A more productive direction for Detroit transit?

Everyone loves to talk about BRT, light rail, M-1, etc. And those things are great and necessary - both rapid transit in the form of real BRT or LRT, and a streetcar downtown to act as a pedestrian accelerator that ties together downtown and midtown [[swing it out to Corktown or Belle Isle next, please!). But those things also require millions of dollars, new dedicated revenue streams, functional regional governing bodies and a shared mindset supporting the development of new, high-quality transit for the area despite the high cost. High barriers.

On the other hand, I saw this piece the other day on Jarrett Walker's blog and was struck by what a large difference a similar move could make for Detroit [[or virtually any city in the US). Here's the nutshell summary:

1. Deals with the existing bus system in Houston.
2. Costs nothing. [[Well, presumably some cost for the planning process, new maps and so on. But no additional operating cost compared to the old system.)
3. Vastly increases the quality of public transit by focusing on frequency of service and a grid pattern of routes, even if doing so causes a few people on the edges to lose convenient access to the bus.

Basically, make it so that almost anywhere in the city, somebody in Houston can count on a bus coming on the major roads every 15 minutes or better, 15 hours of the day. Outside of Woodward I don't know if any single route in SE Michigan meets that standard.

Anyway, here's the blog post. The maps are quite striking: http://www.humantransit.org/2014/05/...eimagined.html There's also a more recent post on that site with a similar plan for Columbus.

Edit: I don't intend to set up a false either-or between new rapid transit and a good bus system. Both are badly needed. It's just to say that this might be an achievable near-term reform that could build momentum and also make a very large difference for relatively little cost.

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

Everyone loves to talk about BRT, light rail, M-1, etc. And those things are great and necessary - both rapid transit in the form of real BRT or LRT, and a streetcar downtown to act as a pedestrian accelerator that ties together downtown and midtown [[swing it out to Corktown or Belle Isle next, please!). But those things also require millions of dollars, new dedicated revenue streams, functional regional governing bodies and a shared mindset supporting the development of new, high-quality transit for the area despite the high cost. High barriers.

On the other hand, I saw this piece the other day on Jarrett Walker's blog and was struck by what a large difference a similar move could make for Detroit [[or virtually any city in the US). Here's the nutshell summary:

1. Deals with the existing bus system in Houston.
2. Costs nothing. [[Well, presumably some cost for the planning process, new maps and so on. But no additional operating cost compared to the old system.)
3. Vastly increases the quality of public transit by focusing on frequency of service and a grid pattern of routes, even if doing so causes a few people on the edges to lose convenient access to the bus.

Basically, make it so that almost anywhere in the city, somebody in Houston can count on a bus coming on the major roads every 15 minutes or better, 15 hours of the day. Outside of Woodward I don't know if any single route in SE Michigan meets that standard.

Anyway, here's the blog post. The maps are quite striking: http://www.humantransit.org/2014/05/...eimagined.html There's also a more recent post on that site with a similar plan for Columbus.

Edit: I don't intend to set up a false either-or between new rapid transit and a good bus system. Both are badly needed. It's just to say that this might be an achievable near-term reform that could build momentum and also make a very large difference for relatively little cost.

Thoughts?

---

I don't know where people get this crazy idea that buses are "free" or "cheap". If you want to increase service frequency, you need [[at bare minimum) More Drivers, More Buses, More Garages, More Mechanics. All of these things cost money. To establish a grid pattern of bus routes, operating at 15 minute intervals, you would be adding tens of millions of dollars of annual operating costs to the existing network. Given how much people are pissing about a *privately-funded* 3-mile streetcar, that seems hardly "achievable".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I don't know where people get this crazy idea that buses are "free" or "cheap". If you want to increase service frequency, you need [[at bare minimum) More Drivers, More Buses, More Garages, More Mechanics. All of these things cost money. To establish a grid pattern of bus routes, operating at 15 minute intervals, you would be adding tens of millions of dollars of annual operating costs to the existing network. Given how much people are pissing about a *privately-funded* 3-mile streetcar, that seems hardly "achievable".

---

OR:
More drivers that reliably show up for work and care about their job and the service they provide.
Better utilization and better materiel readiness rates through better management and maintenance.
If the buses are operational and efficient, you don't need more garages.
More mechanics that reliably show up for work and care about their job and the equipment they care for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

Basically, make it so that almost anywhere in the city, somebody in Houston can count on a bus coming on the major roads every 15 minutes or better, 15 hours of the day. Outside of Woodward I don't know if any single route in SE Michigan meets that standard.

Anyway, here's the blog post. The maps are quite striking: http://www.humantransit.org/2014/05/...eimagined.html There's also a more recent post on that site with a similar plan for Columbus.

Edit: I don't intend to set up a false either-or between new rapid transit and a good bus system. Both are badly needed. It's just to say that this might be an achievable near-term reform that could build momentum and also make a very large difference for relatively little cost.

Thoughts?

---

15 minutes is the standard frequency for most [[not all) bus routes, ditto for trolleys – actually the trolley from the Mexican border runs every 7 minutes during peak travel times. Its not 15 hours a day, more like 13 hours a day here in San Diego. While buses start @ 5:00am, they don’t kick it up to 4 times an hour till 6:00am. Around 7:00pm the frequency pulls back to twice an hour. Its true that @ this frequency I’m not too concerned when I leave the house, as the buses almost run continuously.

In 2013 MTS Bus was working with 155 million dollars – 55 million riders

Service Area is comprised of 2,851 route-miles, spread out over a 3,716 square-mile service area; there is a combined population of over two million people within the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, National City, Lemon Grove, Poway, Santee as well as the County of San Diego.

As an employer MTS – bus operations only –

1,718 total: 1,194 bus operators; 307 maintenance; 217 administration and supervision

MTS = Metropolitan Transit System – Buses or Trolleys

http://www.sdmts.com/MTS/documents/BusOp_FactSheet.pdf

This guy isn't saying you will add routes -- he's just saying that most systems are inefficient and routes aren't well thought out. Could there be inefficiencies in our bus system? Gee, just maybe. I dunno. Two redundant systems might just possibly be inefficient. Routes that run from the Ford Highland Park plant to Ford Rouge [[Baker/Bagley) might just not be the best routing.

The author says..."Not all transit agencies have this much waste, so your city's mileage may vary."

I'll just take a wild guess. A system rethink might be good. Naw -- let's stick with SMART and DDOT running on routes from the 1850s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

Everyone loves to talk about BRT, light rail, M-1, etc. And those things are great and necessary - both rapid transit in the form of real BRT or LRT, and a streetcar downtown to act as a pedestrian accelerator that ties together downtown and midtown [[swing it out to Corktown or Belle Isle next, please!). But those things also require millions of dollars, new dedicated revenue streams, functional regional governing bodies and a shared mindset supporting the development of new, high-quality transit for the area despite the high cost. High barriers.

On the other hand, I saw this piece the other day on Jarrett Walker's blog and was struck by what a large difference a similar move could make for Detroit [[or virtually any city in the US). Here's the nutshell summary:

1. Deals with the existing bus system in Houston.
2. Costs nothing. [[Well, presumably some cost for the planning process, new maps and so on. But no additional operating cost compared to the old system.)
3. Vastly increases the quality of public transit by focusing on frequency of service and a grid pattern of routes, even if doing so causes a few people on the edges to lose convenient access to the bus.

Basically, make it so that almost anywhere in the city, somebody in Houston can count on a bus coming on the major roads every 15 minutes or better, 15 hours of the day. Outside of Woodward I don't know if any single route in SE Michigan meets that standard.

Anyway, here's the blog post. The maps are quite striking: http://www.humantransit.org/2014/05/...eimagined.html There's also a more recent post on that site with a similar plan for Columbus.

Edit: I don't intend to set up a false either-or between new rapid transit and a good bus system. Both are badly needed. It's just to say that this might be an achievable near-term reform that could build momentum and also make a very large difference for relatively little cost.

Thoughts?

---

naysayers aside: It makes alot of sense to work off the grid, though Detroit proper's grid is somewhat more complicated than, say, Phoenix. I worked for the Phoenix Planning Department back in the day, and I can tell you [[also having lived in Chicago and Seattle and LA), that no one wants to have to figure out a bus system. Therefore, only people that desperately need it, use it, because they have no alternatives. If you know the system is on the grid, and you may only have to transfer once to get to where you're going, you're more likely to give it a try. I live in Lansing, and I can tell you, I'm not going to use the bus, because the routes meander all over hell and back before they get you to some proximity to where you're going.

Chicago's system is fairly grid oriented. It's not bad, BUT there are large wait times for the next bus unless you're near the lake. If you're healthy, it's easier to walk. Seattle is more compact and has quite a few express lines. People use it within the city, but don't use it for regional travel unless their on a commuter express. Detroit is far more spread out, but the existence of a reasonable grid would make it much easier to accomplish this.

Yes, the systemic problems with drivers not showing up and crime and all that are hugely important. But if the system isn't simple for a first timer to figure out, only those desperate and dependent will use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I don't know where people get this crazy idea that buses are "free" or "cheap". If you want to increase service frequency, you need [[at bare minimum) More Drivers, More Buses, More Garages, More Mechanics. All of these things cost money. To establish a grid pattern of bus routes, operating at 15 minute intervals, you would be adding tens of millions of dollars of annual operating costs to the existing network. Given how much people are pissing about a *privately-funded* 3-mile streetcar, that seems hardly "achievable".

---

Yes, compared to the current baseline you would probably have to add cost in the case of Detroit given the low base. On the other hand, the idea that it would be "free" or "cheap" came from the people who planned this out in Houston and found that, actually, it is free once you eliminate existing inefficiencies in the system. They got better service at the same operating cost. So it seems it would be worth at least looking into a similar reorganization in Detroit, no? It's not like Houston is some transit mecca that's totally incomparable to SE Michigan.

FIX YOUR ROADS. That is all you all should be focused on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slow_motion

FIX YOUR ROADS. That is all you all should be focused on.

---

Yes, a single-minded focus on roads has served the city extremely well over the past few decades. We'll all get right back to that.

Less reliance on roads = longer road life, less hassle when they are under repair

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

OR:
More drivers that reliably show up for work and care about their job and the service they provide.
Better utilization and better materiel readiness rates through better management and maintenance.
If the buses are operational and efficient, you don't need more garages.
More mechanics that reliably show up for work and care about their job and the equipment they care for.

---

Wow! Did you work for the DSR, [[Detroit Street and Railways) back in the day?

My late Father in Law did. For years he was in the garages and he has said the same as you.

Many times he would lament...

What did the System in was an influx of unskilled personnel brought about by political goals.

It was as if the ends justified the means which led to the end.

I have an idea.

Instead of a 1 mil tax for SMART, a 10 mil tax instead. That means an average home owner will pay $1000 per year instead of $100 per year.

That means 10 times the bus service. Wow, I already use SMART and would love a bus to and from work every ten minutes, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day because I'm on a really major road that can use this kind of service.

$1000 any more is pocket change and even Wal-Mart workers have this kind of money. Any one who can afford a home can easily pay this.

Fix the roads, we drive here, We are the "Motor City!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by That Great Guy

I have an idea.

Instead of a 1 mil tax for SMART, a 10 mil tax instead. That means an average home owner will pay $1000 per year instead of $100 per year.

That means 10 times the bus service. Wow, I already use SMART and would love a bus to and from work every ten minutes, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day because I'm on a really major road that can use this kind of service.

$1000 any more is pocket change and even Wal-Mart workers have this kind of money. Any one who can afford a home can easily pay this.

---

So, who should pay for the bus? The transit riders pay the full cost of their ride? The metro property owners? The people up in da yoopee? The feds?

As was said in 1986 during the tax debates, "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that other fellow behind the tree."

Increase the cost of the ride, I own a car, I drive my car, why should I pay for your bus ride? Are you paying my note or insurance.

Shoot with all the money people are saving by riding the bus, they should be able to pony up a buck or 2 more, for the ride.

We have a heavy rail line down here called Tri-Rail. It runs from Miami to West Palm Beach on the old Seaboard Air Line tracks. Every passenger who gets on board has a $14 subsidy from the tax payers for his ride.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GUSHI

Increase the cost of the ride, I own a car, I drive my car, why should I pay for your bus ride? Are you paying my note or insurance.

---

A vote of NO in a few days next August caps the tax at 0.59 instead of raising it to 1 mil

Thus instead of paying $100 you pay $60 per year.

I just saved you $40 on car insurance per year. if you support my cause to get Mr. John Hertel of SMART on television to get this fact to the public quickly.

This tax is nothing but a Ponzi scheme to cheat the public out of federal, state and industry support for bus service. SMART will raise an extra $30 Million per year and it won't be to improve bus service but instead to give themselves bigger fat paychecks from taxing low wage workers on their rent or property tax.

Post if interested in defeating this regressive tax shift and increase

Nearly everyone will be voting YES, YES, YES like Danny. So, I give up unless I can raise money to go after Mr. John Hertel to make him be a mass transit advocate.

Tax shifting to pay for same purpose handicapped facilities is illegal under current federal laws, if enforced. And it will be, if you vote NO next August I rely on SMART and I want to fight the Michigan Department of Transportation and the City of Dearborn for my bus ride which I'm very sure I will keep if y'all just vote NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GUSHI

Increase the cost of the ride, I own a car, I drive my car, why should I pay for your bus ride? Are you paying my note or insurance.

---

No, ok but we are paying for your roads. If you keep the population constant over forty years but triple the number of roads, someone is going to have to pay for them. I'm not even a hard-core transit advocate but I've long wondered how much better our transportation would be if we refused to build any new roads or expanded any road capacity unless the roads we have were already in good condition.

The overarching idea behind Junjie's original post is a good one: reassess and realign existing assets to make transit serve more people and better. This should be constantly underway. Demand for transit, including questions of where or when, is in constant flux. Additionally, as new services [[BRT and M1 rail, yes, but also including things like airport shuttle service, Greyhound, Megabus, etc) come on line, or change their service, it impacts bus service. So I think a smart RTA would have an ongoing process to adjust service. The assessment is relatively cheap. Obviously, expansions of service are pricey. But if DDOT or SMART have X number of buses and drivers available, they should be regularly figuring out how to spend that number to the benefit of the most commuters.

There is allot of older citizens in Detroit who see no value in public transportation. They almost look down upon it. It's really going to have to be us.[[18-35 years old) To push this initiative front and center. There have been to many people complaining about why should I have to pay for this? I don't use the bus? Well if that's the case I don't use the roads as much. I don't drive to much, I catch the bus. The majority of taxes should not go for road funding it should go to public transportation. You see how this does not make sense. It's really the government responsibility to provide adequate public transportation. And lets be honest, the southeast Michigan population has dramatically gone down so much that we really don't need that much road.

Side note- looks like the Regional Transit Authority got a new CEO? A Mr. Michael Ford- http://www.detroittransit.org/congra...-michael-ford/

I've been saying for years that the Detroit DOT should pull back and do fewer routes more frequently and reliably.

Only then can they start to rebuild confidence in the system and grow again.

There is no need for close to 40 bus routes in this city. Cut it to the 15 most heavily used and increase frequency and reliability on those routes.

If a potential rider can count on a bus being there every 15 minutes and/or on schedule, adding time to walk, bike or hitch a ride the extra distance to a high-frequency route corridor will not be in vain.

Detroit has an opportunity to completely rethink their existing bus system. Bus stops are often too close together, accepting cash for fares slows passenger loading, etc...

While pulling back on the number of routes, there would need to be an increase in a dail-a-ride service for seniors who find themselves no longer on a bus route.

I also think they should look into doing neighborhood circulator routes. Midtown could be well-served by a few small buses going in a constant loop along Cass and Woodward from MLK to the Blvd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gshavers313

There is allot of older citizens in Detroit who see no value in public transportation. They almost look down upon it. It's really going to have to be us.[[18-35 years old) To push this initiative front and center. There have been to many people complaining about why should I have to pay for this? I don't use the bus? Well if that's the case I don't use the roads as much. I don't drive to much, I catch the bus. The majority of taxes should not go for road funding it should go to public transportation. You see how this does not make sense. It's really the government responsibility to provide adequate public transportation. And lets be honest, the southeast Michigan population has dramatically gone down so much that we really don't need that much road.

---

No, it's not government responsibility to provide public transportation. I agree that if you've decided not to own a car, you shouldn't have to pay for the roads, except where the part that the bus or Blight Rail is using, because it requires routine maintenance. There was a gasoline tax imposed on us thoughtless drivers, and on vechicles, [[trucks) to pay for the road maintenance. Legislators decided to dip their fingers in the honey pot and ear-mark road and infrastructure funding for "other things". Now that the pot's empty, the solution is to raise taxes again. Why do I have to keep funding other projects with the gasoline tax I'm paying? They need to cap the flow first, than reassess how the money, and for what, is being used, not ask mom for more.

There are a lot of good ideas and comments on this thread, including people getting into specifics. I think, though, what needs to be done, and what hasn't been done in a very long time, is a data-driven analysis of current regional transportation needs. SEMCOG has all the data needed for this. Take into account current population centers with transit-supportive densities, employment centers with transit-supportive densities, single-location generators such as hospitals and universities, big shopping areas and so on. Then design, from scratch, a regional system [[no matter how many different colors the buses end up being) that maximally connects the people where they live to the places they need to go.

It would cost a couple hundred thousand and take several months, and in the end you will wind up with a system that looks nothing at all like what we have now. It will, of necessity, cost more; the system we have now is too "thin" to use its costs as a basis for a regional system. And if we are allowing opt-out communities, there's almost no point to doing it at all.