Who paid the capital costs of the Q line?

Is there a concise summary of how the capital costs of the Q line were paid? The original plan was for a line all the way to
8 mile road. That was later cut to the current 3.3 mile system.

I have read estimates of the capital costs of the present system were between $130 million and $142 million. How were they
paid? The Kresge Foundation apparently put up $35 million
and the state put up $10 million. The US DOT was prepared to put up substantial funds for the complete line to 8 mile but pulled out of that arrangement and may have put up between
$12 million and $37 million for the current system. Rock Financial purchased naming rights but I do not know the amount. The Illitch interests apparently put up some funds and got a stop at the new arena as well as a stop at Comerica Park.
The Penske organization apparently also funded the project and the modern new, attractive car barn is named for Mr. Penske.

A concise listing of how the capital costs were paid would be helpful.

The state recently appropriated $85 million to support operating costs for 17 years.

Thank you.

Check this link out, seems to have the breakdown you are looking for:

https://iamemenhiser.com/tag/m1-rail/

One source of funding was a $25 million TIGER grant from the US Department of Transportation

https://www.progressiverailroading.c...project--34915

Masterblaster,

You have provided the exact data I was seeking about the funding of
the Q line. Thank you very much. I use it every time I watch the
Tigers.

Thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by renf

The state recently appropriated $85 million to support operating costs for 17 years.

---

I knew it. I just knew it.

I knew we'd get robbed on this fiasco somehow.

We need to vote every single person that voted for this out of office and overturn this.

If Penske, Gilbert etc want to fund a toy train so they can trick Millennials into buying their condos, that's fine.

But we were told we wouldn't have to fund it, which is why all public opinion on the subject could be ignored.

Then they do this. Sickening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket

I knew it. I just knew it.

I knew we'd get robbed on this fiasco somehow.

We need to vote every single person that voted for this out of office and overturn this.

If Penske, Gilbert etc want to fund a toy train so they can trick Millennials into buying their condos, that's fine.

But we were told we wouldn't have to fund it, which is why all public opinion on the subject could be ignored.

Then they do this. Sickening.

---

Cry me a river, it was built by private interests and everyone knew it would be funded by the public at some point down the road. If you believed otherwise, I've got a bridge to sell ya.

We're better off with the Q Line existing than if it didn't. It's a modern system that can be expanded if we can ever build up the courage to do so. Something you can't say about the PM anymore, or any US built elevated rail system for that matter.

As downtown and midtown become more dense the line will only become more viable.

One thing I will say, this money should have been contributed towards system expansions/improvements rather than making it free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K-slice

this money should have been contributed towards system expansions/improvements rather than making it free.

---

After all the years of lies, where we were told it was viable [[even though we all knew it was folly, and totally unworkable), the are essentially admitting what we all knew. That light rail is a colossal waste of money. And that even with fares being free, is still gets little use.

The best thing we could do is sell off the rail cars and pave over the rails. Paving the rails would increase cyclists safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K-slice

We're better off with the Q Line existing than if it didn't. It's a modern system that can be expanded if we can ever build up the courage to do so. Something you can't say about the PM anymore, or any US built elevated rail system for that matter.

---

The QLine is a failure. It is what bitter suburbanites like Rocket point to and say, 'See public transit doesn't work here, it is a money pit, and a waste of taxpayer dollars'

An increase in population downtown and midtown will mean an increase in car traffic, which will make the line even more useless because it is not separated from car traffic and does not have traffic signal priority.

An elevated and automated 20-mile rail line was just completed in Honolulu. Also, elevated systems can be added upon - Vancouver has done it 2 times to its peoplemover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket

After all the years of lies, where we were told it was viable [[even though we all knew it was folly, and totally unworkable), the are essentially admitting what we all knew. That light rail is a colossal waste of money. And that even with fares being free, is still gets little use.

---

The QLine is not a light rail line. It is a streetcar line. It is not rapid transit. It is not a serious attempt at rapid transit.

In addition, the QLline trains are not light rail cars. Light rail cars have higher speed capacities, are longer in length, and can be connected to each other to increase capacity of a train set. The QLine cars cannot be connected.

Lastly, light rail lines typically have stops every 1/2 mile to a mile. The QLine stops every few blocks, thus slowing it down. It is not rapid transit.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/175701...transportation

The Q-Line wouldn't be a so called failure if it's allowed to expand to 8 mile rd. Yes I agree that the public should not had been forced to help pay the cost of operating it unless the money will go into expanding it to 8 mile rd. Some type of alternative transportation is needed in Detroit besides the busses. The QLine is in serious need of security to ride inside thr trains. Too many looney people and riff raff causing trouble and making the 3 mile trip uncomfortable for passengers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by renf

Is there a concise summary of how the capital costs of the Q line were paid? The original plan was for a line all the way to
8 mile road. That was later cut to the current 3.3 mile system.

I have read estimates of the capital costs of the present system were between $130 million and $142 million. How were they
paid? The Kresge Foundation apparently put up $35 million
and the state put up $10 million. The US DOT was prepared to put up substantial funds for the complete line to 8 mile but pulled out of that arrangement and may have put up between
$12 million and $37 million for the current system. Rock Financial purchased naming rights but I do not know the amount. The Illitch interests apparently put up some funds and got a stop at the new arena as well as a stop at Comerica Park.
The Penske organization apparently also funded the project and the modern new, attractive car barn is named for Mr. Penske.

A concise listing of how the capital costs were paid would be helpful.

The state recently appropriated $85 million to support operating costs for 17 years.

Thank you.

---

There wasn't an original plan and a downsized plan. There were two separate plans.

The city's project was a light rail line to 8 Mile. It would have ran in the median, had longer trains, would have connected to Rosa Parks Transit Center, and overall was a properly studied and planned light rail line. There could be debate about whether it was a good project [[imo not many light rail lines in the US are actually good transit), but it was competent.

Then there was a competing private project, which was a streetcar to New Center. Curb running, shorter trains, bad planning.

The city strong armed the private group into joining the city group. Basically, the city wanted the private money to go towards the light rail line. But the private group didn't want light rail, they wanted streetcar. So there was a lot of conflict about that. Which didn't end up mattering, because the city's project died, and the private group built what they had wanted to all along.

These are all good comments. I had not seen the table of granters before. I suspect that there was some state spending for the Q Line hidden in the cost of paving on Woodward and reconstructing the bridge over the freeway. I don't know if this is included in the "$10 million - State of Michigan" line. I suspect not.

The recent award of $5 million/year doesn't come from "the state," generally. This money comes from a redirection of hotel and bar taxes in the 3-county area under the State Convention Facility Development Act, which would otherwise be limited to subsidizing Cobo Hall [[or whatever it's called today). See Senate Bill 1223 of the last legislature. A related bill, SB 1222, makes these funds also usable for bike paths and plazas. So anyone visiting or drinking around Detroit will get the bill in their bar tab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masterblaster

The QLine is a failure. It is what bitter suburbanites like Rocket point to and say, 'See public transit doesn't work here, it is a money pit, and a waste of taxpayer dollars'

An increase in population downtown and midtown will mean an increase in car traffic, which will make the line even more useless because it is not separated from car traffic and does not have traffic signal priority.

An elevated and automated 20-mile rail line was just completed in Honolulu. Also, elevated systems can be added upon - Vancouver has done it 2 times to its peoplemover.

---

So the solution is... Make it not a failure! I'd argue that the management of the Q line has already done a good job of making the current route a success. Dedicated lanes in spots and other improvements have made riding it post-covid an efficient experience.

If needed close off more lanes for strictly transit vehicles, easy. Give it signal priority, the technology to do so is readily available, easy.

In case you couldn't tell, I'm proving that all the reasons listed for it being a "failure" [[besides the short track length) are all easily remedied with simple, known, solutions. Then extend the run up to Royal Oak with less frequent stops in more dedicated median lanes and boom, you have one leg of a highly efficient streetcar system.

