Bus rapid transit system could boost metro Detroit, experts say

[Detroitnerd]

DN I am not talking around the point.

Sure you are. My point was a simple one. I get the feeling that you're throwing a lot of procedural and organizational jazz around, and maybe some fine semantic points, but I don't understand how you can say when it comes to expanding roads and building transit that our priorities aren't fucked.

Metro Detroit does not spend anywhere near on road congestion as most major cities in North America does. It does not have to.

Didn't we just about get done pounding a thread into the ground about a multiBILLION-dollar expansion of I-94 to ease congestion? That's what MDOT wants. It's pretty clear. And what was the expansion of Hall Road if not reckless overbuilding of roads when we don't have the money to maintain what we have?

I think you are not understanding... <snip>

Again, these points about congestion don't address the fucked-up priorities...

What you fail to understand is that there is a lot less flexibility in how federal funds are distributed.

I already know all that. You have to go back to what Lansing, MDOT and SEMCOG want and legitimize. They are the ones who decide what "transit mix" we're going to have and then when transit advocates don't get the goods, it's cold comfort to bring up "lack of flexibility." What about the priorities being totally fucked in the first place? Pay no attention to that meeting behind the curtain ...

DDOT and SMART got $100 million in stimulus funds roughly twice what you claim the M-59 project cost.

What is this "claim" shit? It has been widely reported that it cost $50 million. Hell, it was reported with PRIDE.

http://rochesteravonhistory.blogspot...r-history.html

Yeah, because the money can only go to the things we already have set up, which are backward [[split transit agencies, bus-only, money-gobbling systems). And they struggle because they are transit systems of last resort. Because nobody is seriously willing at the planning stage to invest in transit because, again, of FUCKED UP PRIORITIES.

Four years later we are still arguing about whether the train should run down the center of Woodward or the sides, where it should end, why can't it not be BRT instead? ad nauseum.

DP, you fail to understand what I am talking about: Broad, long-lasting and completely fucked perspectives on what's worth funding and what's not. You can shake a bunch of rules and regulations at me, but they dance around the real issue which is one of perception and education of the average Frank Rizzo. You're getting bogged down in the paperwork, and I'm talking about the big picture, get it?

[Wesley Mouch]

DP, I'm curious as to what you think the scope of the transit network for metro Detroit should be?

GP, I'm curious as to whether there's anything about BRT that you see as a plus. I certainly see many pluses in LRT. Durability, lower operating cost for core routes, and permanence to focus development along the route.

[canuck]

If it were possible to determine whether Detroit might have fared better if a light rail system had existed for the past 20 or 30 years, a quicker decision could be forthcoming on the M-1 rail. Was the demise of streetcars a real no-no in the future of Detroit circa 1956 or just a pebble skimming the Detroit river?

Have any liability studies been done on this subject?

How does that problem play against the mono-industrial factor in the demise of Detroit?

There is, as DetroitPlanner has noted, less of a problem of congestion in Detroit metro than in other major cities in NA. The quality and breadth of the road system is efficient enough to support traffic, and that puts a stop to a community-driven approach to transit.

[ghettopalmetto]

DP, I'm curious as to what you think the scope of the transit network for metro Detroit should be?

GP, I'm curious as to whether there's anything about BRT that you see as a plus. I certainly see many pluses in LRT. Durability, lower operating cost for core routes, and permanence to focus development along the route.

Well, let me qualify this response by stating that, in my opinion, there is no such thing as bus-based "rapid" transit.

With that said, so-called BRT is an improvement on regular bus service, that is, if you can tolerate increased stop spacing.

Here's the kicker: Rick Snyder has planted this idea in your heads, the idea that you're going to get something that performs equivalent to light rail. For the money proposed to be spent, however, you're going to get nothing of the sort. You're not even going to get something along the lines of Euclid Avenue, which has a questionable benefit/cost ratio, at best.

What you will likely get in Detroit is new buses with a jazzed-up paint scheme, some new bus stop signs and maps, and MAYBE traffic signal pre-emption. There's nothing "rapid transit" about any of that, and it certainly isn't something that requires years of planning and qualifying for Federal New Starts money. Given the proposed capital budget, this proposed "system" is being done on the cheap cheap cheap. And the region will actually be saddled with HIGHER operating costs than at present, since you'll be extending frequent bus service into sparsely-populated pedestrian-unfriendly corridors over long distances that simply won't support transit ridership.

In essence, Snyder is promising you a new ring. You're assuming it'll have diamonds, when it'll be cubic zirconia at best, and more realistically bought out of a gumball machine.

[DetroitPlanner]

DP, I'm curious as to what you think the scope of the transit network for metro Detroit should be?

Specific to transit to general:

1. Increase service to well used lines. The best mode may vary.
2. Increased connectivity between lines to make is easier to get from origin to destination.
3. Provide a system that works for both the transit dependant and provides an incentive for those who are currently travelling in single occupancy vehicles to change mode choice.
4. Educate the public about the fiscal realities and consequences of not investing in the transportation system that serves to move both people and goods in a way that improves the economic vitality of the region.

DN if you really want to curb sprawl you need to do it by attacking the water and sewer system. Those go in 40 years before there is congestion issues at the periphery. This would force redevelopment. Unfortunately since water is regional, all of that new development on the fringe pays for all of the other investment enjoyed by those who live wherever in the system whether it was Downtown, a Streetcar suburb, or Shelby Twp.

[ghettopalmetto]

Unfortunately all of that new development on the fringe pays for all of the other investment enjoyed by those who live wherever in the system whether it was Downtown, a Streetcar suburb, or Shelby Twp.

That must be why all the roads in Southeast Michigan are paved in gold. ;-)

[DetroitPlanner]

That must be why all the roads in Southeast Michigan are paved in gold. ;-)

You really know how to twist words. This paragraph is about water.

[Detroitnerd]

DN if you really want to curb sprawl you need to do it by attacking the water and sewer system. Those go in 40 years before there is congestion issues at the periphery. This would force redevelopment. Unfortunately since water is regional, all of that new development on the fringe pays for all of the other investment enjoyed by those who live wherever in the system whether it was Downtown, a Streetcar suburb, or Shelby Twp.

I've been talking about the mindset of metro Detroiters, and I get the feeling you're just trying to change the subject to something else, throwing everything but my point at the wall and hoping something will stick.

If you want to curb sprawl, to curb the kind of environment that depends on people driving everywhere and everything being accessible by car and everybody having a place to park, what would you go after? Naturally, the water system.

Sigh...

Can't get blood from a turnip ...

[313WX]

There is, as DetroitPlanner has noted, less of a problem of congestion in Detroit metro than in other major cities in NA. The quality and breadth of the road system is efficient enough to support traffic, and that puts a stop to a community-driven approach to transit.

Define "congestion."

The city proper lacks a lot of congestion [[due to depopulation over the decades), but it's pure hell getting around the suburbs, especially Northern Macomb and Oakland Counties, during a 9-5 period.

[ghettopalmetto]

Define "congestion."

The city proper lacks a lot of congestion [[due to depopulation over the decades), but it's pure hell getting around the suburbs, especially Northern Macomb and Oakland Counties, during a 9-5 period.

The transit-as-congestion-relief argument is a straw man. This is because driving is so heavily-subsidized, it is essentially a free good [[see Porter, Richard "Economics at the Wheel"). When you have a free good, demand is price inelastic. The same mechanism that drives induced demand will ensure that any newly-freed roadway capacity will fill up just as quickly.

Transit, at best, is an *alternative* to driving--it will never relieve congestion [[to wit, I-395 in Northern Virginia, where there is excellent transit service). But because the congested suburban freeway corridors are neither densely-populated nor accessible by foot, transit will never be a viable alternative in these areas.

There is no easy solution. You can't just run buses up-and-down suburban freeways and expect congestion to lessen. Our patterns of post-war infrastructure construction and land development are going to be one God-awfully expensive mistake to fix.

As long as we presume that everyone has to drive everywhere for everything, we're fucked. Pay attention to the current "solutions" to foreign-oil dependency and high gas prices. None of them involve mode shifts, and all of them are predicated on continuing to drive everywhere at little cost to the consumer.

Our nation has 310 million people--primarly concentrated on the coasts and around the Great Lakes--and is *growing*. Eventually, we're going to run out of room for cars and money for paving new roads.

[canuck]

Just hope Snyder's preemptive strike isnt implementation of BRT on Woodward.

[Wesley Mouch]

Just hope Snyder's preemptive strike isnt implementation of BRT on Woodward.

Heaven forbid forward progress that's not quite what you want.

[Patrick]

Transit, at best, is an *alternative* to driving--it will never relieve congestion [[to wit, I-395 in Northern Virginia, where there is excellent transit service). But because the congested suburban freeway corridors are neither densely-populated nor accessible by foot, transit will never be a viable alternative in these areas.

I disagree...the I-395 corridor's population [[work and residential) is growing and fast, largely due to BRAC. WMATA runs an excellent bus system, even in these areas not directly serviced by rail. These areas [[NoVA) weren't designed to handle the huge influx of residents and development...

[erikd]

I'm gonna have to agree with Mouch here. Sure we could have LRT, and that is indeed the ideal goal, but we also have a budget and a need to solve this regional transit issue here and now. We have a choice, 100+ miles of BRT or 8 miles of LRT....not much of a choice. BRT is sleek and does not look like a regular bus. Would I prefer LRT? Of course, but the debate is not between 100+ miles of LRT and 100+ miles of BRT, it's 8 miles or 100+. So far BRT is the only solution to REGIONAL transit that has been presented. I would happily accept BRT in a minute if construction can start soon. I really dont give a damn if i'm riding a fancy bus or a fancy train, as long as a I dont have to use my car and it gets me from Pt. A to Pt. B quickly and efficiently. BRT is the only system that has been presented that could get me from not only Hart Plaza to Ferndale but also downtown to the Airport or downtown to Mt. Clemens or Midtown to mid-Oakland County. As pretty and successful as LRT is, we do not have the budget or regional support for it. We have regional support for BRT. Let's run with it and actually solve our regional transit crisis once and for all.

If we actually had a choice between 9.3 miles of LRT on Woodward vs 110 miles of real BRT [[Cleveland Euclid style), I would also choose the BRT proposal. However, we are not being offered that choice.

The assertion that we can take the $550 million in committed funding for the Woodward Light Rail project and just re-appropriate it to build a 110 mile BRT system is a flat-out lie. It is factually false for a number of reasons.

First off, the only reason we had the opportunity to get $550 million in funding for the Woodward light rail line was due to the $125 million in initial private funding to build a 3.4 mile section of light rail on Woodward. With the local private funding for the first 3.4 miles of Woodward light rail, the city became eligible for matching federal grants to pay for a 5.9 mile extension with basically no additional local construction cost.

The Snyder/Bing proposal for regional BRT relies on two completely false assumptions:

1. They are assuming that the private investors behind the original Woodward light rail plan will change their plans and give the $125 million to support the regional BRT system instead. This will clearly not happen, because the private investor group has announced that they will not help to fund the proposed BRT system, and instead continue to pursue their original plan to privately fund the 3.4 mile light rail line.

This means that the $550 million BRT plan is now short of the $125 million in private local investment needed to qualify for the matching federal funds. Even if the federal government would allow the private M1 funding to "count" as local funding for the BRT system, we are still short $125 million.

2. They are assuming that 110 miles of BRT can be built for $550 million. This estimate is way out of line. To be sure, BRT is much cheaper to build than light rail, but it isn't 1/10th of the cost of light rail. It is closer to 1/2 the cost of light rail. The Euclid line in Cleveland [[frequently used as an example of the Bing/Snyder BRT proposal) cost $200 million for a line that runs 7 miles. That works out to more than $28 million per mile. It is a little less than half of the estimated $59 million per mile for the Woodward light rail line, but about 6 times more expensive than the unrealistic proposal of the Bing/Snyder BRT system at $5 million per mile.

I don't know what makes Bing and Snyder think that we could build 110 miles of BRT for $550 million, because it is simply unrealistic. The actual cost of 110 miles of real BRT is over $3 billion.

The end result is not a choice between Woodward light rail and regional BRT, but a choice between a fully-funded light rail line that was on the verge of breaking ground, and an unrealistic BRT pipe dream with no basis in reality, and very little chance of coming to fruition.

[casscorridor]

The end result is not a choice between Woodward light rail and regional BRT, but a choice between a fully-funded light rail line that was on the verge of breaking ground, and an unrealistic BRT pipe dream with no basis in reality, and very little chance of coming to fruition.

Yeah, agreed. A much cheaper solution than the 3 billion BRT would be a light-rail system that runs along existing rail right-of-ways [[but using exclusive track). Connections could easily be made throughout the region, including to the Airport. Downtown, the lines could go underground and function so it is a hybrid of commuter and rapid transit functions. Think: Atlanta METRA, SFBay BART mixed with St. Louis, Cleveland and Seattle light-rail systems.

[canuck]

Heaven forbid forward progress that's not quite what you want.

Because Snyder's view seems to correlate Troy's mayor's and Patterson's view of transit in SEM. I agree with those on DYes that if major funding were to occur, it might as well be for the long term and not be a dull blade on a dead carcass. If the city is to revive and regroup, the BRT may be a suburban solution over the long haul given fuel costs etc...

The real solution is in creating a new entity for metro Detroit[[1).
To regulate and implement high quality, high yield transit for the city and burbs through a metro transit agency[[2). These two aspects need to be addressed by the state since the counties of SEM are not proactive enough to recognize the need for a coalition. The further apart on issues like education and policing Detroit and the burbs are, more vital forces will disappear from the region.


Streetrail would entail termini building at important commercial points and improve pedestrian circulation in both directions of any given circuit. This may sound elementary and easy to overlook but essentially, the most positive aspect of an attractive, efficient LRT is the occupation of all the commercial space along the corridor. A BRT will not have the same attributes that a train or streetcar would.

[Wesley Mouch]

from Canuck...<snip>
Streetrail would entail termini building at important commercial points and improve pedestrian circulation in both directions of any given circuit. This may sound elementary and easy to overlook but essentially, the most positive aspect of an attractive, efficient LRT is the occupation of all the commercial space along the corridor. A BRT will not have the same attributes that a train or streetcar would.

Can you further explain this? 'Both directions of any given circuit'?? How does LRT drive commercial occupancy? What attributes of a train or streetcar matter here?

[canuck]

Wesley, I mean to say the back and forthing is conducive to commerce and pedestrian activity in a rail setting as opposed to the bus because the system is more attractive and carries more people per hour. You also need to look at this advantage when dealing with sports cultural events where high peak occupation occurs.

If promotional tools manage to attract more ridership into Detroit on event days like St Patrick's day, the music festivals; then fewer cars come into the city, people stay longer, patronize more businesses and explore the city. Give incentives to riders to come and shop when using the rail and they will come. Offset the cost of using cars versus transit in creative ways, and they will come.

[Parkguy]

<snip>
This may sound elementary and easy to overlook but essentially, the most positive aspect of an attractive, efficient LRT is the occupation of all the commercial space along the corridor. A BRT will not have the same attributes that a train or streetcar would.

There have been many studies [[not experiments, but analysis of real numbers) that show that light rail increases property values. You can google something like "value of light rail" [[which I just did) and get a long list of articles, including arguements for, against, and back and forth on the issue. Arguments from the left, right, center, and outside the political spectrum. But, evidence from Portland shows huge investments along their LRT lines, for instance. When Seattle built a new streetcar line north of downtown, huge investment moved in even before the system was built, including a big cancer center and Amazon's headquarters, along with residential and mixed use. And that is a streetcar, which is slow. The Urban Land Institute did an analysis of the effects of the Metro system as it branched out into suburban Virginia, and they found that the same thing happened, plus it increased the total property tax base. On top of that-- the TAX BURDEN SHIFTED from auto-centric subdivision areas to the new high-density development. In other words, the new dense areas took a percentage of the total tax burden away from older areas. I would think that pro-sprawl, pro-auto-suburb folks would love that. I don't remember the numbers, but I wonder if the increased tax for the regional transit system and the amount saved by the shifted burden is a wash?

[Wesley Mouch]

There have been many studies [[not experiments, but analysis of real numbers) that show that light rail increases property values. You can google something like "value of light rail" [[which I just did) and get a long list of articles, including arguements for, against, and back and forth on the issue. Arguments from the left, right, center, and outside the political spectrum. But, evidence from Portland shows huge investments along their LRT lines, for instance. When Seattle built a new streetcar line north of downtown, huge investment moved in even before the system was built, including a big cancer center and Amazon's headquarters, along with residential and mixed use. And that is a streetcar, which is slow. The Urban Land Institute did an analysis of the effects of the Metro system as it branched out into suburban Virginia, and they found that the same thing happened, plus it increased the total property tax base. On top of that-- the TAX BURDEN SHIFTED from auto-centric subdivision areas to the new high-density development. In other words, the new dense areas took a percentage of the total tax burden away from older areas. I would think that pro-sprawl, pro-auto-suburb folks would love that. I don't remember the numbers, but I wonder if the increased tax for the regional transit system and the amount saved by the shifted burden is a wash?

