A Rail Line From Detroit To Ann Arbor Is Right In Front Of Our Faces

[professorscott]

For anyone interested, this recently showed up on SEMCOG's website:

"SEMCOG special event in Ypsilanti on August 16: Update on Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter rail service

The Executive Committee of SEMCOG, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, will informally gather on Friday, August 16, 2013, for an update on the Ann Arbor-Detroit commuter rail service. The event, beginning at 12:30 p.m., at the Ypsilanti Automotive Heritage Museum [[100 E. Cross Street, Ypsilanti, MI 48198), will include a progress report and the introduction of a new video on the service. Community leaders that will have stations along the soon-to-come commuter rail line will talk about the opportunities the stations will create for their communities. We will then walk a short distance from the museum to three train cars that will be used for the Ann Arbor to Detroit Commuter Rail service. Attendees will have the opportunity to get on board the train and experience the amenities of commuter rail – coming to our region soon! The City of Ypsilanti will also host a press conference at the train location following the SEMCOG meeting."

[wolverine]

The idea of running commuter rail down the middle of a freeway median would be difficult It wouldn't be serviceable like the CTA. Faster diesel commuter rail trains would need wider clearances and wider platforms and higher bridge clearances. Even with conventional LRT or urban rapid transit in center medians, cities have been dumping proposals for future heavy rail expansion in medians of expressways. As previous posters have mentioned, Chicago has these lines, but they are moving away from future proposals for rail expansion down the center of freeways or tollways. All the road and freeway projects starting over the next couple of years in Chicagoland will "rough in" accommodation for rail anyways but there are no plans to use them in the future. They will more likely be used for BRT in the interim. Commuter rail should run into downtowns. It's good for businesses and residential areas around the original cores of theses places. You need ample space though. Keep in mind these trains will be blazing through these towns at 80 mph.

[royce]

OK, so you have your rail stop serving a low-density area in the middle of the freeway. How do you get people from a low-density area to walk to this station down in the freeway right-of-way? They drive there? Where do you put the big parking lot for the rail station?

Royce keeps posting this idea [[he started the thread last time) and, yes, it is done in some places, like Chicago. But trying to shoehorn one mode, with all its benefits and drawbacks, into another mode, with all its different benefits and drawbacks, seems like an awful lot of wishful thinking. You're going to take people who would rather drive around a parking lot for 10 minutes to get 30 feet closer to a store entrance and ask them to walk a quarter mile to a train station? Or to transfer from a bus? I remain very skeptical, especially when it comes to shelling out money for new heavy rail construction when we already have heavy rail corridors.

Detroitnerd, I think your thoughts are more about light rail transit than commuter rail transit. Essentially the commuter line on the freeway would go non-stop from Ann Arbor until it got to certain stops in Metro Detroit. Those stops would be park and ride stops basically, so density is not[[not now) the idea behind commuter rail on the freeways.


From Ann Arbor, the first stop in Metro Detroit would be in Livonia at Middlebelt and I-96. There's a former Wal-Mart parking lot that could be used for a park and ride site. The next stop would probably be at Telegraph, a non park and ride stop but definitely a feeder location. There is a housing complex and a shopping center in that area along with a dense neighborhood on both the east and west sides of Telegraph. After that, the commuter train would head downtown with no more stops until its ending at Woodward and the Fisher Freeway [[since I-96 parallels Grand River Avenue for a long stretch, there would be no need to have any stops south of Telegraph. As someone mentioned earlier, access to the commuter train would be no different than how people enter the El trains along the freeways it Chicago. Also, a concrete barrier would separate commuter rail traffic from auto traffic. The two would never mix with each other.

[AuburnSpeedster]

I think what could work would be something along the line of a light-ish rail along Michigan Ave starting at the Rosa Parks Transit Center in downtown going to Ypsilanti and then changing course to Washtenaw Ave up to Ann Arbor [[with a detour somewhere along Michigan Ave going down to the airport.)