We received the starter pack free of charge, so why not keep building off that?

https://urbanist.typepad.com/.a/6a00...27d9970c-800wi
What we have right now is the "Downtown" section. It's up to us if we want to extend it to look like the rest of the Typical Light Rail line.
https://humantransit.org/2010/03/str...ifference.html

The QLine wasn't designed to be the starting point of a light rail system, and a lot of work would need to be done to do this.

Stations

While vehicle size and frequency is usually the more important factor in capacity, station design is too. The size and layout of the QLine stations can only accommodate a small number of passengers before they get overcrowded. But they're located on narrow sidewalks, where there just isn't space for a proper station. They would need to be rebuilt, and the only space for them is the car lane towards the middle, which would leave Woodward with only one lane in each direction.

There's also the issue of platform length. The platforms would need to be two or three times longer, maybe even more, which many of the blocks aren't long enough for. Side streets would need to be shut down.

Vehicles

They're not very big, and they only have two doors, which slows down boarding. It might be possible to attach them into trains, but so much of the train would be empty drivers cabins it wouldn't be worth it. Since there's only enough vehicles to run the current service, you'd have to buy more with any expansion anyway. The current one could just be mixed in with the new ones, but that means that the new ones would be confined to the same standards as the old ones [[platform height, etc.). Overall the vehicle situation is acceptable, but they're something that you're putting up with until they can get phased out, not something with value that you're taking advantage of.

Power

The power system is designed to run the current service. Power substations would need to be built along the route in order to power more/bigger trains. They're about the size of a semi truck. Property would need to be acquired and they'd need to be built, although at least it's possible to put fake facades on them so they don't look too bad.

The battery stuff is an issue though. Because of the low clearance height of the rail overpass near New Center, they decided to run the streetcars partially off batteries, and since at that point they already had batteries they didn't build the catenaries over most of the route. This was a smart move, but it's not something that should be scaled up. So the underpass would need to be rebuilt much deeper for more clearance and the catenaries for the rest of the route would need to be built.

Maintenance Facility

They built it to be as small as possible for the planned service, and they put it on a piece of land where it can't be extended. It's also not capable of servicing longer vehicles. It would be possible to keep using it just for vehicle storage, but otherwise an entirely new maintenance facility would need to be built. Also, they didn't include a switch at the end of the line, so the current QLine would have to be shut down during construction of an extension.

Tracks

Out of the entire system, the only thing that could be used for a light rail line are the tracks, which are famously poorly positioned. Turning them into transit lanes would help and could make them acceptable and usable, but they'd still be interacting with traffic at all of the side streets, and would still not be as fast as if they were running in the center [[which isn't even very fast anyway). I don't think it makes sense to build an entire light rail system around those tracks.


Even if it had been designed to be expanded into a light rail line, there's still the question of whether light rail is the appropriate mode in the first place. If it's just running on the ground on Woodward, there's no point to it, it would be functionally the same as adding bus lanes. It'd be the same exact physical route, with the same interactions with traffic at the same locations, the same stations, except the light rail line would cost more.

The point of light rail is to save costs by strategically combining different amounts of grade separation. So for most of the route you might have an abandoned freight right of way that is already mostly grade separated. Other parts of the route can run in a median at grade in a street to save money. But then there are some spots where the road environment would be complicated and so you can invest the money you saved into some selective grade separation. For example, allowing trains to bypass a major road intersection by tunneling underneath it. But for us, Woodward itself is the exact kind of complicated environment that light rail lines try to avoid.

Thank you, Jason, for the detailed information about the Q line. I am
glad that we have it here in Detroit.

If the Qline was to be extended the a bigger facility will have to be built around the State fairgrounds area to accommodate the longer trains. It could run from State Fair to Grand Blvd where passengers could get off and transfer to the smaller Qline in order to travel south to downtown. The part that could run northward from Grand Blvd to 8 mile could only have few stops such as Clairmount, Manchester, 6 and 7 mile, and 8 mile rd. This way it would not be taking riders from DDOT whom are probably complaining how the Qline is taking away some of their riders within those 3 miles

Jason, I could go through this line by line but only 2 of the issues raised are legitimate things that would take more than a few minutes thought to overcome, so I'll just generalize.

The stations we have are localized and wouldn't need to be any larger than they are due to their close proximity to each other. In Toronto many of the downtown stations for their streetcars don't even have shelters, just a sign denoting what lines stop there. I agree future stations that are further spread out would require larger stations.

The vehicles are smaller that what would be ideal for an actual metro, but for the line proposed would be more than adequate at time of construction [[assuming extension within the next 10 years).

Of course power would need to be installed for the new line, but the technology is nothing out of the ordinary. Power on Woodward was built to support large commercial/industrial buildings buildings, this would be a drop in the bucket in comparison to what it was designed to support.

Of course a new facility would be built. The fairgrounds is already being repurposed for a large transit hub, so no issue there.

Woodward has very few busy cross streets from the Blvd to 8 mile, So traffic interaction with a dedicated lane would be minimal. The Davison and it's service drive, 7 mile, and maybe McNichols. Grade separation is the easy answer to these issues for the latter two, and a signal priority system at the Davidson solve that.

It depends on what you're wanting to do. It sounded like you want to use the QLine as a starting point for a light rail line. The QLine is not light rail, and not very much of it could be reused for a light rail line, and the parts that you could reuse you wouldn't want to.

If you're just talking about duplicating the QLine, more or less as-is, then yeah, the existing QLine could be used for that. But there also aren't any service quality or cost advantages over other modes, so for that it's less of a technical issue of whether it could be done and more of a question of why. Even doing a light rail line would be very questionable imo. These are modes that are just very poorly suited for Woodward.

I would be happy to hear the case made, because it would open up more transit possibilities for us.

Quote:

---

The stations we have are localized and wouldn't need to be any larger than they are due to their close proximity to each other. In Toronto many of the downtown stations for their streetcars don't even have shelters, just a sign denoting what lines stop there. I agree future stations that are further spread out would require larger stations.

---

It's true that if you have closer station spacing you can spread the passengers out more so that the stations don't go over capacity, but the QLine doesn't have close station spacing. Other than a few spots where specific destinations cause them to be closer, most of the stations are a third to a half mile apart. Typical close streetcar spacing is having a stop every few blocks like a bus.

Toronto's streetcar stops usually don't have shelters. But the tracks are also in the middle of the street, and you board the streetcar by walking into traffic. They're not ADA accessible. You pay your fare on the streetcar instead of at the station.

Quote:

---

The vehicles are smaller that what would be ideal for an actual metro, but for the line proposed would be more than adequate at time of construction [[assuming extension within the next 10 years).

---

So there's a line out to 8 Mile, with stations every half mile or so, the tracks have no interference from traffic except for the occasional intersection, which the train can sail though because of signal priority. With nothing in the way, the QLine streetcar flies by at its maximum speed of... 35 mph.

Then it gets to a station. Even though it carries a maximum of 125 people, there's only two doors, about a third as much door per passenger as a standard city bus. It takes a while but eventually everyone gets on or off.

It doesn't make sense to try to use the QLine streetcars in that way. It would make more sense to get light rail vehicles, which go 50+ mph, have more capacity, more doors, etc. And that don't have to deal with any of the battery stuff.

Quote:

---

Of course power would need to be installed for the new line, but the technology is nothing out of the ordinary. Power on Woodward was built to support large commercial/industrial buildings buildings, this would be a drop in the bucket in comparison to what it was designed to support.

---

The traction power substations take electricity from the power grid and convert it for use by the trains. The QLine already has these. One of them is visible at the maintenance facility [[https://goo.gl/maps/orhXjaw2ufCJjc8o7), and the rest are underground. But they're sized to provide power for the size and number of trains that we already have. If you have bigger trains or if you run more of the same trains, you need more power. Idk if it's a thing where you'd keep the old substations and add additional ones, or if you'd replace the old substations with bigger ones, so maybe there's some cost savings by using the existing QLine or maybe not.

Toronto is a good example for contrasting streetcars with light rail. This is one of their new light rail line's substations http://www.thecrosstown.ca/news-medi...-substation-12 . Their platforms are 5 times longer than ours.

Quote:

---

Of course a new facility would be built. The fairgrounds is already being repurposed for a large transit hub, so no issue there.

---

Maintenance facilities aren't put at transit hubs unless there's no other choice. For maintenance facilities you want large open land for plenty of space for storing the trains and moving them around and working on them, and for a transit station you want dense development. It used to be that the state fair grounds were good for that because there was a lot of big open space out of the way, but that space is now taken up by Amazon. At this point the maintenance facility would probably be in Highland Park.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason

It depends on what you're wanting to do. It sounded like you want to use the QLine as a starting point for a light rail line. The QLine is not light rail, and not very much of it could be reused for a light rail line, and the parts that you could reuse you wouldn't want to.

If you're just talking about duplicating the QLine, more or less as-is, then yeah, the existing QLine could be used for that. But there also aren't any service quality or cost advantages over other modes, so for that it's less of a technical issue of whether it could be done and more of a question of why. Even doing a light rail line would be very questionable imo. These are modes that are just very poorly suited for Woodward.

I would be happy to hear the case made, because it would open up more transit possibilities for us.



It's true that if you have closer station spacing you can spread the passengers out more so that the stations don't go over capacity, but the QLine doesn't have close station spacing. Other than a few spots where specific destinations cause them to be closer, most of the stations are a third to a half mile apart. Typical close streetcar spacing is having a stop every few blocks like a bus.

Toronto's streetcar stops usually don't have shelters. But the tracks are also in the middle of the street, and you board the streetcar by walking into traffic. They're not ADA accessible. You pay your fare on the streetcar instead of at the station.



So there's a line out to 8 Mile, with stations every half mile or so, the tracks have no interference from traffic except for the occasional intersection, which the train can sail though because of signal priority. With nothing in the way, the QLine streetcar flies by at its maximum speed of... 35 mph.

Then it gets to a station. Even though it carries a maximum of 125 people, there's only two doors, about a third as much door per passenger as a standard city bus. It takes a while but eventually everyone gets on or off.

It doesn't make sense to try to use the QLine streetcars in that way. It would make more sense to get light rail vehicles, which go 50+ mph, have more capacity, more doors, etc. And that don't have to deal with any of the battery stuff.



The traction power substations take electricity from the power grid and convert it for use by the trains. The QLine already has these. One of them is visible at the maintenance facility [[https://goo.gl/maps/orhXjaw2ufCJjc8o7), and the rest are underground. But they're sized to provide power for the size and number of trains that we already have. If you have bigger trains or if you run more of the same trains, you need more power. Idk if it's a thing where you'd keep the old substations and add additional ones, or if you'd replace the old substations with bigger ones, so maybe there's some cost savings by using the existing QLine or maybe not.

Toronto is a good example for contrasting streetcars with light rail. This is one of their new light rail line's substations http://www.thecrosstown.ca/news-medi...-substation-12 . Their platforms are 5 times longer than ours.



Maintenance facilities aren't put at transit hubs unless there's no other choice. For maintenance facilities you want large open land for plenty of space for storing the trains and moving them around and working on them, and for a transit station you want dense development. It used to be that the state fair grounds were good for that because there was a lot of big open space out of the way, but that space is now taken up by Amazon. At this point the maintenance facility would probably be in Highland Park.

---

A new bigger light rail project could be built just north of Grand Blvd where light rail trains can begin traveling northward to 8 mile with very few stops

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stasu1213

A new bigger light rail project could be built just north of Grand Blvd where light rail trains can begin traveling northward to 8 mile with very few stops

---

Having to switch modes of public transportation will require wait time. This will be a big disincentive to use Woodward public transport by a lot of folks. A bus would be faster. :eek:

Two different things,but with some similarities.

There is a graph in this link that shows the difference between the two and the roles they play.

https://ggwash.org/view/70749/is-that-a-streetcar-or-light-rail-heres-how-to-tell-the-difference

From 2020

The Detroit City Council approved an $18.6 million transit center that will be constructed on the site of the old Michigan State Fairgrounds in Detroit.

