Issues with BRT before its even built.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...town-stops-off
Issues with BRT before its even built.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...town-stops-off
Wait... they're going to have BRT and light rail? I missed this announcement. Wow. This is an incredibly bad and redundant move. This will be amazing for the people that panic about walking the block from Woodward...
BRT will cover the whole length of Woodward; Rosa Parks Transit Center to Pontiac.Quote:
Originally Posted by nain rouge
I agree it does need to stop at more than two places downtown or it will be irrelevant to many. How about they stop at every other regular stop downtown?
But the Rosa Parks Transit Center isn't on Woodward.Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian
So what is the GODDAMN point of the system then?Quote:
Anderson's downtown solution is to have the BRT become a regular, non-rapid line downtown, and use the same stops now served by the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation bus system.
"Just follow the SMART routes in and out of the downtown. It solves the last mile problem," he said.
It literally won't be any faster?
I'm not even a fan of this sexybus idea but this is bullshit.
Why even try to sell the word "Rapid" when that's exactly what it won't be?
Why can't the normal DDOT/SMART routes be upgraded with this stuff if you're just going to water it down anyway?
This is what I've been saying ever since this idea was floated. There's nothing at all "rapid" about this proposed service. It kinda makes you wonder why it costs so much damn time and money.Quote:
Originally Posted by brizee
It would make sense for it to have a Cadillac Square station, that way it isn't interfering heavily with M1 and it would at least be able to get over to where most of the jobs are.
Why can't they just schedule the buses between the rail cars and have them use the rail stops that are currently being built?
This all goes back to the horrible idea several years ago to remove the Cadillac Square transit center to a completely inconvenient location [[now the RPTC). That way, we don't have to look at no dang stinking Poors when we go downtown.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48307
I really want to know who is pushing for BRT behind the scenes and why.
Yeah, RPTC would make a lot more sense there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Campus Martius is a good size park. Cadillac Square is much less used unless they have special events for food trucks.
Yea, you'd have to make a left turn at some point, wouldn't ya?Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Behind the scenes? It was pretty public that BRT was the cheaper option to light rail and would likely have more support because it covers a wider range.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
http://archive.freep.com/article/201...-gains-support
http://www.freep.com/article/2011121...arly-110-miles
Cheaper only in an apples-to-oranges sense. Do you honestly think a brand-new rapid transit system can be constructed for less than $5 million per mile?Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian
I do believe we're about to witness an incredible feat of half-assery.
http://archive.freep.com/article/201...-gains-support
http://www.freep.com/article/2011121...arly-110-miles
Or perhaps 4 or 5 right turns.
I'm pretty sure having 1 mile of a 27 mile system non-rapid doesn't mean the whole thing is non-rapid.Quote:
Originally Posted by brizee
No. But do people want a train or do they want a bus? Trains are more expensive. This is pretty much fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
It's only cheaper because they half-assed the planning of the BRT system and in the end it won't be of much use to anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian
ETA: Also, the reason why buses are always the more attractive option on paper is because you can it's easier to half-ass a bus system than a rail system, while still looking like you're doing something useful when you aren't.
The trade group: http://www.nbrti.org/Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
Basically, it's not rapid transit. You can gussy up buses to look like trains, but they're buses. They have slow, jerky acceleration, burn lots of fuel, can only carry so many passengers, and have a pretty short life as a vehicle.
You can get signal pre-emptions, dedicated lanes with berms to keep out other vehicles, stations, preticketing, etc. But there's no reason you couldn't get most of that stuff without calling it BRT, and the more expensive stuff often just doesn't happen. Why? It's called "BRT creep": It means that the penny-pinching government that wants to cheap out and do a BRT system is also going to cheap out on all the other stuff that makes a BRT system rapid, so ... you get a bus system. But you spent more money on it.
BRT has been on metro Detroit's "must try" list for a long time, and I suspect it has to do more with federal pressures and the biases of local officials against rail than anything amazing BRT systems can accomplish.
Also, when you upgrade a system, usually you do something called a study, where you find out how many people use mass transit in an area, and then you figure out if it's worth the upgrade.
If that's the case, why is the BRT being routed down Hall Road? There is no existing ridership on Hall Road. The road is not designed for transit at all.
I'll tell you why it's routed down Hall Road: Because this is supposed to be a system for society's losers. They're going to be the poor folks who take the bus from Detroit out to Hall Road to work for the people who drive. That's the conception, anyway. That and the fact that Macomb County demanded a piece of this action, whether it really works or not.
You gotta love metro Detroit. Every generation, they cook up a transit idea that works against all the successes everywhere else: People Mover [[1987), curbside billionaire parking shuttle [[2014), magic bus to nowhere [[2017), and beyond. It's almost designed to make you buy a car and scoff at the idea that public transportation works anywhere.
Rapid Transit is definitely more expensive to construct than the proposed bus system. SEMCOG isn't proposing Rapid Transit, though. If you think that Detroit is going to have a massive fleet of busses whizzing around with the speed and efficiency of subway trains, and have it cost barely anything to implement, you're sadly mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian
To use your words: This is pretty much fact. Otherwise, I think other cities would have jumped all over this idea by now, don't you think?
According to one of the guys that did the study on M1- Rail, a "full assed" BRT system on Woodward would be roughly $800 million. An LRT system on the same route would be $1.2 billion [[assuming the cost of M1-Rail would be extended across the whole route). $445 million dollar difference, but either way, it's not chump change and good luck convincing people that their taxes are going to pay for either.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
http://www.woodwardanalysis.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
:confused:Quote:
The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments [[SEMCOG) is conducting the Woodward Avenue Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis [[AA) project. The alternatives analysis will review rapid transit options for a 27-mile corridor along Woodward Avenue from downtown Detroit to downtown Pontiac. The study area includes Cities of Detroit, Highland Park, Ferndale, Pleasant Ridge, Royal Oak, Huntington Woods, Berkley, Birmingham, Bloomfield Township, Bloomfield Hills, and Pontiac.
Yup. The main challenge there is people who think of transit as an expense vs. people who think of transit as a civic asset.Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian
People in New York don't bemoan being saddled with the subway system. They see it as an asset. You couldn't have Lincoln Center unless you had a hole in the ground that can churn out 100,000 people in an hour. Without subways, the density of development in Manhattan would be simply impossible. There is no way to move that many people onto the island without heavy rail underground. No New Yorker would propose "saving money" or "lowering taxes" by switching to a bus system.
The challenge is getting people to understand that transit, at its best, is a development strategy. It's not about moving people around so much as it is creating locuses of employment, which then become hot spots for development, which then employ more people, which then drive expansion of the system, which then drive more development, which then drives more employment.
When people understand this, they usually don't have a problem allocating funds to these sorts of systems. They're economic drivers. Whether you ride the system or not, it throws off enough economic heat to benefit the region.
Also, they are expensive to build, but they are cheaper to run. You're not buying new buses every 5 to 10 years. Some rolling stock can last decades, when maintained properly. Also, rail has a proven track record of spurring development and economic activity. Buses, alas, not so much.
But, you're quite right, the understanding of this in metro Detroit is probably lower than anywhere else in the United States. Which is why we're stuck with proposing "cheaper" systems like BRT.
More correctly, they should say they're reviewing not-so-rapid transit plans. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian