http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...FREE/302059999
Keep doing what you do Dick.
Printable View
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...FREE/302059999
Keep doing what you do Dick.
Yeah, we can't have what almost every city in the world has because we have to have a third transit organization to run -- another bus system. Sigh ...
See, this is what I don't understand about the Light Rail vs. BRT arguments. Isn't light rail more expensive up front but less expensive over time due to its running on electricity and lower overall maintenance costs? If a collection of businessmen and philanthropists are fronting most of the up-front cost why isn't this a no brainer?
Am I missing some key part of the argument against light rail?
[[except of course that if it isn't useful, Detroit may go another 30 years before someone tries transit again)
I truly believe trains and rail advocacy is a completely political issue.
Not just in this backwards region but somehow rail transportation, like alternative fuels, has somehow gotten tied into American DNC.
An issue already at odds with the ruling legislative and political party, designed [[at least at the present moment) designed to benefit a largely black and Democratically leaning city, in an election year?
It never had a chance.
I may be completely off base but I doubt it.
What you're missing is that we are talking about either less than 10 miles of rail transit or over 100 miles of bus transit.Quote:
Originally Posted by DTFellow
When you leave it at that, it doesn't sound like a lot, but realistically, it's 10 miles within the city core and undeniably the densest corridor in the region v.s. 100+ miles of majority auto-centric suburban development.Quote:
Originally Posted by detmsp
If a high speed bus [[or any bus for that matter) goes out to M-59, I wouldn't expect that it would be filled with many passengers as has been the case for however long SMART/SEMPTA has had routes out that way.
I'm way more confident that a train, while more costly and covers less, will also likely have higher ridership in a more dense area of the region. People will naturally gravitate to a train. On the other hand, a huge campaign will have to be made to persuade people to ride the bus, especially in the outer suburbs where bus ridership probably is less than 1%.
But that isn't to say BRT will fail in the suburbs. I've seen in some cities where BRT lanes are set up in a way that they can be upgraded to LRT when they feel the need to. So really, Detroit can and should use both.
As a conservative bordering on libertarian, I find this to be quite ironic. A privately funded LRT system that will compete directly with entirely government funded public roads and buses seems to be very pro free market to me- which also happens to be a traditionally conservative ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by brizee
The so-called "conservatives" out there should be promoting this rail line with as much enthusiasm as they seem to be promoting Matty's privatized bridge crossing. Too bad hypocrisy abound in the partisan ranks.
It's really interesting how much Republican involvement there is in the whole thing.
Republicans:
Ray LaHood at the federal level.
Rick Snyder and the state in general.
Dan Gilbert [[and I'm assuming most of M1).
Patterson [[Oakland County).
Democrats:
Hackell [[Macomb County)
Ficano [[Wayne County)
Bing [[City of Detroit)
Washtenaw County in general
And as far as I know the only one on that list that isn't pro transit is Patterson.