The approved plan calls for buses and passengers to use what had been the fairground's Dairy Cattle Building.

https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news...2C20by20a205-2

Somebody mentioned it was nixed in favor of amazon,is that correct? It was already funded with the sale of bonds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gistok

Having to switch modes of public transportation will require wait time. This will be a big disincentive to use Woodward public transport by a lot of folks. A bus would be faster. :eek:

---

Short term the bus would be faster. Long term a second line would get you to your destination faster. The train would only make certain stops en route to 8 mile rd. DDOT will still pick up and drop off at every stop. 6 trains would be sufficient for timely rides. They will arrive in sync with the QLine leaving. It's an inconvenience to having to get off one just to transfer to another. This is the only way that Determine could have an alternative mass transit system extending to 8 mile being that the QLine can't be refitted nor retooled to accommodate larger passenger capacity. Until then the Fast Bus is our best solution. Just wished there was a Jefferson Fadt bus and one for Van Dyke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

Two different things,but with some similarities.

There is a graph in this link that shows the difference between the two and the roles they play.

https://ggwash.org/view/70749/is-that-a-streetcar-or-light-rail-heres-how-to-tell-the-difference

From 2020

The Detroit City Council approved an $18.6 million transit center that will be constructed on the site of the old Michigan State Fairgrounds in Detroit.

The approved plan calls for buses and passengers to use what had been the fairground's Dairy Cattle Building.

https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news...2C20by20a205-2

Somebody mentioned it was nixed in favor of amazon,is that correct? It was already funded with the sale of bonds.

---

The Amazon building was completed a while ago - it was built in the footprint of the old horse/auto race track. The former Dairy Cattle Building is currently undergoing the transformation to a bus station. However, this building is easily 1/4 mile from Woodward and will not play into a potential Woodward Light Rail line unless it terminated there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masterblaster

The Amazon building was completed a while ago - it was built in the footprint of the old horse/auto race track. The former Dairy Cattle Building is currently undergoing the transformation to a bus station. However, this building is easily 1/4 mile from Woodward and will not play into a potential Woodward Light Rail line unless it terminated there.

---

I believe the intent was to run the actual high speed rail from up towards Ann Arbor to there and then the busses or street cars went into the city from there.

In order to deal with high speed rail effectively you have to deal with what is called the “last mile” plus they will need to connect excess ability to the fair grounds or X fairgrounds because of the future plans as a job center.

They are already calling it a transfer center.

As construction continues on the new State Fair Transit Center in the area of Woodward Avenue and Eight Mile Road, the current transit hub will be moved approximately 500 feet north on Woodward Avenue to an existing parking lot. The location change takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Monday, Nov. 7.

https://detroitmi.gov/departments/de...transit-center

According to that they have already connected it to Woodward,unless we are referring to two different state fair transit centers ?

The article is dated November 7th 2022

If they establish bus routes and can show the ridership numbers,easy enough to justify looking into converting into rail options in the future.

When it comes to moving more people faster,dedicated light rail or street cars make more sense on Woodward then busses,if the demand is there.

I have seen cases where you can ride a bicycle to your destination faster then you can take the bus,at that point you are not providing a service just a more comfortable ride,which defeats the intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

According to that they have already connected it to Woodward,unless we are referring to two different state fair transit centers ?

The article is dated November 7th 2022

If they establish bus routes and can show the ridership numbers,easy enough to justify looking into converting into rail options in the future.

When it comes to moving more people faster,dedicated light rail or street cars make more sense on Woodward then busses,if the demand is there.

I have seen cases where you can ride a bicycle to your destination faster then you can take the bus,at that point you are not providing a service just a more comfortable ride,which defeats the intent.

---

Please click on this Google Maps Link

The existing transit center was right on Woodward and would have been a great spot for a rapid transit station - right on Woodward. They are closing the old long-time station and are moving it 500 feet up Woodward, I guess to close the old one down and get it prepped for demolition.

The permanent transit center is the rectangular building next to 'Ralston Street'. This building, using the measurement calculator on Google Earth, is 1/3 of mile from Woodward. So it doesn't appear this 'transit center' is positioned to be a station for a rapid transit line along Woodward. It is too far away from Woodward.