I-94 Rapid Transit Line- Detroit to Airport

[casscorridor]

It would be cheaper have heavy-rail run along existing rail right-of-ways. There are tracks running along 94 already, and come very close to the airport. I would like to see it run on overhead electric lines or electrified third rail, and run very fast, like 50 mph at the slowest and connect directly to each terminal. New Center could be starting point, but I'd like to see it eventually move [[along with Amtrak) to a renovated Michigan Central Station, that would also connect to a Michigan Ave rapid transit line.

[wolverine]

FYI in response to the original post the blue line is hoped to be phased out as the primary means of reaching the airport by rail. The city has interested investors wanting to build high speed rail from the loop to o'hare. You will check in and go through TSA downtown and de-train at your terminal. The Block37 Mall is intended to hold the transit superstation. It is partially complete and work won't continue until this plan moves further along. I'd suggest using this as a case study, since the blue line only provides local service, not regional. And the fact that it takes 40 minutes to get from downtown to the airport is ridiculous. I think the difference will be that chicago's system would be privately financed, while Detroit's would require public funding

[Brian1979]

FYI in response to the original post the blue line is hoped to be phased out as the primary means of reaching the airport by rail. The city has interested investors wanting to build high speed rail from the loop to o'hare. You will check in and go through TSA downtown and de-train at your terminal. The Block37 Mall is intended to hold the transit superstation. It is partially complete and work won't continue until this plan moves further along. I'd suggest using this as a case study, since the blue line only provides local service, not regional. And the fact that it takes 40 minutes to get from downtown to the airport is ridiculous. I think the difference will be that chicago's system would be privately financed, while Detroit's would require public funding

Good luck getting to the loop in 40 minutes driving it.

[harsensis]

Detroit really needs a rail connection from the airport to downtown. I spent a few days in Seattle in December, I took the train from the airport to downtown every night and it was full! Detroit needs to get over the fact that cars are not everything. I would also love to see a I-94 line, that would make it so much easier than always having somebody drive out to the airport to pick us up, or to rent a car.

[ghettopalmetto]

The blue line also goes down the median of the Eisenhower [[290). The red line goes down the median of the Dan Ryan. I support trains running in the medians of expressways, I love that urban vibe you get driving into Chicago on the Dan Ryan.

Nothing says "urban" like waiting for a train in the middle of a dozen lanes of traffic, right?

Here's another example. Look at all the urbanity!

[coracle]

For a city that's lost about 60% of it's population in 60 years and 25% of it's population in the last 10 years building a Rapid Transport line now to the Airport seems like opening up an escape route after everybody's left town. It's crazy. A collection line in the Northern suburbs swooping down on the Eastern edge of Detroit on it's way to Metro might make some sense but even that would have to compete with I-75, I-94 I-275 and expense accounts Parking payments; not to mention personal convenience [[so I'll not mention it). When there's a big show in town again business picks up the travel tab.

[stasu1213]

I agress with some type of rail system from downtown to the airport. Even an express bus that goes from downtown to the airport. I wonder how much lobbying the parking lot owners at the airport are doing in Lansing to keep any type of express bus or rail line from happening. More people would be catching a train or express bus instead of parking their cars in lots that charges. A commuter train was suppose to ran off the the tracks staring last december but at the last minute the plan was squashed. Bought and paid for leaders will always quell any plans that would make traveling convenient to travelers in Michigan especially Detroit

[iheartthed]

For a city that's lost about 60% of it's population in 60 years and 25% of it's population in the last 10 years building a Rapid Transport line now to the Airport seems like opening up an escape route after everybody's left town. It's crazy. A collection line in the Northern suburbs swooping down on the Eastern edge of Detroit on it's way to Metro might make some sense but even that would have to compete with I-75, I-94 I-275 and expense accounts Parking payments; not to mention personal convenience [[so I'll not mention it). When there's a big show in town again business picks up the travel tab.

That's a silly idea.

[Russix]

One Bus. One Driver. One Hour roundtrip between airport and downtown. Huge boost to Downtown Detroit.

