Tonight 6-830, Give Snyder's Transit Point Man an earful at TRU Meeting

TRU meeting will feature Dennis Schornack.

University of Michigan Center at 3663 Woodward Ave, corner of Woodward and MLK/Mack Tonight between 6 and 830.

Schornack was hired this summer by Bill Rustem, Snyder's Director of Strategy. Rustem was Milliken's enviro point man with the bottle bill as his claim to fame in the '70's.

Schornack worked for years for John Engler to get laws passed on health care and environmental issues. Engler told George Bush 2 to appoint Schornack in about 2001 as the U.S. chair of the international joint commission. That mainly means working in Detroit and DC with the Canadians to maintain Great Lakes commerce and water quality.

The White House fired Schornack over a dispute in rural Washington state where a resident had built a fence for his dogs that encroached on the international border out in the woods.

Schornack is a good listener and reader and knows how to move legislation through the capitol. He has assembled the players in SE Michigan transit and the federal authorities. But there's no evidence that he's asserted pressure on people like L. Brooks and Norm White. Brooks' deputy, Jerry Poisson, is thrilled with the BRT plan, apparently. It will benefit the suburbs and it doesn't require rail.

There's no evidence that Schornack has read Origins of the Urban Crisis, even though he has it on his shelf. And there's no evidence he's trying to use transit as a way of redeveloping our barren city. Rustem too is willing to skip the economic development role that transit can play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaiko

TRU meeting will feature Dennis Schornack.

University of Michigan Center at 3663 Woodward Ave, corner of Woodward and MLK/Mack Tonight between 6 and 830.

Schornack was hired this summer by Bill Rustem, Snyder's Director of Strategy. Rustem was Milliken's enviro point man with the bottle bill as his claim to fame in the '70's.

Schornack worked for years for John Engler to get laws passed on health care and environmental issues. Engler told George Bush 2 to appoint Schornack in about 2001 as the U.S. chair of the international joint commission. That mainly means working in Detroit and DC with the Canadians to maintain Great Lakes commerce and water quality.

The White House fired Schornack over a dispute in rural Washington state where a resident had built a fence for his dogs that encroached on the international border out in the woods.

Schornack is a good listener and reader and knows how to move legislation through the capitol. He has assembled the players in SE Michigan transit and the federal authorities. But there's no evidence that he's asserted pressure on people like L. Brooks and Norm White. Brooks' deputy, Jerry Poisson, is thrilled with the BRT plan, apparently. It will benefit the suburbs and it doesn't require rail.

There's no evidence that Schornack has read Origins of the Urban Crisis, even though he has it on his shelf. And there's no evidence he's trying to use transit as a way of redeveloping our barren city. Rustem too is willing to skip the economic development role that transit can play.

---

It basically became a pep rally for BRT....however some of the other speakers did make mention of the current status of the RTA...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroit Stylin

It basically became a pep rally for BRT....however some of the other speakers did make mention of the current status of the RTA...

---

Pathetic and stupid plans being hatched by pathetic and myopic people. Nothing ever changes. How many suburbs are going to be willing to fund this BRT system they are all now championing? BRT doesn't even make sense for most of the suburbs. Why does nobody understand the importance of building real transit infrastructure in Southeast Michigan's urban core?

If people want to talk about an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars, let's discuss the pointlessness of running BRT buses down roads lined with winding, low density subdivisions. Of course, when this idiotic idea fails, people will probably blame the city and further disparage mass transit in general. It's like these people take their cues from a book on how not to design mass transit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrushStart

Pathetic and stupid plans being hatched by pathetic and myopic people. Nothing ever changes. How many suburbs are going to be willing to fund this BRT system they are all now championing? BRT doesn't even make sense for most of the suburbs. Why does nobody understand the importance of building real transit infrastructure in Southeast Michigan's urban core?

If people want to talk about an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars, let's discuss the pointlessness of running BRT buses down roads lined with winding, low density subdivisions. Of course, when this idiotic idea fails, people will probably blame the city and further disparage mass transit in general. It's like these people take their cues from a book on how not to design mass transit.

---

I'm so glad we have found another thread for BRT-bashing and light rail wet dreams. Let's take a look at the tape...

OK... first up, how many suburbs are willing to fund the BRT that goes through the suburbs? I'd say at least one more than are willing to fund the LRT that goes only to the fairgrounds, since that number is zero.

And... next, BRT buses down roads lined with winding, low density subdivisions. If you have looked at the BRT service map [[disregard M-59), there is more density within 1/2 mile radius of the lines than along the light rail past the Boulevard. I can list all the communities again... but these are inner-ring suburbs that were developed in an almost identical density and development pattern as much of Detroit. It won't hold a candle to the Downtown-New Center stretch, but that is 4 miles, compared to 70, 80, or more of walkable, populated communities [[including Gratiot and Michigan in Detroit). These 70-80 miles also happen to be where a great many Detroiters happen to work... but I'm sure they could have taken a DDOT bus to a SMART bus along Gratiot, maybe from the fairgrounds once the light rail dropped them off every 5 minutes to wait 60 minutes for a bus to take them somewhere they actually needed to go.



Last, the light rail did fail, and it was the City's fault, and instead of be idiots about it, the people in charge [[including Bing) recognized that the City was the limiting factor and sought a solution that could be supported by the REGION.

My message to anyone still pining for light rail is this: watch how difficult it is going to be to even get this modest BRT plan implemented. Watch the fighting over the next couple years for the funding, watch the opposition mount to this most inexpensive and basic of decent rapid transit modes.

This plan has a chance - just a very slim chance - of actually succeeding, and if it succeeds it will bring some decent mobility to the region that we haven't had since the last interurban took its final trip to the car-barn eighty years ago.

Light rail would have made sense if it had made any suburban connection - perhaps to Royal Oak, or better, to Birmingham. But nobody was even willing to attempt to plan such a thing. Light rail in the true urban core might yet happen; if Mr. Penske and Mr. Gilbert want to do such a thing, I'm not betting against them.

But for the region, a BRT system is what we can have - if we can even have that. There is much fighting ahead; those of us who are pro transit must conserve our energies, stop bickering about whether the tires are rubber or steel, and worry about the anti's who are certain to emerge from the woodwork in the coming months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

My message to anyone still pining for light rail is this: watch how difficult it is going to be to even get this modest BRT plan implemented. Watch the fighting over the next couple years for the funding, watch the opposition mount to this most inexpensive and basic of decent rapid transit modes.

This plan has a chance - just a very slim chance - of actually succeeding, and if it succeeds it will bring some decent mobility to the region that we haven't had since the last interurban took its final trip to the car-barn eighty years ago.

Light rail would have made sense if it had made any suburban connection - perhaps to Royal Oak, or better, to Birmingham. But nobody was even willing to attempt to plan such a thing. Light rail in the true urban core might yet happen; if Mr. Penske and Mr. Gilbert want to do such a thing, I'm not betting against them.

But for the region, a BRT system is what we can have - if we can even have that. There is much fighting ahead; those of us who are pro transit must conserve our energies, stop bickering about whether the tires are rubber or steel, and worry about the anti's who are certain to emerge from the woodwork in the coming months.

---

Well put.

Detroit is so very spread out -- that the maximum # of lines with given money is much more important than a signature LRT line for Woodward. [[Woodward's doing just fine, thank you.)

...since the anti's are in the decision making positions, my guess is that they will have the final word, regardless of "public sentiment".. Look for more 'studies/research/fact-finding committees' and no actual up or down vote, pushing it off until the next election term.. and the next group of do-nothings will follow..:[[

Just some observations on this so-called BRT that Snyder is proposing, because no one worth their salt in the media nor even in the transit community is calling BS...

- What is being called a BRT can not possibily be any such thing. At 83 miles [[not the 110 miles posted), and only 34 stations at $500 million, there is no way this is legitimate BRT [[i.e. dedicated lanes, priority, legitimate stations, etc...). What this sounds like, to me, is a regular, old express bus system, more than a legitimate rapid transit system [[BRT). It takes more than the ordering of a few fancy buses to make a legitimate BRT.

- On the high end of things, Lansing is proposing an 8.45 mile, 28 station, $194 million BRT. This is legitimate BRT. It's proposed to have a dedicated center lane, level boarding platforms, fare collection kiosks at the stations, etc...and 6 minute peak time service. It's currently applying to the FTA's Small Starts program to help fund its capital costs.

- On the low end of things, Grand Rapids is proposing the Silver Line, which is called BRT-lite. This is barebones BRT. None of the bells and whistles of the Lansing plan, the 9.8 mile, 19 station, $37 million line will be curb running [[which means no need for raised platforms) with no kiosks, a curb lane dedicated only during peak hours of operation, 10 minute peak service. Many transit experts don't even consider this legitimate BRT. It's currently applying to the FTA's Very Small Starts program for funding.

Now, there are no details of Detroit's Metro Connection Tri-County Triangle, mostly because no plan actually exists, but just looking at the cost per mile, it's looking like it may be slightly more than Grand Rapids lite system, but given the length of the lines in Metro Detroit, this will only be a glorified express bus, at best.

If all they are proposing is express bus for $500 million, they might as well just pump that money back into improving regular bus service in the region. There is no need for extra bus transit. This is one of those things where you do it big or you go home. I support light rail if only or mostly for the economic development benefits of it. But, if we're looking to upgrade bus service, that money could go way further in investing it in merging the routes of SMART and DDOT [[if even keeping the actual bodies independent), and simply upgrading traffic signals to give them priority. But, pawning off a $500 million express bus with far less economic development potential as a legitimate BRT or rapid transit system is simply dishonest.

If early polling is any indication, there isn't public support for the new taxes that would fund this system. Who's going to go out and sell this to the public? Snyder? L. Brooks Patterson? Without advocates for the system, what chances does it have with the voting public?

To follow-up the comments of Dexlin and Novine:

Pursuit of BRT will effectively kill *any* chance of future light rail or commuter rail in the region. Simply stated, the average taxpayer will think, "THIS is 'rapid' transit??? It's not very rapid at all! Why should I want to pony up more tax money to build a rail line that's also 'rapid' ? I'll just stick with my car, and instead of paying taxes for transit, use that money to buy more $10/gallon gasoline."

This BRT proposal is a scam. It's nothing more than express bus service--which could be implemented with existing rolling stock, by the way--being sold as some sort of "rapid" transit panacea. Hell, even a "true" BRT line [[like that in Cleveland) isn't very rapid compared to light rail. By deliberately overselling this stupid bus system and designing it to fail [[Hall Road? Seriously?), implementation WILL be the death knell for public support of transit in Detroit.

I understand the idea of not letting the Perfect become the enemy of the Good. But by merely dusting off a terrible plan from 15 years ago, the governor is setting up the region for disappointment, failure, and resentment. There is no "Good" in this idea, just Bad.

Do it right, God dammit, or don't do it at all.

^ Agree.

The BRT system being proposed is not going be the transformational type of infrastructure the region needs to move forward. It will not be the foundation for a true transit system that densifies our major corridors. It will not lead to significant spin-off development, and it will likely be hailed as an epic failure by suburban detractors.

I'm not against BRT or the formation of and RTA, which, as everyone knows, is an essential step. On that, we can agree. But, we already have a bus system, so why not just fund it?? Is a half-measure BRT system really going to set a precedence for future transit expansion? No, it will not. I'm not saying the Woodward LRT plans were perfect, in fact, the plan left a lot to be desired, i.e. not entering Oakland County, and cumbersome curbside service south of Gd Blvd. That said, it would have formed the basis for a true mass transit system, which could have included robust BRT lines down Michigan, Gratiot, Jefferson, and Grand River.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrushStart

I'm not against BRT or the formation of and RTA, which, as everyone knows, is an essential step. On that, we can agree. But, we already have a bus system, so why not just fund it?? Is a half-measure BRT system really going to set a precedence for future transit expansion? No, it will not. I'm not saying the Woodward LRT plans were perfect, in fact, the plan left a lot to be desired, i.e. not entering Oakland County, and cumbersome curbside service south of Gd Blvd. That said, it would have formed the basis for a true mass transit system, which could have included robust BRT lines down Michigan, Gratiot, Jefferson, and Grand River.

