Printable View
I was on Google Images and found this fantasy map of a subway system for Detroit [[not mine, BTW). Can someone tell me if that website shown in the map actually works? Plus, how will this connect with the Freshwater Railway?
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wi...oitMetro20.png
Ahh both this and Freshwater rail are made up. You can't connect independently made up things.
Nice map, I like the long routes makes for fewer transfers. Freshwater seems to be all over the place.
Why not ask this guy?
The Red Line is a lot of duplication. Turn it northwest out Grand River and run it out to Farmington and Novi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtburb
http://jackson-woods.net/transit/
This website?
Fantasies can have a productive purpose. They can conjure up many ideas, some of which might be of use. This map is more practical than the much more intricate one that has floated around which would use MCS as the major hub [[wildly impractical on a million levels) and extend rail into rural areas [[waste of resources). I don't think subways are a part of Detroit's transit future, but some rail is, and this map has some real pluses. Campus Martius makes sense as a hub. And the general layout of this system would allow for excellent connections with Amtrak, People Mover, city and suburban buses.
Connecting with a Windsor system almost certainly couldn't occur [[there would have to be Customs & Immigration for each passenger going either way), although that would be neat if it could.
Cool fantasy, can't help but think tho if it was reality and billy gates was going to fund the whole thing himself with a few friends help how many "haters" would show up hating on him and say it was a "embarrassment", a "joke", "useless" "what we don't need" etc.... And of course just pour the hate on Bill Gates mostly because he is wealthy and they are not.
The Tunnel Bus does it. It could be done for train passengers too.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
There was once an actual subway plan for Detroit. I've seen the maps, etc. at the Burton historical collection. We even voted in the plan to build the first, Woodward, line back in the 1930s. Of course, it never went any further.
Detroit used to have a subway plan back in the 1920s. However it was cancelled due many car companies wanting people to buy their cars.
I like it, seven lines with one of them extending into Canada.
Cross border ventures...They are breaking ground on a cross border airport here; the terminal is on the American side with the actual airport located in Tijuana.
All done with private funds.
In addition, another line [[the O train) actually exists entirely within Canada. Anyways, will any DDOT, SMART and Transit Windsor service be changed if this actually existed?Quote:
Originally Posted by SDCC
Why is the symbol for Google Chrome taking up all of Campus Martius?
HB
I'm the guy who made it; feel free to ask any other questions you have. The website goes to my personal transit map site [[not too much there right now but I have few other things in progress - just a hobby). Freshwater Railway is a commuter rail layout, not urban rapid transit, so it's on a different scale, but their "Baltimore" station is my "New Center" station [[or pretty close) so that'd be the main interchange in fantasy world. Unlike FWR I ignored MCS. Fantasy maps, or at least this one, can be an interesting mix of total implausibility and careful consideration for what would be "realistic". I judged using MCS in any major way to be unrealistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtburb
You and I talked about this before, Mikey, but I wanted to reiterate that I mainly agree. I left the word "subway" off for a reason. Just wanted to give people in Detroit an illustration of what a really first-class rapid transit system would look like that was also within the outer bounds of reality for a 4.5-million person region [[e.g. DC Metro scale, not NYC scale). It could be heavy rail [[DC), light rail [[Minneapolis), theoretically high-grade bus rapid transit [[...) or any mix thereof. Technology's not as important as the fundamental idea of a system that would let people rapidly get between all these places without having to use a personal vehicle.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
The Windsor thing was really funny. I got three media requests from Windsor when that map was published, none from Detroit. They were quite excited to be included ;) But they were also respectfully interested which was nice. I just thought "world's first international metro system!" made a fun hook for the map. I also wanted the map to be a unifying vision for the entire region - some other more subtle things like leaving off county lines also served that goal.
Haha, yes, that bothered me too... but at the end of the day I had picked a transfer icon style and although I tried switching out line colors that went through Campus Martius for less-primary colors like purple or pink, it just looked worse than a nice bold red, yellow, blue, green. There's a reason it works well for Chrome, and Microsoft, and eBay, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huggybear
Since I know who did Freshwater, I can easily explain the use of MCS: he is using existing tracks, and that's where they converge. A commuter rail system coming into Detroit from many directions would necessarily have a hub there, from which you would need some decent transit into downtown and New Center.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
Have you seen the 2008 regional plan, which included enhanced transit on several corridors? I wonder how it compares to what you've provided, and what you think of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
Of course the tunnel bus provides a linking service today, but an enhanced link would be a wonderful thing, and not out of the question from a technical or operational standpoint. Amtrak trains cross at Niagara, for example, so it can be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
Overall I wanted to thank you for doing this, and sharing it. Big visions help to move discussions beyond the petty.
Haha, yes, that bothered me too... but at the end of the day I had picked a transfer icon style and although I tried switching out line colors that went through Campus Martius for less-primary colors like purple or pink, it just looked worse than a nice bold red, yellow, blue, green. There's a reason it works well for Chrome, and Microsoft, and eBay, etc.[/QUOTE]
As an aside, prior 2005, Amtrak used to cross at Port Huron as well. Port Huron is not really transit, though it is transportation. Amtrak typically is charged with moving people inter-city; not within a region. It is sort of like comparing flight patterns to bus patterns; you can do it, but it does not get you anywhere. The best you can hope for is to improve peak hours service to the airport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_LimitedQuote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
Thanks for the explanation. I didn't intend to sound dismissive of FWR's design - given their constraints using MCS makes complete sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
Yes, I did see that plan and actually used it as an initial reference for some of the routes like Van Dyke. [[Link if anyone wants it.)Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
As far as the rapid transit recommendations, I have a specific question and general criticism. Of course, the routes all make a lot of sense and overall the plan would be a huge step in the right direction from my perspective, so please take the below as an attempt to be constructive.
1. Specifically, can anyone explain why the proposal shows rapid transit on M-59 as a potential LRT route? This looks like an incredibly transit-unfriendly stretch of suburban highway and it's way too far out to act as a useful link between Gratiot and Woodward service. If you want a northern suburbs/Macomb-Oakland line, why not 9 Mile / 11 Mile / 16 Mile?
2. Generally, I think that the rapid transit portions of the 2008 plan aren't clear on what they're trying to build. In fact, the maps here are part of the reason I made my own map. In my opinion, plans for new service should make clear the entire overall network or service being proposed. [[Yes, I'm heavily biased based on my interests.) This plan doesn't do that very well, and not just in terms of maps - it uses unclear [[to the public) terms like ART and BRT alongside LRT and it shows segments with multiple kinds of service and no hierarchy, e.g. "ART/LRT" or "BRT/LRT". It even shows different levels of service on the same corridor and "job connectors" that don't follow any road at all. That makes it hard to understand what will actually exist in 2035 in terms of concrete service.
As contrast I'll use the example of DC. When DC was building the Metro in the 70s/80s/90s, they literally filled in the map as they went along. People given a map in 1976 could pretty much navigate the system [[with a few minor operational alterations) as it existed when finished in 2001. Here's an example: 1977 DC Metro map.
What they didn't try to do was make a plan with lots of flexible service levels on different corridors, build a little G Street segment, and then see if five years later that justified finishing the route, or upgrading the service level, or whatever. And while I know the situation there was not equivalent to the situation here [[see below), I tend to think that in general the public is more likely to support a big ask when you have a clear vision for a useful system, even at the expense of coverage. Given that the 2008 plan finishes with a big ask - $10.5 billion dollars of capital costs over 25 years - I wish it had a much more focused presentation of what people were getting for their money.
[Disclaimer: I know, Federal money was available in DC, they got to reject many of their highways, not at all applicable, etc. But I think DC is a great aspirational example for Detroit in terms of a best case scenario. A core city of only about 650k, density low, known as America's "murder capital" 25 years ago with massive white flight and urban decay, similar total regional population, one-industry town, serious local jurisdicational conflicts, "leaders" like Marion Barry and so on. Detroit isn't likely to get to 800k daily riders, but if you build a good system people will ride and economic development can be attracted and concentrated despite all of that.]
[Disclaimer 2: I recognize how much work goes into a plan like the one mentioned and that it's easy for me to pick on presentation while glossing over great work done on specifics like bus routes and so on. Apologies for that. But presentation does matter and I'm just talking about the rapid transit portions.]
Yes, I don't think this would present any real difficulty. You'd just have to have everybody arriving in say Windsor from the US side de-board the train and then funnel them to customs checks instead of funneling them to faregates. After customs they can walk onto a second platform that's fully "in Canada" to re-board a train or they can exit the station.Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
You're welcome, I really enjoyed working on it. I'm glad you think it might be useful to the conversation around transit here.Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
The main thing was that there had to be a route connecting Oakland and Macomb Counties in order to get support, to get the plan approved. That general goal presents huge difficulties. Any road where it would look reasonable to provide the service, e.g. 9 Mile, there just isn't the real estate to get it done. M-59 has huge density generators at different parts of the day: Oakland U is nearby, the two big shopping centers in Macomb County, MC5, Beaumont. It also has a big technical advantage: you know those "lanes" along the central part of M-59 that are striped over and you can't drive on them? When M-59 was widened, Uncle Sugar's rules would not allow more driving lanes than M-59 ended up with, so the striped lanes can't be used... but they could be used for transit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
Admittedly, it's hard to imagine an M-59 transitway ever being built. The way the FTA scores projects, I can't see it qualifying for Federal funding under any circumstance, unless the formulas change in the future [[and drastically). Plus there are little operational difficulties, one being that you'd practically need shuttle service to get people across the street. On the other hand, if you developed it so that all the stops were just off M-59 - that is, have the bus pull into Oakland, into Lakeside, into Beaumont and so forth - it might accomplish something useful, but then it wouldn't be in any sense "rapid".