Thanks for the discussion.

I view transit as a means of enabling commerce [[jobs) for the City and Metro Detroit, rather than a development strategy for the Cass Corridor [[aka Midtown).

Thus, I'm more in favor of volume over style.

[Parkguy]

Thanks for the discussion.

I view transit as a means of enabling commerce [[jobs) for the City and Metro Detroit, rather than a development strategy for the Cass Corridor [[aka Midtown).

Thus, I'm more in favor of volume over style.

Exactly, but some kinds of transit bring investment-- meaning construction, jobs, relocating businesses to a denser area, and so on-- and some kinds don't bring those advantages. Light rail brings the most investment, BRT brings some, and standard bus lines bring virtually none. One of the problems we have now is that residential development has sprawled, but industrial, retail, and services followed. That isn't an accident-- those things have all been done by policy. A study that Wm. Whyte talked about in his book <i>City</i> back in the '70s showed that regardless of the reasons companies gave for moving from New York City to suburban areas, the fact was that they virtually all relocated to within a short distance of the CEO's residence. People move to far suburbs, their businesses soon follow, and then we have to run BRT lines 50 miles out so that people can get to work. It will still take them hours to get there.

I guess my point is that we have to start somewhere, and Woodward Avenue is the obvious choice. We have to build a system that will begin the long process of re-densification of the region. Build a system that will virtually assure that dense development will follow. People who don't like the system don't have to use it. And, they can rest assured that the costs of maintaining their car-centric lifestyle will be shifted to the folks who move to the new dense developments. BRT is better than the dysfunctional system we have now, and will give a lot of people an opportunity to find work in places they can't even get to now. So, I see BRT, LRT, an improved bus system, bike lanes, and safe pedestrian infrastructure as parts of a balanced system that will be the real answer.

[professorscott]

I see BRT, LRT, an improved bus system, bike lanes, and safe pedestrian infrastructure as parts of a balanced system that will be the real answer.

Ahh, very refreshing to see some holistic thinking. This is exactly correct. We need to make travel convenient, all kinds of travel: walking, bicycling, driving, use of taxicabs, buses of all types, the People Mover since what the hell, it exists, and yes, someday, light rail and commuter rail. People need to be able to get around, and we must recognize that for various reasons not everyone drives.

It will be a combination of things, and not any one single thing, that will breathe new life into the City and the region. It is probably just as important that Detroit is slowly putting bike lanes onto roads, as it is that we are working on transit.

[Wesley Mouch]

Ahh, very refreshing to see some holistic thinking. This is exactly correct. We need to make travel convenient, all kinds of travel: walking, bicycling, driving, use of taxicabs, buses of all types, the People Mover since what the hell, it exists, and yes, someday, light rail and commuter rail. People need to be able to get around, and we must recognize that for various reasons not everyone drives.

It will be a combination of things, and not any one single thing, that will breathe new life into the City and the region. It is probably just as important that Detroit is slowly putting bike lanes onto roads, as it is that we are working on transit.

Yes. I rally against LRT, and for BRT. I want people to have open minds. LRT is rather 'old school'. Our options today are so much greater. But the truth is that I'd love to see LRT on Woodward. But even more, I want us to be open to what is achievable.

Detroit's finances are a mess. When Coleman was mayor, we kept getting money from the feds because of our political clout. Well, that's gone now. It moved south. Tennessee. Texas. Arizona. They've won.

If we fight really hard, we may get our fair share of transit [[or any other federal) money. But we're not going to get much in the way of gifts. We frankly don't matter much. So let's get ourselves going and do whatever we can.

So let's do bike paths! Fix our taxicab rules. Allow jitneys. Make sure you can get around our city. For us and for tourists.

Maybe all we can do now is bus lanes on Woodward with jump lights. Its sure wide enough. All that takes is a little paint and a few million of signal work.

Whatever it is, let's get behind it, and make it great.

[downtownguy]

Well said, Parkguy. Thanks for the post.

[hortonz]

The BRT, LRT or whatever the latest plan for mass transit in Metro Detroit is called, will never see the light of day. The federal government approved an LRT for Detroit during the Ford administration and what did Detroit get?