[Brian1979]

Nothing says "urban" like waiting for a train in the middle of a dozen lanes of traffic, right?

Here's another example. Look at all the urbanity!

That isn't the Dan Ryan though.

[wolverine]

One Bus. One Driver. One Hour roundtrip between airport and downtown. Huge boost to Downtown Detroit.

I think that's where it needs to start. I feel like a downtown-airport train in Detroit would be just a fancy novelty, convenient to 15,000 or so workers....just like the people mover with its behavior as a shuttle to very specific places. With a bus, provide ample space, several drop off destinations, and you have a successful service.

So why not a train like Chicago? The Chicago Loop and Near North areas have built themselves up as huge job centers and shopping destinations that need arterial rapid service to surrounding neighborhoods with supplemental ridership from the airport. The airport connection makes sense because the city gets an incredible amount of travelers and tourists.

Okay so compare the same rail system to two downtowns of different sizes. Chicago's Central business district has over 30,000 hotel rooms, yet Detroit has around 5000 downtown, and of course there's the number of office workers and residents which I won't try to calculate, but the gap is obviously quite large.

Additionally getting around by car in metro detroit is inherent since there's no regional rail, so for overall convenience of mobility, people will rent cars or take private shuttles regardless if rail is provided. So is this system in a much smaller city justified? It would be nice to think Detroit could have similar results, but the numbers would never reach Chicago's to make it viable. I'm 100% confident it would bring more businesses and tourism to downtown Detroit, but I can't see the benefits offsetting the major costs of construction and operation.

But here's the biggest point, as I mentioned earlier, I dislike riding the Red line, then the Blue Line to the airport all the time....If I could make the trip by express bus for $5, I would. There's nothing like knowing your subway trip will comprise 20% of the time it takes to get out to Los Angeles. That's why the city intends to replace it with a high speed train that's fast, comfortable, convenient, modern, and clean. It won't be cheap, but the numbers work where this thing can be privately financed and profitable. The CTA is expensive, and is barely getting by as the budget continues to get cut. Obviously trains still fill up to the max everyday with passengers. But what if they didn't in Detroit, could they afford to run this?

[kenp]

But here's the biggest point, as I mentioned earlier, I dislike riding the Red line, then the Blue Line to the airport all the time....If I could make the trip by express bus for $5, I would. There's nothing like knowing your subway trip will comprise 20% of the time it takes to get out ?

Just drove to Chicago for a convention at Rosemont Saturday. Getting from Downtown to Rosemont took 1 & 1/2 hours by 1-90. Took the same trip by blue line and its always 1/2 hour.
Some observation on the Blue Line early on a Sunday evening. Bums sleeping on the train, beggers getting a little testy at some riders and 2 men almost coming to blows over nothing. The train going back really stunk and the amout of grafitti on buildings on the route was amazing. Havent rode the El in awhile but it sure has gone down hill.

[Danny]

The City of Detroit and M-DOT tried to get some more federal transit grant monies to build a light rail tracks for the crosstown I-94 FWY [[Edsel Ford). However the government say no, this is what your going to have to build your freeway. This proposal happen in 1955 to 58.

[Bham1982]

Some observation on the Blue Line early on a Sunday evening. Bums sleeping on the train, beggers getting a little testy at some riders and 2 men almost coming to blows over nothing. The train going back really stunk and the amout of grafitti on buildings on the route was amazing. Havent rode the El in awhile but it sure has gone down hill.

Which is why, despite claims to the contrary on this thread, the Chicago L is largely a train for the poor and/or desperate.

Middle class folks generally don't take the Chicago L. They drive or take the suburban trains.

Really the only U.S. cities I can think of where middle class folks consistently take urban public transportation are NYC and DC. And in DC, it's pretty much just for commuting.

It's highly unlikely, therefore, that Detroit will have large numbers of middle class folks commuting by public transit anytime soon. Probably best to improve bus service for the working poor, and then go from there.

[Brian1979]

I think that's where it needs to start. I feel like a downtown-airport train in Detroit would be just a fancy novelty, convenient to 15,000 or so workers....just like the people mover with its behavior as a shuttle to very specific places. With a bus, provide ample space, several drop off destinations, and you have a successful service.

So why not a train like Chicago? The Chicago Loop and Near North areas have built themselves up as huge job centers and shopping destinations that need arterial rapid service to surrounding neighborhoods with supplemental ridership from the airport. The airport connection makes sense because the city gets an incredible amount of travelers and tourists.

Okay so compare the same rail system to two downtowns of different sizes. Chicago's Central business district has over 30,000 hotel rooms, yet Detroit has around 5000 downtown, and of course there's the number of office workers and residents which I won't try to calculate, but the gap is obviously quite large.

Additionally getting around by car in metro detroit is inherent since there's no regional rail, so for overall convenience of mobility, people will rent cars or take private shuttles regardless if rail is provided. So is this system in a much smaller city justified? It would be nice to think Detroit could have similar results, but the numbers would never reach Chicago's to make it viable. I'm 100% confident it would bring more businesses and tourism to downtown Detroit, but I can't see the benefits offsetting the major costs of construction and operation.

But here's the biggest point, as I mentioned earlier, I dislike riding the Red line, then the Blue Line to the airport all the time....If I could make the trip by express bus for $5, I would. There's nothing like knowing your subway trip will comprise 20% of the time it takes to get out to Los Angeles. That's why the city intends to replace it with a high speed train that's fast, comfortable, convenient, modern, and clean. It won't be cheap, but the numbers work where this thing can be privately financed and profitable. The CTA is expensive, and is barely getting by as the budget continues to get cut. Obviously trains still fill up to the max everyday with passengers. But what if they didn't in Detroit, could they afford to run this?

I think I read somewhere awhile back that Chicago's downtown has a daytime population of around 900,000 people and Detroit's has around 80,000 people. The Chicago L has a daily ridership of almost 700,000, added with the bus system there it comes out to around 1.6 million. I don't think ridership in Detroit would be anywheres near this, in Detroit it would probably be around 250,000 a day if they had a system like the Chicago L. I'm wondering how many people would actually use it though and it would spur development near station's I believe. My 250,000 estimate might be a little high so let's go with Cleveland's RTA system which has a daily ridership of around 120,000, that would still probably be viable for Detroit. Cleveland has roughly the same population density as Detroit too, about 5,100 per square mile.

[Bham1982]

The Chicago L has a daily ridership of almost 700,000, added with the bus system there it comes out to around 1.6 million.

The Chicago L only has about 600,000 weekday fares, and far fewer on weekends. And this is in a metro of nearly 10 million.

So, even in Chicago, cars are the overwhelming preference, both in the city and the metro.

The fact is, excepting NYC, the non-poor don't ride urban public transit in large numbers in the U.S.

Even car-centric Canada has much higher ridership than most U.S. cities. Toronto and Montreal, despite both being half the size of Chicago, have twice the rail ridership.

So if Chicago isn't really drawing "choice" riders, Detroit has almost no chance. This is why I think that D-DOT and SMART should really serve the working poor, and stop chasing fantasies of law firm partners taking the train down Woodward and Jefferson from Oakland County and the Pointes.

[wolverine]

The Chicago L only has about 600,000 weekday fares, and far fewer on weekends. And this is in a metro of nearly 10 million.

So, even in Chicago, cars are the overwhelming preference, both in the city and the metro.

The fact is, excepting NYC, the non-poor don't ride urban public transit in large numbers in the U.S.

Even car-centric Canada has much higher ridership than most U.S. cities. Toronto and Montreal, despite both being half the size of Chicago, have twice the rail ridership.

So if Chicago isn't really drawing "choice" riders, Detroit has almost no chance. This is why I think that D-DOT and SMART should really serve the working poor, and stop chasing fantasies of law firm partners taking the train down Woodward and Jefferson from Oakland County and the Pointes.

It's actually 1 million / day "rail rides" when you combine Metra Rail and CTA. The CTA has limited suburban access, so it can't be compared relative to metro. But when numbers from both systems are combined that's 10% of the total metro, which I still find pretty substantial for the fact that the Chicago area is a relatively convenient place to own and drive a car. Still, by the time the train reaches the airport, it's mostly empty, which proves your point.