The presentation you'd like to see doesn't exist yet; in fact it's the initial charge of the RTA once it gets up and running, or at least one of them. The goal of the 2008 plan was to present to the "big four", who had to vote it up or down - and it could only be adopted by a unanimous vote - a long-term, fiscally constrained plan that they would all vote "yes" on. That is absolutely all it was meant to accomplish at the time. The idea was, once that was approved, the RTA would have a basis for something they could then flesh out and put into a form such as you describe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
What we really need is a plan that shows phased improvements to enhanced transit services overlaid with [[necessary) restructuring of local bus service to take advantage of the new routes. Since you mentioned DC, if you look at a DC bus map two years before Metro first started operating, and then look at a DC bus map from the mid 1990s when most of the subway was up and running, they are drastically different. Pre-Metro, the job of the buses was to get everybody everywhere [[which doesn't ever work, which is why everybody drove). Post-Metro, the job of the bus is to get you from your house to the nearest Metro at one end, and from Metro to your job [[or doctor, or grocery, or what have you) at the other end.
So your analysis is exactly correct; if the RTA is eventually going to "make a sale", as we might put it, first they have to provide an adequate description of what they are selling. Your map, overlaid with a system of modified local bus routes to get people to it, would be one such way to describe a new system. The 2008 plan wasn't meant to serve that purpose, which is why it doesn't :)
Your Detroit Metro concept map shows forward thinking and talent. The map is fairly detailed, did it take you very long to complete?Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huggybear
Google Chrome symbol at Grand Circus??? Ahhh… no.
You guys are reading too much into this. Google Chrome has 3 colors [[red, green and yellow) not 4 colors.
Look at it again. That color wheel is that way because 4 of the lines intersect there; the red, green, yellow and BLUE lines. Now look over at over at the Greenfield Village circle, where the red, light blue and purple lines all meet.
Get it?
Thanks very much for all of the explanations on both issues. I admit to high levels of ignorance when it comes to the actual sausage-making process of getting transit service implemented. So what was the fate of the 2008 plan - I assume it was actually approved? And any insights on where the process stands now given the RTA apparently has a new CEO?Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
Thanks for the compliments. Frankly, yes, it did take a long time. I worked on this in various versions over about an 18 month period. There was a lot of time spent poring over existing or defunct transit plans for the area, Google Maps / Street View, information about the city etc. as I tried to figure out lines and station placements. I was also learning the layout software as I went which added considerably to the time required, e.g. screwing things up without knowing it at the start and then having to fix them later. Overall the final version of the map probably required somewhere in the hundreds of hours but that's just a guess. More recent work has gone much faster - for instance, that little Kalamazoo map on my site was done in about a week of spare time. Right now I'm doing a piece based on Beijing and the sheer scale of that is going to tie me up for a good while.Quote:
Originally Posted by SDCC
Like I said though, this is just a hobby and I usually worked on it in bursts when I have less to do in my "real life." A couple hours a night for a week or two can get a lot done.
The 2008 Plan was put together by the old team in charge [[Regional Transit Coordinating Committee) with Granholm. It shared a lot of the SEMCOG plan from what is now a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
The person selected to be CEO is Mike Ford from AAATA. He is still working at AAATA and has not started at RTA.
The plan was approved in, I believe, November 2008. Once Mr. Ford starts at RTA [[assuming he does) and hires a staff, then one of the first things they will need to do is look at that plan and the Washtenaw County transit plan, decide whether they need to be updated, look at phasing and so on, in order to come up with something to sell to the public for a 2016 funding referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
Thank you very much, Junjie, for your work on this interesting project. There may be
some very modest state funding to look at the possibility of the cross state rail line that
appears on your Freshwater map. Maybe we will live to see some of your ideas develop
into real transportation.
Hi, I am in partial agreement with Hermod. Your plan totally excludes GRAND RIVER AVENUE, which is a major arterial road that radiates from Downtown to the extreme northwest corner of Detroit. The DDOT bus route that serves Grand River avenue has probably the 2nd or 3rd highest ridership of any transit route in the entire metro area. It should have its own rapid line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Where is the Southgate terminus on the C train located? It would make a bit more sense if it was at Eureka Road-Eureka is a bit more busier and important than Northline Road, however, whether it's at Northline or Eureka, it'll still provide a connection with SMART #160.
Yes, I'm aware of this. Admittedly there are a couple stations located on Grand River in my map but you're right that it's the obvious gap. Maybe for version 2 someday.Quote:
Originally Posted by masterblaster
This is where arbitrary "realism" considerations come into play despite the whole thing being fiction - I thought it would be more effective to keep the network around the size of existing transit systems in other comparable cities rather than try to add every potential route, and Grand River was the last "cut".
Thanks. I just want to be clear that I didn't make the Freshwater Rail map/system/website or contribute in any way to it. That's a much larger effort than my metro map.Quote:
Originally Posted by renf
I had it at Northline but either would work.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtburb
Well, if you moved it to Eureka, you could compensate by adding a new through station at Northline. Plus, since the C train runs along Fort Street here [[and thus along the Southgate/Wyandotte limits), you could add "Wyandotte" to the name of the Southgate station, plus, the New York Avenue station would make a bit more sense if it was at Emmons Boulevard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie