Bus Rapid Transit

Everyone has already seen about the M1 rail and how it's suppose to be a catalyst for building a Metropolitan Transit System.

The M1 rail is a start, however, to use rail on all of the spokes that connect to Campus Maritus, would be expensive for the regional as a whole.

In one of the recent forums, I saw a few buses that look like trains.

Here's what I'm wondering:

Why haven't GM, Ford and Chrysler have started making buses like these? After all, there are some people who just don't need to be driving that are.

They could still make a profit from selling better buses than other auto companies.

Bottom line: LRT is too expensive, let's apply it where we can, but apply alternatives where we can't.

Recent discussion tangent on B.R.T..

http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/BRT.jpg

To my mind, there would be nothing wrong with implementing a regional BRT system in Detroit. It would take some limited infrastructure improvement, not even as much as can be seen above, no more certainly. Really, you could maybe even just install some of those cheap plastic things, I have no idea what they're called, but I know I have seen them, like orange plastic pipes that stick up out of the pavement but fold over when someone drives over them. Stick a camera on the front so you can issue tickets in cases of reckless disregard and update the stop lights to prioritize BRT traffic using a transmitter system, for example. It's not free, but it's cheap. With its low upfront costs, it can be used as a proxy for rail, if so desired, and it can probably function quite well on its own as well, or so I have read at some point, years ago.

On another level, it would be a great way for "Detroit", i.e. the big three, to enter this sub-market.

They're not doing so because paradigm-shifting innovation is not exactly their game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark

Why haven't GM, Ford and Chrysler have started making buses like these? After all, there are some people who just don't need to be driving that are.

They could still make a profit from selling better buses than other auto companies.

---

Ford dropped out of the large size transit and school bus market decades ago. Although they do still make them based off their E-Series platform which also goes into lots of other utility vehicles like ambulances.

Daimler Chrysler was making transit vehicles but the commercial bus division went with Daimler when they split. They still make them too.

GM designed and built the RTS series buses in '77 and sold the line in '87 which even after being transferred to a few more owners remained in production till '09.

It is interesting to note that the majority of DDOT buses on the road today are typically running with a Detroit Diesel engine. If these companies could make a profit building complete buses, they would. I think it's more cost effective for smaller third party companies to buy parts from all of them and combine them into their final product lines.

Anyone remember the short-lived DDOT Express bus system from the Kwame Era? I think they should do that with SMART buses in the city and in really busy routes in the suburbs[[Michigan, Woodward, Gratiot) overlap them with another local bus. But nothing is ever done around here to improve anything, only to deal with yet another cut or appease voters after you underestimated their backlash.

The problem with the Big 3 making buses is that there is not a constant demand. Detroit makes a big bus buy to get a system up, then there are no bus orders from Detroit until years later when the fleet begins to wear out. It is only if many cities use the same buses and you can get a constant flow of orders. The same occurs with rail equipment. Each order is unique and a single "job". As a result every new rail system has "teething" problems as the glitches which could have been worked out in mass production are worked through. No new rail cars today match the relibility of the old Budd RDC cars [[with their two-stroke Detroit Diesel engines)..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark

Everyone has already seen about the M1 rail and how it's suppose to be a catalyst for building a Metropolitan Transit System.

The M1 rail is a start, however, to use rail on all of the spokes that connect to Campus Maritus, would be expensive for the regional as a whole.

...

Bottom line: LRT is too expensive, let's apply it where we can, but apply alternatives where we can't.

---

LRT is "too expensive" compared to what? We've been through this time and again--to get bus service resembling anything close to "rapid" transit, the capital costs are often at least on par with LRT. There is no way, no how you can take a bumpy, diesel-belching bus and make it operate comparable to electric-powered rail--no matter how much molded plastic and nouveau graphics you use on the vehicle. People aren't stupid, so stop pretending that they'll be fooled by sexy graphics.

If people like you called the shots throughout American history, we'd still be driving our horses and buggies on dirt roads, and taking 3 week cruises to get to Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

If people like you called the shots throughout American history, we'd still be driving our horses and buggies on dirt roads, and taking 3 week cruises to get to Europe.

---

I didn't realize that 1890s electric railroad technology was all that "cutting edge".

How is your LRT going to be better than the old streetcars in technology?

BRT is a major component of the regional mass transit plan developed by John Hertel and approved by the Big 4 in December 2008.

That plan seems to be in limbo right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

I didn't realize that 1890s electric railroad technology was all that "cutting edge".

How is your LRT going to be better than the old streetcars in technology?

---

I never said that electric railroads are "cutting edge", but the technology works, doesn't it?

Do you have something that can transport more people in less physical space at a higher rate of speed for less cost? Folks like you have foisted your idealistic, Disney-esque 1950s vision of the future on us for decades. Maybe the rest of the world knows something that our pigeonholed highway engineers don't.

This isn't difficult. Keep it simple. No need to reinvent proven ideas.

Oooh! Buses that LOOK like rail vehicles and cost ALMOST AS MUCH as rail vehicles, but, unlike rail vehicles, are buses. Great idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Oooh! Buses that LOOK like rail vehicles and cost ALMOST AS MUCH as rail vehicles, but, unlike rail vehicles, are buses. Great idea.

---

I wonder if I make my pickup truck look like a Ferrari, will it ride like a Ferrari?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I wonder if I make my pickup truck look like a Ferrari, will it ride like a Ferrari?

---

Put some racing stripes on there and it'll FEEL faster. Just like BRT! Whoa, I feel as though I'm on a train, but it's a bus. Whee! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I never said that electric railroads are "cutting edge", but the technology works, doesn't it?

Do you have something that can transport more people in less physical space at a higher rate of speed for less cost? Folks like you have foisted your idealistic, Disney-esque 1950s vision of the future on us for decades. Maybe the rest of the world knows something that our pigeonholed highway engineers don't.

This isn't difficult. Keep it simple. No need to reinvent proven ideas.

---

Your argument was that people who opposed LRT were stuck in the horse and buggy days. I pointed out the logical fallacy of that argument.

Yes, there is nothing more efficient than a steel wheel rolling on a steel rail. Every time I see an 18-wheeler rolling down the interstate, I fume that that beast isn't on an inter-modal car on the railroad paralleling the interstate. Much of the maintenance costs of the interstate system are caused by the heavy trucks [[particularly in the south where there are no frost heaves). I think we should pass legislation prohibiting trucking for more than 75 miles from an inter-modal terminal.

As far as passenger rail is concerned, I am all for it if it can be built quickly and operated efficiently [[from the passenger standpoint). That means shorter and more frequent trains. The problem with the existing bus system is that it doesn't run frequently enough, it doesn't have convenient connections to where I want to go, and the predominant ridership trashes the experience for others. How does your LRT solve those problems?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Your argument was that people who opposed LRT were stuck in the horse and buggy days. I pointed out the logical fallacy of that argument.

---

I never made such an assertion. My statement was that if our history was full of people going around doing nothing except whining how "expensive" everything is, we'd never have invested a damned dime in our own well-being.

The people who don't like BRT have a strong tendency to overstate their arguments. If you want to make BRT that runs exactly like LRT, then it costs something like LRT. But there isn't any reason it has to run exactly like LRT; it can run a lot better than regular buses for a cost that is a lot less than LRT, and it can be implemented more quickly. It probably won't have whatever economic development effects people expect LRT to have. People who hate buses may not ride it. That doesn't mean it doesn't have an appropriate use.

NYC is introducing BRT in several areas [[ see http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/sbs/projectupdate.htm ) and my opinion is that they are doing this because they think it is their best feasible option, not because they are confused about the benefits of various forms of mass transit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

The people who don't like BRT have a strong tendency to overstate their arguments. If you want to make BRT that runs exactly like LRT, then it costs something like LRT. But there isn't any reason it has to run exactly like LRT; it can run a lot better than regular buses for a cost that is a lot less than LRT, and it can be implemented more quickly. It probably won't have whatever economic development effects people expect LRT to have.

---

Then don't fucking sell BRT as "Just like trains on tires. Tee hee!"

Invariably, this is what is done in EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMNED CASE where BRT is implemented. People aren't dumb. Stop insulting their intelligence.

And if buses don't run like rapid transit, then they're not very "rapid" are they? I think there's a name for a mode like that. Oh, right--a fucking BUS.

Quote:

---

Then don't fucking sell BRT as "Just like trains on tires. Tee hee!"

Invariably, this is what is done in EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMNED CASE where BRT is implemented. People aren't dumb. Stop insulting their intelligence.

And if buses don't run like rapid transit, then they're not very "rapid" are they? I think there's a name for a mode like that. Oh, right--a fucking BUS.

---

I don't think "rapid" is precisely defined term. In the context of transit I think it is reasonable to think it means faster than you would expect from other mass transit. And my opinion is that the term "Bus Rapid Transit" strongly implies the use of a bus, so I don't think that is particularly deceptive. I think there is a clear difference between how a regular bus service works and how a BRT service works. If you think they are equivalent, then we simply disagree.

Why would NYC use buses? Buses are FEEDER VEHICLES for the main system, which is rail-based. Buses are great feeder vehicles; what they do best is rip through low-density areas to feed rail systems, which move many more thousands of people on trunk lines very quickly. The main problem, from my perspective, is that Detroit doesn't even have the rail base. That's what we need up and running because it is a mode of choice, rides smoother, has a proven track record of moving more people more efficiently, and has a proven track record of attracting transit-oriented development, and has no exhaust at point of use. Build some trunk rail lines, and then I think we can talk about upgrading bus service to feed that rail-based system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I don't think "rapid" is precisely defined term. In the context of transit I think it is reasonable to think it means faster than you would expect from other mass transit. And my opinion is that the term "Bus Rapid Transit" strongly implies the use of a bus, so I don't think that is particularly deceptive. I think there is a clear difference between how a regular bus service works and how a BRT service works. If you think they are equivalent, then we simply disagree.

---

The bus rapid transit line on Euclid Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio has an average operating speed of 15 mph. What's so "rapid" about that???

Nothing. It's a God damned bus. That is all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

The bus rapid transit line on Euclid Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio has an average operating speed of 15 mph. What's so "rapid" about that???

Nothing. It's a God damned bus. That is all.

---

How fast is LRT REALLY going to go up an down woodard? Depending on what plan gets done [[sometime around 2050 at this rate) the damn thing is likely going to be stopping every 1/8th of a mile.

I'm with you that BRT is stupid, but what is proposed around here as LRT is just as stupid so I say go with the stupid idea that is cheaper.

Quote:

---

would NYC use buses? Buses are FEEDER VEHICLES for the main system

---

NYC already had buses already to feed the subways. They are putting in the BRT because they are better for some purposes than regular buses, and can serve some areas not served by the subways. I'm not trying to draw some equivalence between NYC and Detroit, except to point out that some places with transit experience think that BRT has some advantages over other modes in some situations. That would seem like a fairly limited and obvious point, but some people don't seem to agree with it, and appear to assert that either regular buses or LRT will be superior in any given situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

NYC already had buses already to feed the subways. They are putting in the BRT because they are better for some purposes than regular buses, and can serve some areas not served by the subways. I'm not trying to draw some equivalence between NYC and Detroit, except to point out that some places with transit experience think that BRT has some advantages over other modes in some situations. That would seem like a fairly limited and obvious point, but some people don't seem to agree with it, and appear to assert that either regular buses or LRT will be superior in any given situation.

---

Dude, Detroit hasn't had rail transit in 54 years. All of our commercial corridors, skyscrapers and dense thoroughfares were built around a light rail system. This isn't a matter of trying to think up some experiment that will work in Detroit. It's a matter of restoring the service that this environment was built around. But, OK, whatever, let's wait on that light rail thing for another 54 years and try lots of monorails, high-toned bus systems and other things that have no proven track record of working in Detroit. While we're at it, let's demolish a few more skyscrapers for more tremendous parking structures. That way, we won't have the density to support light rail and we'll be wedded forever to an expensive bus system where we have to buy new vehicles every few years. Idiocy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

NYC already had buses already to feed the subways. They are putting in the BRT because they are better for some purposes than regular buses, and can serve some areas not served by the subways. I'm not trying to draw some equivalence between NYC and Detroit, except to point out that some places with transit experience think that BRT has some advantages over other modes in some situations. That would seem like a fairly limited and obvious point, but some people don't seem to agree with it, and appear to assert that either regular buses or LRT will be superior in any given situation.

---

Keyword: some situations.

NYC is not proposing BRT as an alternative to the subway system. Instead, it is proposing it as a complimentary piece to the overall system, and to also act as an overflow for the subway.

I think the disconnect here is that some forum members are touting BRT as an alternative to Detroit needing to invest in rail transit... And well, it just isn't. So I'll just sum it all up in this paragraph:

Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system.

And then once that ball is rolling you can start talking about supplementary projects like BRT. But until then all other points are moot, and Detroit's transit system will never be World Class [[and likewise, the Detroit area will never again be a World Class region).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Keyword: some situations.

NYC is not proposing BRT as an alternative to the subway system. Instead, it is proposing it as a complimentary piece to the overall system, and to also act as an overflow for the subway.

I think the disconnect here is that some forum members are touting BRT as an alternative to Detroit needing to invest in rail transit... And well, it just isn't. So I'll just sum it all up in this paragraph:

Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system.

And then once that ball is rolling you can start talking about supplementary projects like BRT. But until then all other points are moot, and Detroit's transit system will never be World Class [[and likewise, the Detroit area will never again be a World Class region).

---

The "disconnect" is not the forum members touting it...its the Plan itself that is touting it. Which is why the entire plan is destined to fail.

BRT is great if the goal is creating additional transit. But, if the goal is to spur development, improve density, and build serious infrastructure appealing to businesses and residents, then BRT does nothing more than conventional buses. Personally, Detroit needs all of the above, which is why LRT is the sensible way to go. Why would one buy a product that only accomplishes 1/4 of the region's needs, when for a little more, we can get the whole package. We do need more mass transit, but we more desperately need the tangential benefits associated with permanent transit infrastructure- LRT.

LRT and BRT will both move people, but LRT will have a profound impact on the viability and success of the region, BRT will not.

It appears from the map on the mta site that the BRT will run through the flatlands, the one part of brooklyn that has no rail service and is the least-dense part of NYC in terms of population [[trains end @ flatbush/ Brooklyn College) and another runs on trainless staten island. the bronx line is unfamililiar, but the east side manhattan routes mirror THE most crowded lines

I think there should be LRT down Woodward rather than BRT. I agree that there would be development advantages. I don't think it would be much faster, but that isn't relevant, and "much" faster is arguable.

That isn't the same as thinking that BRT is just the same as buses. It isn't, but it seems people who really want LRT let that blind them to the good points of BRT.

Since BRT proponents are always talking about how much "cheaper" BRT is than rail, let's look at some numbers.

These numbers are from the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority for 2008. I'd be interested to see the 2009 data when it becomes available, to see if they break out the Euclid Avenue BRT line as a separate mode.

I picked Cleveland as an example, because of its similarities in geography, history, demographics and built form when compared to Detroit.

Mode / Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile / Unlinked Trips Per Vehicle Mile

Bus / $1.02 / 2.42
Light Rail / $0.71 / 4.08
Heavy Rail / $0.47 / 3.73

SOURCE: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/5015.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

That isn't the same as thinking that BRT is just the same as buses. It isn't, but it seems people who really want LRT let that blind them to the good points of BRT.

---

And just what are the "good points" of BRT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

And just what are the "good points" of BRT?

---

FLEXIBILITY! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

FLEXIBILITY! :p

---

Ease of changing how that route is ran, compared to LRT. If construction had to be done within an LRT area, that service would slow or be halted temporary.

With BRT, the route could be temporarily rerouted to continue service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark

Ease of changing how that route is ran, compared to LRT. If construction had to be done within an LRT area, that service would slow or be halted temporary.

With BRT, the route could be temporarily rerouted to continue service.

---

You want to offer a PERMANENT level of inferior service [[and forego economic development associated with the permanance of rail) in order to accommodate circumstances that MIGHT occur.

Gee, why did we ever build the Interstate Highway System? I mean, if we would ever need to do construction on the Interstates, it might SLOW the traffic for a temporary period of time. The horrors!!!

My God. It almost makes you wonder how cities with REAL transit even survive!

Did the thought ever occur to you that the lack of permanence of buses is what makes them such easy targets for budget-cutting ideologues who would rather dump transit funding money into say, widenings of I-75?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Mode / Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile / Unlinked Trips Per Vehicle Mile

Bus / $1.02 / 2.42
Light Rail / $0.71 / 4.08
Heavy Rail / $0.47 / 3.73

SOURCE: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/5015.pdf

---

Using the same source DDOT's operating expense per passenger mile is very close to the light rail number but DTC's is $3.75.

What are the capital costs for each mode?

The NEPA process for M-1 should review all of these things in an open process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Using the same source DDOT's operating expense per passenger mile is very close to the light rail number but DTC's is $3.75.

---

Part of that is due to the population density of the service area. DDOT serves 870,000 or so people within 139 square miles. Greater Cleveland RTA serves a population of 1.3 million over an area of 440 square miles.

In other words, DDOT buses are less apt to "go empty" when travelling through areas of low [[suburban) population density, so they would have a higher passenger load, and thus lower operating expense per passenger mile. It's really an apples-to-oranges comparison, though. The idea to take away is not the absolute costs, but the difference in operating costs between bus versus rail transit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Keyword: some situations.

NYC is not proposing BRT as an alternative to the subway system. Instead, it is proposing it as a complimentary piece to the overall system, and to also act as an overflow for the subway.

I think the disconnect here is that some forum members are touting BRT as an alternative to Detroit needing to invest in rail transit... And well, it just isn't. So I'll just sum it all up in this paragraph:

. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system.

And then once that ball is rolling you can start talking about supplementary projects like BRT. But until then all other points are moot, and Detroit's transit system will never be World Class [[and likewise, the Detroit area will never again be a World Class region).

---

I concur. A rail system going up woodward, grand river, and gratiot are needed. Rapid transit buses are needed as well. Since the taxpayer bailout of GM and Chrysler first happened, I felt that the government should have forced both firms to get involved with mass-transit products such as next-gen buses and the rail cars needed for a rail line; have Detroit be the pilot project; i sent out dozens of letters to the White House on down, but of course, here we are, with the IPO getting ready to happen and the only thing to show for it is the $41K Volt..

Quote:

---

ghettopalmetto;175557]Then don't fucking sell BRT as "Just like trains on tires. Tee hee!"

---

GT, that's a funny one, actually the Montreal Metro cars runs on tires, and a chinese company managed to stop a contract to be granted by the transit authority to Bombardier/Alstom consortium to build the new trains. The chinese claim the transit authority as no right to ask for pneumatic rolling stock as opposed to the steeel wheel cars they are proposing. So the overdue trainset is pushed back again. Imgine the bidder claims that the client has no right to cue contractors on technicalities like wheels and bogies, etc... Far fetched? It is being fought in the courts as we speak...

>>Why would NYC use buses? Buses are FEEDER VEHICLES for the main system, which is rail-based.<<

That is how it works in Toronto, but NYC has buses that run long distances, even from the outer boroughs into Manhattan. It also has buses in Manhattan that run along the same streets as subways do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimminyCricket

>>Why would NYC use buses? Buses are FEEDER VEHICLES for the main system, which is rail-based.<<

That is how it works in Toronto, but NYC has buses that run long distances, even from the outer boroughs into Manhattan. It also has buses in Manhattan that run along the same streets as subways do.

---

Rarely does anyone in NYC take a bus more than a mile on a route that is served by a train line. Buses that run along the same route as subways are used for short haul trips, either to a local destination or to a subway station for a longer trip. Just because a bus runs parallel to a subway does not mean that it isn't still acting as a feeder, since bus stops are generally spaced every two blocks and subway stops roughly every half mile.

The high-tech wave of the future! Or not!

Quote:

---

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- RTA's HealthLine -- a bus/rapid transit touted as a faster, more efficient way to travel Euclid Avenue -- is moving at about the same slow pace as the bus it replaced.

A westbound bus ride during weekday mornings and evening rush hours along the 7.1-mile corridor averaged 44 minutes instead of the 33 minutes it is supposed to take, according to the latest data provided by the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority for the first three months of this year.

---

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010...ng_slower.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

The high-tech wave of the future! Or not!



http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010...ng_slower.html

---

Great, but since they are going to put the train in traffic anyway, why not build the cheapest option?

It's not necessarily the case that the Woodward light rail line will be in mixed traffic. That's one of several competing options, and we'll have to wait to see what happens.

It would be interesting to find out why the Cleveland "rapid" bus isn't very rapid. Those systems can actually work pretty well, but only when they're developed with all the necessary characteristics. Just for one tiny example, if you let people pay cash when they board the bus, it will never be rapid [[ask anyone who ever rides a bus).

BRT definitely has its place, but unfortunately planners tend to cut corners and the result tends to be, as Cleveland has discovered, a really expensive version of an ordinary fixed-route bus.

Cleveland's Euclid Corridor route uses prepayment of fares. Passengers purchase farecards at the station, and enforcement is through the "honor system". Police have the right to request proof of fare payment of passengers on the vehicles.

Even still, the *scheduled* average speed is a whopping 13 mph. In practice, as noted by GCRTA's own data, average travel speeds along the route have been less than 10 mph. I'm not convinced that's worth $200 million. I tend to think that if they had simply instituted prepayment of fares on the old #6 bus, they would have achieved the same results, but without tens of millions of dollars of FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDS spent on streetscaping.

I agree, Ghetto. What I'm curious about, is why is the service so slow? If it's not on-board fare payment, it must be some other reason.

Anyone have any idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Do you have something that can transport more people in less physical space at a higher rate of speed for less cost? Folks like you have foisted your idealistic, Disney-esque 1950s vision of the future on us for decades.

---

Excellent point. Disney was going to extend the monorail at Disney World to the new parks, but the cost had become prohibitively expensive for the buildout. They looked at light rail, but it had the same problems - the high build-out cost would take decades to recoup in reduced operating expenses over buses, and adding routes would cost even more. They have an incredibly efficient bus system in it's stead.

Light rail can be a fantastic solution, but only assuming traffic and population patterns remain constant. A line that makes sense now might not make any sense in fifteen years. LA has had this problem with Metro Rail - it requires huge subsidies to keep it running as the original layout doesn't service LA's evolving traffic patterns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBMcB

Light rail can be a fantastic solution, but only assuming traffic and population patterns remain constant. A line that makes sense now might not make any sense in fifteen years. LA has had this problem with Metro Rail - it requires huge subsidies to keep it running as the original layout doesn't service LA's evolving traffic patterns.

---

Yet we're supposed to believe that far-more-expensive freeways are moveable???

[[Have you ever noticed that the New York City Subway is over 100 years old, yet New York hasn't experienced the same "evolving traffic patterns" that places like Los Angeles and Atlanta have???)

Which one is the chicken and which one is the egg?

Do you think Henry Huntington built the Pacific Electric Railway in Los Angeles fearing that traffic patterns might "evolve" in the future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Yet we're supposed to believe that far-more-expensive freeways are moveable???

[[Have you ever noticed that the New York City Subway is over 100 years old, yet New York hasn't experienced the same "evolving traffic patterns" that places like Los Angeles and Atlanta have???)

Which one is the chicken and which one is the egg?

Do you think Henry Huntington built the Pacific Electric Railway in Los Angeles fearing that traffic patterns might "evolve" in the future?

---

Uh, yeah, but, um, cars are really all I understand, so, um, I just tell myself soothing falsities to justify that which I am familiar with and to explain away that which I don't understand. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Yet we're supposed to believe that far-more-expensive freeways are moveable???

---

No, but if the New Center to 8 and Woodward spar becomes underutilized, moving the express station up one mile to 9 is a lot easier than laying another mile of track.

Quote:

---

[[Have you ever noticed that the New York City Subway is over 100 years old, yet New York hasn't experienced the same "evolving traffic patterns" that places like Los Angeles and Atlanta have???)

---

Right, because NYC has pretty much always had a dense population pattern. It also helps that it's an island, so ports/jobs were just about everywhere, ensuring continuous population density.

The metropolitan LA area [[and Detroit) have nothing but room to grow.

Quote:

---

Do you think Henry Huntington built the Pacific Electric Railway in Los Angeles fearing that traffic patterns might "evolve" in the future?

---

No, but I bet a lot of coach builders and blacksmiths were unhappy about the project. In fact, I remember seeing some rather amusing propaganda by the trades guilds showing how the dangerous new electric trolleys would slaughter pedestrians under their iron wheels in a museum somewhere or other.

It comes down to why you want a public transportation system. If it's to serve the public at large as an efficient and flexible transportation system, right now, buses are the way to go. If you want to affect some sort of social engineering through mass transit, a rail system is doomed to fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

It would be interesting to find out why the Cleveland "rapid" bus isn't very rapid.

---

Because they didn't build BRT. They just bought a nicer bus.

Quote:

---

From http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010...ng_slower.html:
Buses may be moving slower because the city, in trying to adjust the traffic lights, disconnected a component in the signals that allows a bus to continue in its dedicated lane through an intersection, even though the light has turned red for other vehicles.

---

This warrants a collective facepalm.http://rob.nu/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/facepalm2.jpg

In the 1950s, bus' flexibility was viewed as a virtue, but it turned out that when the routes and stops can be moved so easily, developers don't have much confidence in them being there in the long term. Business decisions aren't made based on bus stops, so the development benefits from light rail don't happen. The permanence of light rail is actually a good thing.

Also, since development tends to cluster around light rail stops, its ridership is actually reinforcing. Businesses locate near the stops, which increases ridership, which makes the stations more attractive to businesses. More businesses are set up and it increases ridership more. This makes the system a lot more efficient and user friendly, since over time, more and more of people's destinations are concentrated along the route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason

Also, since development tends to cluster around light rail stops, its ridership is actually reinforcing. Businesses locate near the stops, which increases ridership, which makes the stations more attractive to businesses. More businesses are set up and it increases ridership more. This makes the system a lot more efficient and user friendly, since over time, more and more of people's destinations are concentrated along the route.

---

Well, this is surely a rehashing of many years' worth of back and forth on DY, but: What you say is true. FWIW, you could have at least some semi-permanence by making adjustments to the street, as in the picture shown above.

With both alternatives, light rail and BRT, it is critical to put all of the pieces into place, and not forget to connect the friggin' component that makes it work.

Clearly, nobody who a) made the call to send some crews to those lights and add some new components or b) who worked on those installations and understood the bigger picture of what they were doing actually took an hour to ride the dang bus and see if everything was working in concert.

Who don't we all just perfunctorily perform our assigned functions, collect our paychecks, and go home. Gnnnaaaaaargh! I'm starting a thread on why job performance measuring metrics are meaningless. Because I'm mad, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

No, but seriously, here we are spinning our wheels on BRT merits, and our reference point is sleeping on the job. What idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason

Business decisions aren't made based on bus stops, so the development benefits from light rail don't happen. The permanence of light rail is actually a good thing.

---

Again, it depends on your reason for starting a mass transit system to begin with. If you are trying to enact some sort of social change, a light rail system does make sense. However, it's going to be a gamble, and an expensive gamble at that. If you take out a hundred million in building bonds to get it done, and ridership doesn't take off, you're saddled with the expenses and an underutilized railroad.

If your purpose in having mass transit is to move people where they need to go as cheaply and efficiently as possible, right now, a bus system is the way to go. It's relatively cheap, you can play with the routes easily, and if ridership declines you can sell off unused buses.

After a few years of use, if a particular bus run seems very popular, light rail can be looked into for that run. This way, instead of telling people where they need to go, you can find out where they want to go and respond to their needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBMcB

Again, it depends on your reason for starting a mass transit system to begin with. If you are trying to enact some sort of social change, a light rail system does make sense. However, it's going to be a gamble, and an expensive gamble at that. If you take out a hundred million in building bonds to get it done, and ridership doesn't take off, you're saddled with the expenses and an underutilized railroad.

If your purpose in having mass transit is to move people where they need to go as cheaply and efficiently as possible, right now, a bus system is the way to go. It's relatively cheap, you can play with the routes easily, and if ridership declines you can sell off unused buses.

After a few years of use, if a particular bus run seems very popular, light rail can be looked into for that run. This way, instead of telling people where they need to go, you can find out where they want to go and respond to their needs.

---

I need to stop clicking on these transit threads. You realize we already have a bus system here, it may be cheap but it certainly isn't efficient, and we already know exactly which routes are and aren't popular?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Yet we're supposed to believe that far-more-expensive freeways are moveable???

[[Have you ever noticed that the New York City Subway is over 100 years old, yet New York hasn't experienced the same "evolving traffic patterns" that places like Los Angeles and Atlanta have???)

Which one is the chicken and which one is the egg?

Do you think Henry Huntington built the Pacific Electric Railway in Los Angeles fearing that traffic patterns might "evolve" in the future?

---

New York has built-in natural geographic bottlenecks that restrain access to the city. In an area with every route pretty much open, traffic finds "work arounds" unless these are closed off by law enforcement or construction.

Hmmmmm. Litanies of excuses, yet people wonder why Detroit languishes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

New York has built-in natural geographic bottlenecks that restrain access to the city. In an area with every route pretty much open, traffic finds "work arounds" unless these are closed off by law enforcement or construction.

---

What about Chicago? Their terrain is virtually identical to Detroit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Hmmmmm. Litanies of excuses, yet people wonder why Detroit languishes.

---

One would actually have to have a plan for which one makes excuses as to how it can't be done...in order to make a litany of excuses. As it stands now, Detroit [[and only detroit because nothing goes north of 8 mile) has only a plan to make a plan. The only concrete decision made seems to be that it will be on woodward. What mode it is, how many stops, how it's oriented in traffic, where on woodward it's placed...all completely undecided. After a few more years of study and town hall meetings, and internet voting, there might actually be a plan to make excuses about. Even then it's only a plan to expend hundreds of millions of dollars to put in a train on one thoroughfare, running along side buses serving the same route, and doesn't leave the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

You realize we already have a bus system here, it may be cheap but it certainly isn't efficient, and we already know exactly which routes are and aren't popular?

---

It's a broken bus system, the city system doesn't link to the suburbs. Fix that, and you can start to see which are the high traffic routes. Get shuttle services running on the busiest of those, and you can start getting good data if you want to do a light rail system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What about Chicago? Their terrain is virtually identical to Detroit...

---

Chicago was a very major [[make that THE major) rail hub in the US. Chicago had major commuter service on several of the rail lines entering Chicago. Chicago also had three very large interurban lines which ran on their own right-of-way [[CNS&M, CSS&SB, and CA&E) that survived into the 1960s. Chicago did not have a city government that did everything in its power to bankrupt the interurban lines raditing out into the countryside. Light rail up Woodward from Downtown to Pontiac? We had it. Light rail out Gratiot to Mt Clemens and Port Huron? We had it. Light rail out Grand River to Farmington? We had it. James Couzzens sabotaged it all because of his hatred for the streetcar and interurban companies.

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Chicago was a very major [[make that THE major) rail hub in the US. Chicago had major commuter service on several of the rail lines entering Chicago. Chicago also had three very large interurban lines which ran on their own right-of-way [[CNS&M, CSS&SB, and CA&E) that survived into the 1960s. Chicago did not have a city government that did everything in its power to bankrupt the interurban lines raditing out into the countryside. Light rail up Woodward from Downtown to Pontiac? We had it. Light rail out Gratiot to Mt Clemens and Port Huron? We had it. Light rail out Grand River to Farmington? We had it. James Couzzens sabotaged it all because of his hatred for the streetcar and interurban companies.

---

So we have common ground. It's not that Detroit could not and cannot support it. It's that it was artificially obsoleted. That's the difference between Detroit and Chicago, or Detroit and New York.

New York could have shoe-horned a car-dependent environment onto its residents like Detroit. In fact, some leaders [[Robert Moses) tried to do just that but weren't able to follow through on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

New York could have shoe-horned a car-dependent environment onto its residents like Detroit. In fact, some leaders [[Robert Moses) tried to do just that but weren't able to follow through on it.

---

You ever notice the 495 signs on 34th Street? That cantankerous old man got pretty far with his plans to dice and slice highways through New York, including an official federal interstate designation for the planned highway connecting the Midtown Tunnel and the Long Island Expressway with the Lincoln Tunnel and the NJ Turnpike.

I still like both BRT and light rail. As long as you can connect downtown and midtown efficiently and quickly, I am all for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fryar

You ever notice the 495 signs on 34th Street? That cantankerous old man got pretty far with his plans to dice and slice highways through New York, including an official federal interstate designation for the planned highway connecting the Midtown Tunnel and the Long Island Expressway with the Lincoln Tunnel and the NJ Turnpike.

I still like both BRT and light rail. As long as you can connect downtown and midtown efficiently and quickly, I am all for it.

---

I never paid attention to it, but it makes sense that that was the plan since both tunnels terminate near 34th St.

What really stopped him, and likely saved Manhattan, was the resistance to the lower Manhattan expressway that would have leveled Greenwich Village, Soho and Chinatown. Now, 50 years later, what would have been demolished for the freeway is some of the most expensive real estate on the planet. Makes you wonder what might have been for the Paradise Valleys and Chinatowns buldozed to build I-75...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I never paid attention to it, but it makes sense that that was the plan since both tunnels terminate near 34th St.

What really stopped him, and likely saved Manhattan, was the resistance to the lower Manhattan expressway that would have leveled Greenwich Village, Soho and Chinatown. Now, 50 years later, what would have been demolished for the freeway is some of the most expensive real estate on the planet. Makes you wonder what might have been for the Paradise Valleys and Chinatowns buldozed to build I-75...

---

New York City and Washington DC have major anchors to their downtowns with the financial district and the federal government.

What was in downtown Detroit was just too easy to replicate elsewhere [[shopping, medical offices, law offices)..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

What was in downtown Detroit was just too easy to replicate elsewhere [[shopping, medical offices, law offices)..

---

So what you're saying is that downtown Detroit was just like Midtown Manhattan...

Quote:

---

So what you're saying is that downtown Detroit was just like Midtown Manhattan...

---

I don't think so--Midtown had a number of other hard-to-shift anchors--advertising industry, corporate headquarters, Broadway come to mind. Also lots of people live really close to Midtown, generating a natural demand for shopping and other amenities, while historically downtown Detroit was not residential. There are more people living in Downtown Detroit* now than there have been in the past 50 years, and probably in the past 100, but not enough to make up for the reduced number of people who work there.

I don't think people should look for single causes of complicated problems.. Detroit's core was certainly not helped by the excessive construction of freeways, but that was only one small part of its decline, and I don't see how Manhattan would have been destroyed if there were more freeways there. No doubt it is better off without them though.

*The truth of this statement depends upon how you delineate downtown, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

So what you're saying is that downtown Detroit was just like Midtown Manhattan...

---

Downtown Detroit just didn't have anything essential to make it necessary for people to go there [[other than the City-County Building). When I worked downtown in 1961, you could already see the place emptying out. Downtown exists today only because Henry the Deuce built Ren Cen and arm-twisted all of the folks who did business with Ford to put an office in there. Can you imagine downtown today without Ren Cen and GM HQ out in Macomb County?

Come on guys, we're doing a bit of tail chasing here. There was no more of a need for most of New York's industries to maintain a presence in Manhattan than there was Detroit's to stay downtown... Other than New York leadership realizing early on that bleeding the city dry probably wasn't such a great idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I never paid attention to it, but it makes sense that that was the plan since both tunnels terminate near 34th St.

What really stopped him, and likely saved Manhattan, was the resistance to the lower Manhattan expressway that would have leveled Greenwich Village, Soho and Chinatown. Now, 50 years later, what would have been demolished for the freeway is some of the most expensive real estate on the planet. Makes you wonder what might have been for the Paradise Valleys and Chinatowns buldozed to build I-75...

---

The big three had a bigger influence on Detroit's political leaders during that era such as they do with the political leaders now. The groundbreaking of the light rail from Jefferson to New Center area up Woodward had not happened. I had said last year when news had broken about the ground breaking for 2010 I had said that it is not going to happen. This ball will continue to be kicked back and forth until you get the bought and paid for leaders out of Detroit's city government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stasu1213

The big three had a bigger influence on Detroit's political leaders during that era such as they do with the political leaders now. The groundbreaking of the light rail from Jefferson to New Center area up Woodward had not happened. I had said last year when news had broken about the ground breaking for 2010 I had said that it is not going to happen. This ball will continue to be kicked back and forth until you get the bought and paid for leaders out of Detroit's city government.

---

No, political hostility toward public transit companies on the part of the government of the City of Detroit began with the first horse car lines before there ever was a gasoline engine. Detroit [[government and newspapers) did everything they could in the way of restrictive franchises, threats of franchise revocation, and anti-business propaganda to demonize and destroy entreprenurial mass transit. Streetcar line and interurban lines ran of a very thin profit margin and it was easy for Detroit to push them into bankruptcy. The only thing the Big 3 did to Detroit mass transit was to build cars as competition for riders and to offer the old DSR good deals on buses.

^http://www.detroittransithistory.inf...verAvenue.html

http://www.detroittransithistory.inf...yTakeover.html

http://www.detroittransithistory.info/TheDURYears.html