Metro Ride and Rail

Attachment 26398
Attachment 26399

Could something resembling a successful mass transit system be developed using the existing Amtrak lines, a few new stations, and some short shuttle routes 1/2 to 2 miles in length to connect people to the rail stations? Rail and shuttle trips could all be booked with an integrated system accessible by computer, a phone app, or kisoks, all paid with credit or debit cards [[cash at kisoks). Trains would be scheduled to optimize inbound traffic to New Center for work day schedules and 7:00 PM sporting events. Shuttles could be moved from one rail hub to another to optimize their use, to be where people need them and when. It could be sort of a next generation mass transit, booking like Uber but using coordinated heavy rail, small and medium sized shuttle buses.

I know this is the cheap way to do it, but the cheap way is probably going to be the only thing available for a while. And at least the trains on the heavy rail line will be able to move people along fairly quickly.

Attached is the concept for train schedules and shuttle stops [[those could always be changed to where people want to use them). I have a map, but its too big to post.

This is a commuter rail system, which is a pretty outdated mode of transit. I absolutely agree, however, that it's a great idea to utilize existing rail corridor right-of-ways. But rather than using an antiquated mode of transit [[commuter rail), the system should be built to rapid transit standards. So it would more resemble the highly efficient and modern German S-Bahns systems than the crumbling MARTA or LIRR systems.

- Grade separated
- Does not share tracks with freight [[which would probably require building new track). Some areas would need flyovers or tunnels.
- Fully electrified
- Frequent schedule in both directions
- Stops close together in the center of the city, and further apart in the suburbs
- Unified tariff system [[tickets and transit cards work with all buses and trains within the RTA's area)

It would be expensive but well worth it in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casscorridor

It would be expensive but well worth it in the end.

---

OK. I can be persuaded. I have never used public transportation out of necessity in my life. Not counting airport inter-terminal trains. In the cases of San Francisco cable cars and New Orleans light rail, I have used these types of transportation purely as a tourist attraction and enjoyed it.

To prove I could be persuaded, I did something last week just to do it. I had to visit a sick friend in the hospital in Ann Arbor. Even though I've been to Ann Arbor hundreds of times and never used the bus, this time, I made the conscious decision to use it in A2 exclusively. I parked my car at the US-23 and Plymouth Road park and ride, paid my $1.50 got a transfer ticket and was off on "the ride". I used that bus system in A2 all day with four different buses. [[2 $1.50 fares and 2 transfers).

Over the years, I've read countless threads about how badly the Detroit Metro area needs public transportation that works. What I've never seen in all these threads is a solid proposal on how to pay for it. When I say "solid" I mean a funding position that at least a majority of the population in the tri-county area might support. What funding proposal would somebody use to persuade me when I'm already willing to meet half way on this issue?

The idea of commuter rail linking Pontiac to Ann Arbor through Detroit is a great one and would
promote economic growth in this area. The proposed schedule is an attractive one. Let's think about the long run future of the greater Detroit metro area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casscorridor

This is a commuter rail system, which is a pretty outdated mode of transit. I absolutely agree, however, that it's a great idea to utilize existing rail corridor right-of-ways. But rather than using an antiquated mode of transit [[commuter rail), the system should be built to rapid transit standards. So it would more resemble the highly efficient and modern German S-Bahns systems than the crumbling MARTA or LIRR systems.

- Grade separated
- Does not share tracks with freight [[which would probably require building new track). Some areas would need flyovers or tunnels.
- Fully electrified
- Frequent schedule in both directions
- Stops close together in the center of the city, and further apart in the suburbs
- Unified tariff system [[tickets and transit cards work with all buses and trains within the RTA's area)

It would be expensive but well worth it in the end.

---

All of this would be awesome. But the $2-3 billion necessary for this just isn't going to show up in the next decade.

Something like I'm describing could be put together in 2 years if the passenger rail devoted track issues could be resolved; I know SEMTA is waiting on this. There would need to be the track upgrades, 4 new stations, 3 locomotives with 3 coaches each, [[4 would be nice, to augment the service for sports and special events), and a fleet of 70-100 shuttle buses of various sizes; and some hardware and software development for the passenger booking and shuttle dispatch system. I think $100 million + costs for the track upgrades could get it all done. The M-1 price tag is far greater.

Maybe it would fail, but the financial risk would be relatively low compared to a brand new build. And if a $100 million investment has even limited success [[8,000 average daily passengers looks possible), the upgrades would become more politically palatable.

The private rail ownership monopoly would have to be broken. Amtrak service is already slow as heck on all the privatized lines. A federal bailout of the railroad biz decades ago and now this.. oh well..

Someone's going to be mad if a future expansion of this thing doesn't have a line heading south out of the city that has a stop in Wyandotte.

Electrification would just drive the cost up without improving performance. Remember that a diesel locomotive is just and electric locomotive with its own on-board generator. Acceleration out of stations and deceleration into stations is a lot faster if all of the wheels on the train are powered rather than a locomotive pulling unpowered cars.

This was the Budd RDC. Several hundred of them were built in the late 40s and early 50s. They kept branch line and commuter service going a lot longer than they otherwise would have. Unfortunately, with the total collapse of rail passenger service in the 50s and 60s, new orders dropped to zero and the Budd company went out of the RDC and passenger car business.
Attachment 26407Attachment 26408Attachment 26409Attachment 26410Attachment 26411

For any type of commuter rail system to work here, it needs to be cost effective and time efficient. To be time efficient, there needs to be a downtown station within easy walking distance of the CBD. Basically, the system is not going to be worth it to the average downtown commuter if they have to get off at New Center and take a bus/M-1 rail to downtown. The time spent making that tranfer makes it impractical for most potential users [[New Center/WSU employees excluded).

You do know there's already two projects actively being worked on to do exactly this?
http://semcog.org/Plans-for-the-Regi...l-Rail-Project

http://www.theride.org/AboutUs/Initi...thCommuterRail

They've already bought and refurbished the rail cars wasting huge amounts of cash leasing cars long before the routes are ready.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/poli...cars/22655363/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ndavies

You do know there's already two projects actively being worked on to do exactly this?
http://semcog.org/Plans-for-the-Regi...l-Rail-Project

http://www.theride.org/AboutUs/Initi...thCommuterRail

They've already bought and refurbished the rail cars wasting huge amounts of cash leasing cars long before the routes are ready.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/poli...cars/22655363/

---

The Detroit commuter rail project worries me. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see rail transit, but worry the system as it is proposed will be a dud, and used by critics in the future to prevent other mass transit projects.

The big issue, as I mentioned in my previous post, is the lack of a train station in the CBD. Even though midtown is booming, there isn't enough demand from WSU and New Center commuters alone to justify it. Most commuters work in the CBD, and if they cannot walk from their office to the train station, the average person will not use it.

For the average joe, commuter rail must serve and advantage over driving, either from the cost perspective or time perspective. Given the plethora of downtown parking, the market forces will keep parking rates relatively low in Detroit compared to other large urban areas.

But what really dooms the project is the lack of time savings [[or really, extra time needed to use it). Consider how long it takes to drive from Dearborn, or Troy, or even Pontiac into downtown... even during rush hour. Now consider how long commuter rail would also take. Add onto that the travel time on M-1 rail from New Center AMTRAK to Campus Martius, and the whole trip takes significantly longer than driving. Also consider any connection time between the two transit systems, and the fear a commuter may have regarding a missed connection because of any delays. Simply put, most people are not going to spend the time travelling to the Troy Transit Center, to board a train that only goes to New Center, where you still have to connect to another system to get downtown... when they can drive in much, much less time.