With that system you could have the trains drop people off right through the center of Detroit, Dearborn, Ypsilanti, the airport, Wayne, Ann Arbor, etc. You also hit busy areas such as downtowns and college campuses right off the path.

However, in the less dense areas it could travel at higher speeds to decrease travel time, while in denser areas it could go slower for safety.

[DetroitPlanner]

For anyone interested, this recently showed up on SEMCOG's website:

"SEMCOG special event in Ypsilanti on August 16: Update on Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter rail service

It will be there all weekend.
http://annarbor.com/news/ypsilanti/s...live-@dt-river

[tkelly1986]

Has anyone ever noticed that there is a rail line down Shook Road [[just west of the airport) that connects the rail line linking Ann Arbor and Detroit [[the one that parallels Michigan) and the rail line that runs adjacent to the Airport's north boundary? Thus, we should ask; could this line be used as a connector for rail? Could an Detroit bound train from Ann Arbor make a 3 mile detour to a station next to the airport on the northern tracks [[possibly at Merriman)? And visa verse with an Ann Arbor bound train from Detroit?

I, of course, am not sure who owns the Shook Road track, but this is simply an interesting observation.

[professorscott]

I think what could work would be something along the line of a light-ish rail along Michigan Ave starting at the Rosa Parks Transit Center in downtown going to Ypsilanti and then changing course to Washtenaw Ave up to Ann Arbor [[with a detour somewhere along Michigan Ave going down to the airport.)

With that system you could have the trains drop people off right through the center of Detroit, Dearborn, Ypsilanti, the airport, Wayne, Ann Arbor, etc. You also hit busy areas such as downtowns and college campuses right off the path.

However, in the less dense areas it could travel at higher speeds to decrease travel time, while in denser areas it could go slower for safety.

That's something we'd like to get to eventually, and if we could afford to pay for it ourselves we'd do it. We need to ask the Fed for money for such a project, though, but such an application would not be competitive because existing transit ridership on that line is not very high. This is partly because of all the opt-out communities in western Wayne County and partly because the Detroit part of the Michigan Avenue corridor has very low ridership [[compare the DDOT Michigan Avenue schedule with, say, Gratiot or even Dexter).


So we have to do this in baby steps: improve bus service such that the ridership increases, then apply for a grant to build light rail. Takes an unfortunately long time, but that's most likely how we'd have to proceed. In the meantime, if the commuter rail ever does actually start operating, that is also an opportunity to show increased ridership.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroitnerd, I think your thoughts are more about light rail transit than commuter rail transit. Essentially the commuter line on the freeway would go non-stop from Ann Arbor until it got to certain stops in Metro Detroit. Those stops would be park and ride stops basically, so density is now the idea behind commuter rail on the freeways.

Maybe I should share my experiences with a successful commuter rail system. That might do better than anything I could accomplish by arguing against you.

I spend a fair amount of time commuting between New York City and Ossining, N.Y. Yes, there was a lot of park-and-ride activity at the station. It had a nice, big parking lot, not by our standards, but by the standards of a small Hudson River Valley community. It was near the water, where cool breezes would waft ashore. Sure, the parking lot was full every day, but at night, when the lot was virtually empty, the community would take it over, setting up chairs and holding outdoor jazz concerts. The rail station was really a focal point of the community and it was used well thanks to its intelligent layout.

Don't get me wrong: I once almost got whiplash standing on the platform and being surprised by an express train blasting past at 80 miles per hour. But in the parking lot, surrounded by greenery, it was a nice spot, a central spot, a place everybody was familiar with, and you could have a good time there. It was, in more ways than one, an asset to the community.

Now, you've had scales fall from your eyes when you look at our freeways and see how they could be used for rail travel.

Have you also noticed how monstrously ugly that infrastructure is? Have you noticed how communities don't come down to the expressway for jazz concerts? Have you noticed how they instead erect barrier walls so they don't have to see, smell or hear this fume-belching, droning, monotonous road?

You wouldn't be the first to think of our problems as being merely problems of engineering. That all you have to do is set up a rail in the middle of this right-of-way we have and people can use that because it's more convenient and easy to design. But the aesthetics are awful. You propose using a place that people don't want to be as the very place they should stand around and wait. On that level alone I'd say it's just not a good idea.

Look at a map of Ossining. It's beautiful. You walk down Main Street, the main stem of the town, and it leads down a curving slope with plenty of trees and greenery and drops you right down at the rail station. It's so well-designed. It's a pleasure to stroll to the train. This is how you make transit so that people want to use it.

[iheartthed]

Maybe I should share my experiences with a successful commuter rail system. That might do better than anything I could accomplish by arguing against you.

I spend a fair amount of time commuting between New York City and Ossining, N.Y. Yes, there was a lot of park-and-ride activity at the station. It had a nice, big parking lot, not by our standards, but by the standards of a small Hudson River Valley community. It was near the water, where cool breezes would waft ashore. Sure, the parking lot was full every day, but at night, when the lot was virtually empty, the community would take it over, setting up chairs and holding outdoor jazz concerts. The rail station was really a focal point of the community and it was used well thanks to its intelligent layout.

Don't get me wrong: I once almost got whiplash standing on the platform and being surprised by an express train blasting past at 80 miles per hour. But in the parking lot, surrounded by greenery, it was a nice spot, a central spot, a place everybody was familiar with, and you could have a good time there. It was, in more ways than one, an asset to the community.

Now, you've had scales fall from your eyes when you look at our freeways and see how they could be used for rail travel.

Have you also noticed how monstrously ugly that infrastructure is? Have you noticed how communities don't come down to the expressway for jazz concerts? Have you noticed how they instead erect barrier walls so they don't have to see, smell or hear this fume-belching, droning, monotonous road?

You wouldn't be the first to think of our problems as being merely problems of engineering. That all you have to do is set up a rail in the middle of this right-of-way we have and people can use that because it's more convenient and easy to design. But the aesthetics are awful. You propose using a place that people don't want to be as the very place they should stand around and wait. On that level alone I'd say it's just not a good idea.

Look at a map of Ossining. It's beautiful. You walk down Main Street, the main stem of the town, and it leads down a curving slope with plenty of trees and greenery and drops you right down at the rail station. It's so well-designed. It's a pleasure to stroll to the train. This is how you make transit so that people want to use it.

To be honest, I'm more concerned about giving suburban residents and visitors coming from the airport easier access to the city. If they wanted an urban community environment then they probably wouldn't be living where they chose to live.

Anywho... I think the real reason people use the Metro North is because it's practical to use and because it is less of a hassle to use public transportation to go to NYC than it is to drive. I use NJ Transit often and those stations are bare bones and often isolated by a sea of parking. However, they are easily accessible by suburban New Jersey residents who want/need to commute to New York or Philadelphia.

[Detroitnerd]

To be honest, I'm more concerned about giving suburban residents and visitors coming from the airport easier access to the city. If they wanted an urban community environment then they probably wouldn't be living where they chose to live.

I think you misunderstand me. Ossining is suburban, not urban. Lots of the earliest suburban developments centered on rail, not freeways.

Honestly, the aesthetic baseline here is so low as to be completely discouraging.

Go ahead, visionaries. Built your rail in the middle of an automotive sewer. You will get what you deserve.

[Meddle]

Been a while since I was there and looked, but isn't there a track from Detroit, through Dearborn, Ypsi, A2 and on to Chicago? And I seem to remember one along most of the Jefferies and M-14.

Rather than reinvent the wheel at high cost, change the regulations and scheduling on those. Build a few stations and access roads instead of a whole new system.

Then again, who'll ride any of it? Metro Detroiters use cars. I honestly can't remember anyone ever using any form of transit on a regular basis during the 70s, 80s early 90s when I was driving downtown [[almost) daily from the westside.

[professorscott]

Rather than reinvent the wheel at high cost, change the regulations and scheduling on those. Build a few stations and access roads instead of a whole new system.

Good luck changing the regulations, which are Federal [[FRA), and the schedules, which are set by the private companies which own the tracks. That's been the problem all along; that's 70% of the reason the Detroit to Ann Arbor light rail is not yet in operation.

[antongast]

I honestly can't remember anyone ever using any form of transit on a regular basis during the 70s, 80s early 90s when I was driving downtown [[almost) daily from the westside.

If you find yourself increasingly susceptible to memory lapses of this sort, you may be suffering from Alzheimer's disease. While not curable, it's possible to significantly slow its progress with a timely medical intervention. I recommend contacting your primary care provider as soon as possible to discuss treatment options.

[wolverine]

Has anyone ever noticed that there is a rail line down Shook Road [[just west of the airport) that connects the rail line linking Ann Arbor and Detroit [[the one that parallels Michigan) and the rail line that runs adjacent to the Airport's north boundary? Thus, we should ask; could this line be used as a connector for rail? Could an Detroit bound train from Ann Arbor make a 3 mile detour to a station next to the airport on the northern tracks [[possibly at Merriman)? And visa verse with an Ann Arbor bound train from Detroit?

I, of course, am not sure who owns the Shook Road track, but this is simply an interesting observation.

Probably not. You don't want trains crossing or switching at junctions. Turns are bad too. The commuter lines here have spent billions to shave off seconds of time and avoid any sort of at grade crossings by building expensive bridges and much wider turns. It would ultimately be cheaper to build an automated people mover from Westland to the airport than reconfigure a junction for fast commuter service.

[Downriviera]

Has anyone ever noticed that there is a rail line down Shook Road [[just west of the airport) that connects the rail line linking Ann Arbor and Detroit [[the one that parallels Michigan) and the rail line that runs adjacent to the Airport's north boundary? Thus, we should ask; could this line be used as a connector for rail? Could an Detroit bound train from Ann Arbor make a 3 mile detour to a station next to the airport on the northern tracks [[possibly at Merriman)? And visa verse with an Ann Arbor bound train from Detroit?

I, of course, am not sure who owns the Shook Road track, but this is simply an interesting observation.

The line down Shook Rd is the CSX Plymouth/Toledo line. It does intersect the Amtrak line near Michigan Ave in Wayne as well as the Norfolk Southern line just south of I94 in Romulus. The NS line runs north of Metro Airport from Melvindale yard to Ft. Wayne. This is an interesting idea, however there would have to be some major track reconfigurations. The other problem is the NS line is really busy with Canadian Pacific running their trains on it with trackage rights as well as all the NS trains.

[Hypestyles]

so what's john hertel supposed to be doing about this, if anything?

[professorscott]

so what's john hertel supposed to be doing about this, if anything?

Convincing the public to vote for funding for improvements. Before that happens, he hasn't the money to do anything whatever.

[ghettopalmetto]

Convincing the public to vote for funding for improvements. Before that happens, he hasn't the money to do anything whatever.

Correction: Vote for vague, ill-defined "improvements" that amount to a blank check for a non-existent plan. Any chance that's going to pass the smell test?

The logic here is circular.

[professorscott]

Correction: Vote for vague, ill-defined "improvements" that amount to a blank check for a non-existent plan. Any chance that's going to pass the smell test?

The logic here is circular.

Admittedly the current state of the plan is at a high level and there are a lot of operational details not yet worked out, but to call it nonexistent is inane. There are two plans, the one approved by the RTCC in December 2008 that is buried somewhere in SEMCOG's website, and the AATA plan which, I assume, can be found somewhere on their website.

As I said, Mr. Hertel's job is to make the public aware of what kind of improvements can be made for a particular sum of money, and then convince the public to vote to approve that sum in order to make those improvements.

Your cynicism is somewhat misplaced, I think. Mr. Hertel has run SMART for a few years, and I think it is a well run system given its budgetary constraints, which are troublesome and got much worse in the housing market collapse. If he was given a system to run and a reasonable amount of money with which to run it, I think people would be pleased with the results.

His job is to basically sell that message, and initially one of the tasks will be to paint a more complete picture - I agree with you here - on what transit could look like in the region with some more reasonable amount of funding. The 2008 RTCC plan focuses only on the major arteries, and was based on the assumption [[valid then) that local service would continue to be provided by the existing operators.

[Detroitnerd]

After a lifetime of experience with metro Detroit, I'd say that any amount of cynicism about rapid transit in Detroit is well-placed.

Year after year, we have studies, discussions, plans, more damn studies, more damn discussions, department-shuffling, renamings, motions, legislation, and more studies, of course.

And, year after year, the quality and amount of public transportation decreases.

I'm and older person who owns a house now, so I'm tied to this region. But since I have a lifetime of experience with all this BS, I know what to expect in the future, and I can give some actual non-BS advice:

Younger people and non-homeowners: Run away. Run as fast as your legs will carry you. Go somewhere that's serious about providing rapid transit and meeting your needs. Michigan's powers that be have been clear on this for a generation: We do not need you. Go away.

[Eber Brock Ward]

Or just move close enough in that you can ride your bike because it's actually affordable to do so here.

[professorscott]

I look at this differently than DetroitNerd, though I can certainly understand his frustration. But let's consider:

For the entire history of metro Detroit, there was never a regionally approved plan, until 2008. Now there is.

In 2008 the plan, of necessity, gathered dust, because there did not exist anyone who could implement it. With the strong push of Gov. Snyder and others, in 2012 an RTA [[which the region has never had) was enabled by legislation. [[Only Nixon can go to China, as Mr. Spock once said.)

Now there is, for the first time ever, an RTA, and they have a plan, for the first time ever, that they can start to work on implementing. The first step is to convince the public - not the politicians, the public - to pay for it.

If the public doesn't want to pay for it, then that's your answer. If the public does decide to fund it, then I think we're in good hands so far as getting it done is concerned.

[Detroitnerd]

I look at this differently than DetroitNerd, though I can certainly understand his frustration.

I appreciate your optimism and charitable outlook, professor. Still not holding my breath ...

[wolverine]

After a lifetime of experience with metro Detroit, I'd say that any amount of cynicism about rapid transit in Detroit is well-placed.

Year after year, we have studies, discussions, plans, more damn studies, more damn discussions, department-shuffling, renamings, motions, legislation, and more studies, of course.

And, year after year, the quality and amount of public transportation decreases.

I'm and older person who owns a house now, so I'm tied to this region. But since I have a lifetime of experience with all this BS, I know what to expect in the future, and I can give some actual non-BS advice:

Younger people and non-homeowners: Run away. Run as fast as your legs will carry you. Go somewhere that's serious about providing rapid transit and meeting your needs. Michigan's powers that be have been clear on this for a generation: We do not need you. Go away.

This is pretty much the reason why I left. I really love Michigan, but in my career we require a political climate that's open to all sort of development and expanded transit. I just couldn't wait around for it. I figured one day I'll settle down, be much more experienced in my career and willing to come back someday when things are further along and we'll be talking about expanding transit, adding stations and constructing 25+ story buildings in downtown Detroit. I just had to experience a real post-recession development boom to keep me excited about the work I do.

What's frustrating is seeing a place in Michigan that has so much pent-up demand and amazing potential held back by a group of skeptics that refuse to acknowledge a changing future in America that will ultimately be better for Detroit. It's worth throwing alot of money at such a risk. Because NOTHING has been working for Detroit.

Ultimately I think Detroit will get some decent rail transit and probably a well built commercial / residential corridor. But you need to get the snowball rolling down the hill now rather than later. If it's not Chicago that's the urban juggernaut with an endless tap on Michigan's graduates, it's other midwest cities such as Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Columbus or Cincinnati that will become increasingly influential places for grads to move.

I worry Michigan has got a bit of a narrow opportunity window now to make all the right moves