. It's worth asking whether Gratiot would have qualified for light rail if DDOT had included SMART's ridership between 8 mile and Macomb Mall, but they didn't.

Anyhow, the Fed provides constraints, and that is why sometimes things are done how they're done.

The fact that "converting" from BRT to light rail is a complete, gut-and-rebuild construction project, no less expensive that building light rail from scratch, is pretty much a given IMO.

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't know the details of the specific "cost-effectiveness" criteria that the Federal Transit Administration uses. But I do know that the Bush administration skewed the mathematics to favor BRT, which is when we saw all of this Third World hullabaloo come to the surface and gain traction, so to speak. Still, cities like Houston have scrapped plans for BRT in favor of permanent light rail, and Virginia long-ago dumped the idea of "phasing" BRT to heavy rail subway along the Dulles Corridor, citing lower projected ridership numbers for BRT and the increased overall costs due to conversion.

To my knowledge, the Obama administration is working to "correct" the cost-effectiveness formulas to annualize the capital costs to determine cost effectiveness. For example, as I understand the previous formula, it only considered "startup" capital costs. In the Real World, buses have to be replaced every 12-15 years, and roads need to be repaved about as often, whereas rails can last 100 years and railcars can last 40-50. If you count these costs as an annualized cost over the long term, as opposed to one up-front lump sum, buses come out an enormous loser.

[3rdDegreeBurns]

I encourage you to read this testimony from the United States Government General Accounting Office on the costs and benefits of BRT vs. LRT in 2003:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...c5BBu2KGPhmaJA

Interesting findings include:

"Capital costs of Bus Rapid Transit in the cities we reviewed averaged $13.5
million per mile for busways, $9.0 million per mile for buses on high-
occupancy vehicle lanes, and $680,000 per mile for buses on city streets,
when adjusted to 2000 dollars. For comparison, we examined the capital
costs of several Light Rail lines and found that they averaged about $34.8
million per mile, ranging from $12.4 million to $118.8 million per mile."

So, according to the GAO, the average cost per mile for BRT is 38.8% of the average cost per mile for LRT. This is drastically different from the earlier figure you quoted [[80%).


They also found that "neither Bus Rapid Transit nor Light Rail had a consistent advantage in terms of
operating costs. We also found that Bus Rapid Transit compared favorably
with Light Rail systems in terms of operating speed and ridership."

It may be that Cleveland spent too much on their system, but that doesn't mean that BRT is fundamentally flawed as a form of public transit.


Sorry Ghetto, but it seems to me that you haven't really done your homework. I can certainly accept that you would prefer an LRT system. I would too. However, if we have no prospects of getting one outside of Woodward Ave. and we could get a BRT, I'll take the BRT. I think it is false to paint BRT as just slapping paint on buses... If that's true then according to this GAO report, slapping paint on buses is a great way to increase the level of service, speed and ridership for cheap! The report said that LA's BRT system carries an average of 32,500 passengers per day. I think that would cover us for many of our priority corridors. If it's not enough capacity, then we have a clear need and can work to find the money to upgrade to LRT. We're just not going to get that money until we show that we need the increased capacity.

[ghettopalmetto]

Well, 3rdDegreeBurns, I've been riding and studying transit informally for 15 years. So I think it's hilarious you can find one cut-and-paste article that supports your pre-ordained conclusion, and then tell me I'm not doing my homework.

The truth is, as I've stated on these forums numerous times, there are varying degrees of service within the realm of bus "rapid" transit. Sometimes, it's a little as running an articulated bus with a different paint job than the rest of the system. Other times, it's something full-blown, like you'd see in Brazil. But--and you can take this to the bank--all empirical evidence indicates that by the time you construct a BRT line that provides comparable performance to light rail, you're spending the same amount of money that a light rail line would cost--but with the inherently poorer service characteristics and limitations of buses, and none of the increased property development that accompanies light rail construction. You can't tell me that the "Silver Line" bus in Boston--even with it's grade-separated tunnel segment--is even close to the same level as the Red Line subway.

Portland's 2.7 mile downtown Streetcar has been blamed for $3.5 Billion in new development and 10,000 housing units within 1/2 mile of the line. Show me a bus that has ever done that, and I'll take you a little more seriously.

BRT in Los Angeles may carry 32,500 people a day--but its light rail lines carry over 43 million people a year--or 118,000 a day [[on average--not adjusted for weekends). http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/9154.pdf

On the other hand, I've ridden regular old bus routes that carry 32,500 people a day. No sexy paint job or expensive landscaping required. It's amazing what frequent service can do for ridership.

A little more on Cleveland's Euclid Avenue "Health Line":

According to RTA, the length of the line is 6.8 miles. The published scheduled travel time is a minimum of 30 minutes [[35 minutes during rush hour). That's an average travel speed of 13.6 mph during non-rush periods. This is slightly faster than a regular bus, whose speeds average 12-13 mph.

Baltimore's Light Rail averages 24 mph. Salt Lake's Trax light rail averages 24 mph. The Los Angeles Green Line averages 38 mph. Is that comparable service, in your opinion?

Greater Cleveland RTA also claims that the Health Line is responsible for $4.3 billion in new development. At least three quarters of this development is due to the Cleveland Clinic, Case Western Reserve University, the Cleveland Museum of Art, the City of Cleveland and other nonprofit/nontaxable/non private-sector institutions. It bears stating that the vast majority of development RTA attributes to the Health Line is occurring in the University Circle and Public Square areas--the two largest regional employment hubs--and major destination points for the existing Red Line heavy rail.

[3rdDegreeBurns]

I completely agree with you that rail has HUGE effects on economic development compared with bus. No argument there. That is the reason why I still strongly support light rail in Detroit where it is feasible. I just don't believe that it is feasible outside of Woodward Ave. in the next decade. However, I still believe that BRT has significant benefits and can be a stepping stone to rail. I reject your claim that BRT is worthless and will set the city back 50 years. If we can get BRT on Gratiot, Michigan Ave., Grand River, Fort St., etc... then I want it!

I certainly don't have a preordained opinion on the subject. I'm not trying to cherry pick articles that support my opinions and ignore those that don't. I study transportation myself and my opinions are the results of my study. You obviously have a different opinion. I shouldn't have used the phrase "Haven't done your homework", that was rude and jumping to conclusions. I apologize for that. However, I would like to know what you base your opinions on. I am willing to listen to your argument. Can you please provide evidence that BRT average costs are 80% as much per mile as LRT?

[professorscott]

Ahh, the age-old question as to which is better between BRT and light rail. Of course the question, as such, is unanswerable. It's like asking if a two story house is better than a one story house.

In order to answer the question with regard to any specific corridor, we first must ask: what are we trying to accomplish?

If the goal is just to move passengers more quickly, full-blown BRT and light rail are roughly equivalent. Of course, half-assed BRT - which is what we would be likely to get around here - is no better than a limited bus like the SMART 565, costs money and would set the transit argument back twenty years. But full-blown BRT is speed comparable to surface light rail [[the only kind we will EVER get).

If the goal is to promote economic redevelopment along a corridor, then light rail beats BRT hands-down. One quote I've often used, from a municipal government official in a city which was considering this very issue, is "developers don't write checks for buses".

The word "upgrade", used to describe a conversion from BRT to light rail, is specious. To convert from [[full scale) BRT to light rail involves shutting down the BRT service while completely reconstructing facilities. It is a tear-down followed by a build-from-scratch and nothing less.

I favor light rail in this region, since much redevelopment is needed. I think the two most likely corridors, in terms of success of a system, are Woodward from downtown to Royal Oak or Birmingham, and Gratiot from downtown to Mt. Clemens. I can't think of a cross-suburban corridor that would have any chance of success in the short to medium term.

So if I were transit king, and had funding available and any glimmer of hope of regional support, I would be fighting tooth and nail to get those two things done.

In terms of improved bus service, I think no-stop express buses between the existing multi-bus transit stops [[downtown, Royal Oak, Fairlane, Macomb Mall, Northland, State Fair) would help make the overall system more useful, beyond anything else we might try to do.

But I'm not transit king; in fact, nobody any longer is.

[ghettopalmetto]

I agree with Professorscott.

Now, I know it's not feasible to put light rail everywhere in Detroit. It's not an all-or-nothing situation, though. Buses will still be necessary, but there are very simple, very cost-effective things that can be done to improve the performance of the system. Many of these items are incorporated as "features" of so-called BRT, but really can be implemented on any bus route anywhere:

1. Proper bus stop signage with route numbers and destination names. I understand DDOT has begun to address this since I've last been in Detroit. [[A "No Standing" sign is a bullshit excuse for a bus stop.)

2. Adequate shelters for waiting, including space for newspaper boxes [[reading is important when you're waiting for a bus or train!).

3. Route maps and schedules posted at ALL stops. System maps posted at major points on the system, showing routes and connections throughout the system.

4. Ticketing machines at ALL stops to speed boarding. I've also been to places [[like Warsaw) where you buy tickets for buses and trams from newsstands vis-a-vis a machine on the street. Once you board the bus [[through any door!), you validate your ticket in a machine. Smartcards are also useful.

5. GPS-enabled buses, with automated stop announcements, and the name of the stop displayed within the vehicle.

6. Dedicated travel lanes.

7. At transfer centers, maps of the transfer center complex, showing which buses board and alight at which locations, and enumerating the destinations served by each bus. Complete transit-network maps and real-person attendants at such transfer centers are indispensable.

8. One of the neat things I saw in Poland that I haven't seen in the States--the bus stop shelters had the name of the "station" [[usually the cross street) posted above the shelter, so that people on the bus knew where they were when the bus stopped. Again, something simple, stupid, cheap, and completely effective.

These should be MINIMUM standards for any bus service along the major routes in Detroit, and ideally, would be implemented system-wide.

[Russix]

Costs for BRT?

Give me a forklift, a couple dozen concrete road barriers, TV remotes for every bus and a sawzall to cut new doors in the other side of the buses.

[FerndaleDamon]

If it's as difficult, as always [[ think colonoscopy & root canal at the same time ), to get a light rail line built- would the "leaders" settle for a much improved bus system with the same amount of money? Only in the freakin' D, I swear.

[iheartthed]

I favor light rail in this region, since much redevelopment is needed. I think the two most likely corridors, in terms of success of a system, are Woodward from downtown to Royal Oak or Birmingham, and Gratiot from downtown to Mt. Clemens.

Doesn't the Grand River route have the second highest bus ridership in the city?