To me, I would rather see the money be spent on acquiring land and building a new train station and rail connection in the CBD. Initially it could serve AMTRAK, with the station designed for future commuter rail. However, the station must be in the CBD and within short walking distance of the downtown offices, else the whole project will be a bust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carcross

To me, I would rather see the money be spent on acquiring land and building a new train station and rail connection in the CBD. Initially it could serve AMTRAK, with the station designed for future commuter rail. However, the station must be in the CBD and within short walking distance of the downtown offices, else the whole project will be a bust.

---

I agree with you, and that would have been a great plan. But unfortunately both possible heavy rail access points to downtown were removed when the old Union Depot and Brush St. Station tracks were taken out [[and the loss was extended when the Dequindre Cut bike/walk path was put in). Hard to see where you'd put the tracks now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

I agree with you, and that would have been a great plan. But unfortunately both possible heavy rail access points to downtown were removed when the old Union Depot and Brush St. Station tracks were taken out [[and the loss was extended when the Dequindre Cut bike/walk path was put in). Hard to see where you'd put the tracks now.

---

Sadly, as you mentioned, any new station location and track connection would require the purchasing of property. Given the state's transportation crisis, any funding for such a project is probably not there, and there probably is not the political backing either.

Between the Union Depot and Brush St. station, I always thought the Union Depot location better served downtown. The Brush location was just far enough away that it was too inconvient for anyone but RenCen employees.

Here is my dream scenario, which as mentioned would require property. It would initially focus on AMTRAK long haul service, and gradually change the Oakland route to commuter service over time, while adding AnnArbor-Detroit commuter rail on the same line as AMTRAK. But it still comes back to the multi-million dollar question of where to place the depot downtown.

Attachment 26433

Too bad they pulled out Dequindre Cut and Brush St Station. There would have been good commuter rail out Woodward to Pontiac and out Gratiot to Port Huron originating and terminating close to downtown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Electrification would just drive the cost up without improving performance. Remember that a diesel locomotive is just and electric locomotive with its own on-board generator. Acceleration out of stations and deceleration into stations is a lot faster if all of the wheels on the train are powered rather than a locomotive pulling unpowered cars.

---

So why are most of the railroads in Europe electrified, then? Is it just because Europeans like spending more money? No, it's because you can't operate TGV-type trains with diesel engines. Hence, there *is* a difference in performance, yes?

In regards to commuter rail being "outdated", the only thing outdated about it is how we approach it in the United States. Underfunding transit while gold-plating the freeway system is what's outdated. We could use one of them Marshall Plans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

So why are most of the railroads in Europe electrified, then? Is it just because Europeans like spending more money? No, it's because you can't operate TGV-type trains with diesel engines. Hence, there *is* a difference in performance, yes?

In regards to commuter rail being "outdated", the only thing outdated about it is how we approach it in the United States. Underfunding transit while gold-plating the freeway system is what's outdated. We could use one of them Marshall Plans.

---

True that.

Another advantage to Electric power is that if a long vehicle carrying a vast quantity of diesel fuel passes through a tunnel, it is much more dangerous than if powered by electricity alone. The tunnels must be provided with so many exits according to its length and stronger ventilation, etc... Thus, more expensive to build and maintain. Electric Pylons may be expensive but in the case of a TGV, the advantage in speed makes it relevant.

Electrification makes sense when traffic is very dense. The Pennsylvania RR electrified their lines from New York to Washington and to Harrisburg, but never thought about electrifying their "lines west". The only significant heavy rail electrification in the US outside of New England was a brief stretch of the Milwaukee Road in the Rockies. Diesel-electric locomotives are fully capable of high speed. The limiting factor to speed is the track, not the locomotive. Since a diesel-electric locomotive is essentially an electric locomotive, tunnels can be traversed by fitting the track with a third rail [[safe because no pedestrians in the tunnel) and having third rail shoes on the loco. As the train enters the tunnel, the diesel engine goes to idle and power pickup comes from the third rail. This was done in the New York area and EMD modified several locomotiuves for this type of operation.