[Russix]

I think that's where it needs to start. I feel like a downtown-airport train in Detroit would be just a fancy novelty, convenient to 15,000 or so workers....just like the people mover with its behavior as a shuttle to very specific places. With a bus, provide ample space, several drop off destinations, and you have a successful service.

So why not a train like Chicago? The Chicago Loop and Near North areas have built themselves up as huge job centers and shopping destinations that need arterial rapid service to surrounding neighborhoods with supplemental ridership from the airport. The airport connection makes sense because the city gets an incredible amount of travelers and tourists.

Okay so compare the same rail system to two downtowns of different sizes. Chicago's Central business district has over 30,000 hotel rooms, yet Detroit has around 5000 downtown, and of course there's the number of office workers and residents which I won't try to calculate, but the gap is obviously quite large.

Additionally getting around by car in metro detroit is inherent since there's no regional rail, so for overall convenience of mobility, people will rent cars or take private shuttles regardless if rail is provided. So is this system in a much smaller city justified? It would be nice to think Detroit could have similar results, but the numbers would never reach Chicago's to make it viable. I'm 100% confident it would bring more businesses and tourism to downtown Detroit, but I can't see the benefits offsetting the major costs of construction and operation.

But here's the biggest point, as I mentioned earlier, I dislike riding the Red line, then the Blue Line to the airport all the time....If I could make the trip by express bus for $5, I would. There's nothing like knowing your subway trip will comprise 20% of the time it takes to get out to Los Angeles. That's why the city intends to replace it with a high speed train that's fast, comfortable, convenient, modern, and clean. It won't be cheap, but the numbers work where this thing can be privately financed and profitable. The CTA is expensive, and is barely getting by as the budget continues to get cut. Obviously trains still fill up to the max everyday with passengers. But what if they didn't in Detroit, could they afford to run this?

The Blue Line started out to support the urbanization that was moving outwards from downtown. It didn't make it out to the airport till 90 years later. Just run one bus between both terminals and a People Mover stop. Also hire a lawyer to fight lawsuits from taxi company moguls.

[Crew]

Jimbo, Very few convention attendees take public transportation in any city. Taxi's are very common for convention particants. I doubt the lack for a rail line from the airport to downtown is a problem for most conventions.

As far as demand, one of the key knocks that holds Cobo Hall back from attracting more convention business is the fact that out of town conventioners who fly in are forced to either take an expensive cab ride back and forth downtown or have to pay to drive and park a rented car. Creating an airport-downtown line would simply create demand by its existence because Cobo would be able to attract more convention business.

[ghettopalmetto]

Jimbo, Very few convention attendees take public transportation in any city. Taxi's are very common for convention particants. I doubt the lack for a rail line from the airport to downtown is a problem for most conventions.

Better tell that to Michael Bloomberg, before New York spends $1 billion+ to extend the 7 train to the Javits Center.

You can't very well take transit anywhere if you don't have it in the first place. ;-)

[Crew]

NYC may be an exception but even there plenty of convention attendees take taxis to the city. I'm not saying a rail line wouldn't be used connecting Metro to downtown. I just don't think it's a huge issue for Cobo and the center's abaility to bring conventions to the city.

[iheartthed]

NYC may be an exception but even there plenty of convention attendees take taxis to the city. I'm not saying a rail line wouldn't be used connecting Metro to downtown. I just don't think it's a huge issue for Cobo and the center's abaility to bring conventions to the city.

Large conventions do take into account the public transit infrastructure when choosing host cities.

[bailey]

Large conventions do take into account the public transit infrastructure when choosing host cities.

Yeah... Las Vegas is really a transit rider's dream.

[DetroitPlanner]

Yeah... Las Vegas is really a transit rider's dream.

I've ridden the buses in LV. They are great. Almost BRT with pre-emptive signals, a voice that uses GPS to call the stops. Its amazing.

[iheartthed]

Yeah... Las Vegas is really a transit rider's dream.

Is this supposed to somehow refute my point?