---

I couldn't agree more. While the Woodward LRT project was far from Perfect, it was a better "Good" than this BRT clunker. Hell...we could implement this BRT "plan" tomorrow--just start running buses that only stop every mile. All you need is new signage for the express service. That doesn't cost $500 million.

The Woodward LRT was at least a start toward something larger. Just because it stopped at 8 Mile in its initial incarnation doesn't mean it could never be extended into Oakland County later. And LRT at least earns you a return on investment in the form of new development = new tax dollars. Nobody ever built anything just because you stuck a lousy bus stop sign alongside the curb. Cleveland will beg to differ on this [[They claim something wild like $4 billion of new development due to BRT). But the facts in Cleveland show that most of the development was due to expansion of the ever-growing Cleveland Clinic, investment at CWRU and the Museum of Art, renovations and expansion at Cleveland State University, new convention center, residential development near Public Square, and a new casino--in other words, development at the ends of the line [[which also coincide with stations on the existing rail rapid transit system) that would have happened with or without the landscaped bus lanes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

This BRT proposal is a scam. It's nothing more than express bus service--which could be implemented with existing rolling stock, by the way--being sold as some sort of "rapid" transit panacea. Hell, even a "true" BRT line [[like that in Cleveland) isn't very rapid compared to light rail. By deliberately overselling this stupid bus system and designing it to fail [[Hall Road? Seriously?), implementation WILL be the death knell for public support of transit in Detroit.

---

Euclid Ave in Cleveland is not a dedicated lane. This slows down progression, but does it provide better service to riders over a regular bus? It depends on who you ask. If your goal is to move lots of people and provide a better system for the disabled then yes. Detroit however is blessed with wide boulevards and lots of additional capacity. By utilizing it for transit regardless of mode then you will do much to improve the walkability of the neighborhoods that it serves.

This leads to the final point. Do we want to continue to develop in a strip mall fashion or do we want to start pulling buildings closer to streets and making the areas more walkable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Euclid Ave in Cleveland is not a dedicated lane.

---

Actually, it is. Although it could have been the PCP in the Christmas cookies tricking my brain.

Image here: http://blog.cleveland.com/architectu...Euclid ph2.jpg

Quote:

---

This slows down progression, but does it provide better service to riders over a regular bus? It depends on who you ask.

---

Trip times from one end of the line to the other are something like 5 minutes shorter than on the old #6 bus [[35 minutes versus 40 minutes). Yee haw, that was worth 25 years of planning and $250 million.

Quote:

---

If your goal is to move lots of people and provide a better system for the disabled then yes. Detroit however is blessed with wide boulevards and lots of additional capacity. By utilizing it for transit regardless of mode then you will do much to improve the walkability of the neighborhoods that it serves.

This leads to the final point. Do we want to continue to develop in a strip mall fashion or do we want to start pulling buildings closer to streets and making the areas more walkable?

---

Not disagreeing with anything in this paragraph. Any method of bringing Woodward and the other radials from "highway" to "boulevard" would be a huge improvement toward walkability and more "urban" development. I just don't know that sticking a few new bus stop signs along the curb are going to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

But for the region, a BRT system is what we can have - if we can even have that. There is much fighting ahead; those of us who are pro transit must conserve our energies, stop bickering about whether the tires are rubber or steel, and worry about the anti's who are certain to emerge from the woodwork in the coming months.

---

OR, we can just vote with our feet and move to an area where this isn't a problem AND they already have heavily invested in transit.

Jeeeeez! Let's look at this in incremental affordable steps.

1. Get a RTA in place with a dedicated source of tax revenue. do not rely on contributions from each city, county, township, or village.

2. While a rail system would be great, the region needs forty or fifty lines, not one line up Woodward. We can get bus lines up and running far more quickly than we can get rail lines built.

3. Remember that a minority of people in the region work downtown. Far more than five radial lines are required. The guy in Fraser needs to get to his job in Southfield and the lady who lives near Harper and Chalmers needs to get to her job at Lakeside Mall.

4. DDOT and SMART are irretrievably broken. Build the new system with a view of gradually taking over their routes and having them just go out of business.

5. Dedicated curb lanes with full control over traffic signals and a mix of local and limited buses should move pretty quickly if used in conjunction with an aggressive towing program for illegal parkers [[and expensive rates for unimpounding your car).