Woodward/M1 Rail -- DDOT reach accord on light rail

[BShea]

But this isn't supposed to be a small little train project, but the beginning of a larger metro transportation plan that will include the 3 major counties. The LRT that it will connect to will be a major commuter train intended for workers who live in the suburbs to take to New Center or downtown and for those people who live along Woodward to go down too.

Exactly. In any type of system, you're not going to go flying downtown at 50 mph. The need for lots of stops at all the places people are going to want to go to mean the trains will be far slower downtown.

This is one element of a larger plan, and the element that will hopefully break the funding logjam because the money spent on it will be able to be used as the local match portion of things like New Starts grants.

[Hans57]

Looks like there may be a halt on construction this year for the M-1 Rail.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...FREE/905269971

This could be better overall, they might actually combine their efforts [[and money) for the DDOT rail instead. This is a much better idea, in my opinion. I'd rather wait a bit longer to have a properly done line.

[professorscott]

Hans, read the article carefully. They didn't say they weren't going to start construction.

[Cooper]

Hans, read the article carefully. They didn't say they weren't going to start construction.

You're right. The article suggests that the M1 folks are still set on immediate construction, which would mean the $125 million behind it couldn't be used as federal matching funds for DTOGS. In other words, DTOGS would be dead, because neither the city nor the state is likely to come up with that kind of money later on. So much for "accord" between these two plans. Let's hope someone [[John Hertel?) can force real cooperation between these two groups. Otherwise we'll be waiting another decade to see that first leg expanded on.

[ASR89]

Hertel and his group are supposed to reveal a funding plan for regional transit. At a meeting a couple of months ago, he said his group was going to look at other regional transit plans around the country. He was hoping to finalise a plan by May, but could be June at the latest. One likely idea would be a one cent increase on sales tax that would go exclusively towards mass transit. I haven't heard anything new lately.

[Hans57]

I didn't say will be halted, I said may be halted due to the statement that Bing has issued.

The statement may lead to a halt and eventual reworking of the plans.

[rugbyman]

Great info about the train particulars- thanks for the update. I often wondered why one needed to really delineate between light rail and streetcar trains; aside from the additional roadbed improvements to handle the extra weight, it seems like you could just run the light rail trains slower in the "downtown" stretch than you would on the longer runs. Nice to hear one isn't necessarily being sacrificed for the other.

[rugbyman]

And as to the new article, is there any indication about when the DTOGS environmental impact study will be completed? If it's only going to be a period of months beyond the initial M1 timetable, it doesn't seem like it'd be that big of a deal.

[BShea]

And as to the new article, is there any indication about when the DTOGS environmental impact study will be completed? If it's only going to be a period of months beyond the initial M1 timetable, it doesn't seem like it'd be that big of a deal.

I requested this information from Bing's office today, and have not yet heard back.

[Hypestyles]

I wish that Cobo were to be renovated somehow into being a Transit Hub for the rail projects..

[Russix]

How do you 100% know?

Because I've seen the plans. That said, the M1 folks have said nothing is set in stone, and the project is still being designed and engineered.

Apparently for while middle-class tourists. Because, you know, lots of those folks come downtown during the day in the middle of the week ...

Bill, your article only briefly mentioned in a blurb at the bottom that the vehicles would be a hybrid between a street car and "traditional" light rail. Any more info about what that would look like? Top speeds, etc? Are the vehicles off the shelf, or is this something they're cobbling together?

I was told they'll be able to run at slow speeds while co-mingled with traffic in the core downtown, then be able to reach 50+mph for commuter runs north of New Center. But again, much of this is still being worked out. Also, the cars would be ordered to piggyback off a much larger order by another city [[such as when NY City orders 500 cars for something, etc). Otherwise, the wait for custom-made cars is something like 3-5 years, I was told.

Yes. And in their experience, if M1 was the best solution, they would have designed it the first place, not hacked it together later from requirements of private interest.

1. There is no "best" solution that will please everyone.
2. Private interest is going to pay for something people will use.
3. He who pays gets to set the rules sometimes. Government is 100% unable to provide the service because it's basically bankrupt. So, the private sector is stepping in to build the first leg of a larger system. Otherwise, we get NOTHING. I'll take that. Hell, it's not like these trains are going to run from Dan Gilbert's driveway just to his office.

I take it once you come down from your highrise you hop in your car and motor off into the bliss. And that while looking down below out the window that it’s too scary to contemplate getting on the bus with average citizens but you’d be more comfortable riding in a special streetcar built just for you.

Your argument fails, so your resort to this? Some sort of limp class warfare drivel that I'm too elite to ride with the hoi polloi and proles?

Um, I walk to work and bike, driving when I know I need to be out and about for my job during the day. I bike all over downtown. Gee, I guess that makes me more green and more caring of Mother Earth, who you choose to continue to rape with your heartless use of nasty, dirty buses.

You've turned me into a raving hippie liberal!

It doesn’t fail to clarify that you do not depend on public transit and your expert level in the subject matter is still “looking in from the outside�. I don’t see how my argument fails, maybe your not completely understanding what to me is an obvious blunder.

I argue that the currently proposed design this instant [[apparently it can be completely altered by tomorrow) of M1 is very poor. In a region where the general public’s experience with mass transit is very limited, it’s difficult for them to really understand what they want/need. My main point is that M1’s design makes it very difficult to differentiate it from the current bus system. I will now elaborate on this with an example.

M1 streetcars have a fixed number of stops over the length of their track, they have to follow schedules because they can’t pass and need to stay evenly spaced out. The bus experiences a variance in the number of stops depending on the time of day. It may drag down during the day but speed up during off hours. So let us get rid of stops completely for this equation because they cancel each other out. Between Grand Blvd. and Jefferson in this fictions scenario neither bus nor streetcar makes any stops, call this the New Center to Downtown Express. Since nobody has mentioned any type of traffic signal prioritization system for M1, I’m going to assume it doesn’t exist or hasn’t been thought of [[yet) and will not be included. Now that we ignored the stops, how can we differentiate between them? They both move at the same speed, going with the flow of traffic and light changes. What are the pros and cons of each? The bus loses some time to fare loading, but it can go around the car broken down in its path. On Woodward, the bus will get into the parking/right turn lane to stop where as the streetcar will require cars to stop behind or change lanes to pass it. The streetcar has larger capacity but the bus is a lot less expensive to operate.

This debate has already occurred. Just start digging under the pavement and you’ll find the largest streetcar network ever built in the US that’s been long abandoned. I believe we really need to take this lesson from our past as we need to look more forward then we currently are. Sure a 3.4 mile curbside 12-stop streetcar would be great on Woodward. But is that what we really need? We need a system that’s purely dedicated to the long haul that is complimented by local feeder systems at each stop, not to use the regional system as the feeder system as well. I guarantee you that more riders will be attracted and happier to drive, walk, or bike a little farther to ride a system that moves them a lot faster to their destination then to ride a system that tries to play both roles but does neither well.

My unequivocal request is that M1 incorporate the significant gains offered by building in the center with a ROW. It offers the ability to ignore traffic conditions and better utilize traffic signal priority systems. It greatly simplifies the future expansion of the system. You can even have more stops in a denser environment while still maintaining superior transit efficiency.

And I really don’t understand this nonsense that we must forcefully accept the conditions of a private plan or get nothing and then magically public funding appears to complete the rest of it? If anything, a private plan will not properly address the long-range needs of the region and endanger future expansions. There is a “best� solution that will ultimately do more to help rebuild the local economy and establish a successful model for transit in SE Michigan. We just have to incorporate the experience and recommendations from other cities that have done similar projects while not letting it get sidetracked away from being a public utility to a private investment.

[professorscott]

What I find interesting in the ongoing debate about this all is that, other than Bill, nobody seems to understand that the central advantage of the private plan is that it is almost certainly the only thing that is going to happen any time in the near future.

Most of the contrary arguments begin with something akin to "if I had a unicorn then I could do x and such".

[scuola]

The latest controversy seems to hinge on this environmental impact study. Since the privately funded rail doesn't appear to need this study, it seems like the loggerhead will be who pays for it. DDOT isn't anywhere near ready to implement their plan so I'm sure they have no interest in paying for it even though it is they who will benefit from getting the matching government funds. In the end it's another added expense that Detroit will expect the "rich guys" to swoop in and pay for.

Frankly, these environmental impact statements are ridiculous--they amount to a waste of time and money because the author can tell you how much damage the road, train, etc will do to the environment and then as long as they write about the benefits too the project gets built as planned. There's no administration or enforcement of the "statement." This is a fine example of useless government bureaucracy.
.

[BShea]

Most of the contrary arguments begin with something akin to "if I had a unicorn then I could do x and such".

Playing off that statement, it's fair to say Detroit and DDOT have as many dollars to invest in the Woodward system as they have unicorns.

To me, the DTOG argument I'm seeing is, "If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs."

It's all about the money. DTOG and any public system right now is pure fantasy, and even if the private plan is built, it may remain fantasy because there are ZERO New Starts guarantees.

I also have a hard time thinking, both from a practical and psychological standpoint, that people will think of light rail and buses as the same thing. They're not.

And yes, M1 Rail will have signal priority.

Are there examples similar to Woodward of a center-of-street system with rail-only lanes and stations effectively handling such a district? I'm thinking of Woodward when the Tigers crowds leave Comerica -- are they going to crowd out the street trying to get into those stations, whereas in curbside, they'll remain on the sides? I don't know, because I'm not an engineer and I'm looking for examples in other cities using these systems.

[mwilbert]

Streetcars\LRVs in Boston and San Francisco run in the center. The disadvantages of the edge of the road alignment seem overwhelming, but for some reason the people backing the downtown project prefer it.

As a bicyclist, I think it would be a nightmare. Of course, I don't really favor riding on Woodward anyway.

Toronto runs in the middle as well

[professorscott]

In Boston and San Francisco, the on-street light rail is not the spine of the regional transit system. Both these cities have significant heavy-rail transit, and the streetcar is a second tier of service, operating just about like an electric bus on steel wheels.

In Detroit, Woodward is an A-1 transit corridor, so it is not completely reasonable to compare what we ought to do with light rail on our busiest corridor with what other cities do on their second-level transit corridors.

It would also be interesting for somebody to ask the owner of that street - which is MDOT - whether its opinion has been solicited in the matter, by either group. Has anybody asked MDOT that?

[ghettopalmetto]

In Boston and San Francisco, the on-street light rail is not the spine of the regional transit system. Both these cities have significant heavy-rail transit, and the streetcar is a second tier of service, operating just about like an electric bus on steel wheels.

In Detroit, Woodward is an A-1 transit corridor, so it is not completely reasonable to compare what we ought to do with light rail on our busiest corridor with what other cities do on their second-level transit corridors.

It would also be interesting for somebody to ask the owner of that street - which is MDOT - whether its opinion has been solicited in the matter, by either group. Has anybody asked MDOT that?

I don't know about that. The four branches of Boston's Green Line carry over 250,000 passengers per day, more than any of the heavy rail lines in the T system. While there are four terminal branches, they all converge together downtown. If you've ever waited for an outbound Green Line train at Park Street, it's hard to argue that's a second-tier portion of the system.

That one "second-tier" line carries 125% more riders on a daily basis than both the entire DDOT and SMART systems combined. In my opinion, that just demonstrates if you build the line properly and surround it with dense, walkable development, people are going to ride.

[lo_to_d]

Not sure if this was ever posted...

http://www.udmercy.edu/stay-connecte...nsit/index.htm

[heedus]

Not sure if this was ever posted...

http://www.udmercy.edu/stay-connecte...nsit/index.htm

Thanks for posting this. It provides some details that haven't been provided yet. The 10 minute travel time for the length of the system seems a little too good to be true, though.

[Russix]

...

Are there examples similar to Woodward of a center-of-street system with rail-only lanes and stations effectively handling such a district? I'm thinking of Woodward when the Tigers crowds leave Comerica -- are they going to crowd out the street trying to get into those stations, whereas in curbside, they'll remain on the sides? I don't know, because I'm not an engineer and I'm looking for examples in other cities using these systems.

Unless M1 planners are banking that riders will just ride around in a circle, at some point people are going to have to cross the street to the other curbside station to go in the opposite direction. When crowds leave Comerica, yes the crowd would remain on the eastside curb station. When crowds arrive at Comerica it would be pretty similar with today's setup where people crowd the street crossing from the western Parktown lots toward Comerica. Is there a statistical safety advantage to crossing half the street every time or crossing the whole street every other time? I do not know and don't care to research this one. Regardless, the amount of pedestrian traffic crossing Woodward on game days should have warranted a pedestrian bridge/tunnel long ago. One could also speculate that something classified as a “train” would pose more of a pedestrian danger traveling closer to the curb than normal vehicular traffic. One thing that happens quite frequently on the bus is the constant course adjustments required for sharing the curb lane with cars. A car will think your going to slow, they speed up and cut the bus off by turning right in front forcing it to stop or swerve violently[[happens on average 2-3 times traveling on Woodward between Downtown and Royal Oak). A driver is trying to pull out onto Woodward and their view is blocked by parked cars so they squeeze out half-way into the travel lane in which case the bus either has to honk until the car backs up or can pass in the left lane. The curbside lane is prone to interference from bad parallel parkers. Where either a driver has to make repeated efforts to park [[blocking the curb lane while trying) or they do it badly and park too far out from the curb [[this is pretty dangerous to cyclists too). And lastly the right turn lane is subject to conjestion from cars yielding the right away to pedestrians crossings. Here is some fuel for the Light Rail vs Streetcar debates:


Portland says KC should use Light Rail instead of Street Cars

November 05th, 2007 | Category: Transit-Oriented Development, Technology

“Light rail is where I’d start; I think light rail is the best way for you guys to start, I really do.” –Vicky Diede, Street Car Project Manager in Portland, Oregon, recommends Light Rail over Street Cars for Kansas City
In what's sure to cause some editorial room heckling, Hearne Christopher at The Star relates his conversation with Vicky Diede, Street Car Project Manager in Portland, OR.
Diede, who's spent more then 15 years working on Portland's transportation system, describes how streets cars function:
“Streetcars are inner city connectors, and they’re designed for stopping every two to three blocks,” she says. “The purpose is not to take you from the airport to downtown. Can they do it? Yes, but that’s not their purpose. … I don’t know what the ideal speed is, but [[generally) they go very slow — 8 to 12 miles per hour.”
This opinion runs counter to what The Star suggested last week. It also contrasts the differing functions of faster and higher-passenger Light Rail with slower and lower-passenger street cars. Light Rail moves more people farther and faster, while street cars are "an inner city connector."

And some of the comments:

Well, a starter line, especially on the routes currently being discussed, had better stop every couple of block for it to work, right?
It sounds like the Portland person didn’t have an appropriate context to voice a valid opinion on the starter line…

I think there’s a lot of confusion over streetcars/light rail as vehicles vs streetcar/light rail lines.
PCC’s, for example, can easily get up to 45mph, if they have a nice stretch of track where it’s safe to do that.
LRV’s can go faster, though they may accelerate a littler slower. But they cost more, and weigh a lot more, and need much more expensive track and overhead.
So you can build what’s basically a “light rail” system, with some street running but hopeful more in reserved medians and private right-of-way as you get farther from downtown, and call it a “streetcar” system, and it’ll cost a lot less, with the tradeoff that in some parts of the system [[like going from downtown to the airport) it won’t be quite as fast.
But how often do light rail trains really get a chance to reach those higher speeds? It varies a lot from system to system. Looking at a few [[west coast) systems that I’m familiar with: In LA, the blue and green lines go pretty fast, so I’d say the extra expense of heavy duty track and overhead was worth it. Same for San Diego. In San Francisco and San Jose, Light Rail trains basically operate as streetcars. Especially in the case of SF, I’d say that traditional streetcars would probably work *better* than light rail, because they’re more nimble, and better able to deal with traffic.
So my main point is: don’t get your choices restricted into preconceived categories, like slow and stuck-in-trafiic streetcars vs unaffordable, overbuilt light rail–figure out what you need, and the most cost effective kind of equipment to deliver it!
…

If its in the street, Vicki is right, you need LRT first. But LRT can mean Rapid Streetcar. And that recent article where Clay Chastain talks about streetcars is full of misrepresentations and shows he really doesn’t know much about the spectrum that is light rail. Europeans laugh at our streetcar vs. light rail distinction as to them they are all one thing. Trams.
…

for me, it’s less about the name than it is about capacity and flexibility. if you can’t add cars or support higher speed lines coming in from our far-flung suburbs — MCI is 20 miles from our downtown loop, and that line would probably have just a handful of stops — then you’re not planning very well for the future. all systems expand, so why not make the right decisions now versus paying double to redo something later?
regardless, it will come down to voter support for how much new tax revenue is needed.
…

Thank you Dave!
It’s really sad that so many people do not understand that you cannot look at what is good for today because we’re talking 5-10 years down the line. With the possibility and city backed plans for expansion and growth, something needs to be done to our infrastructure in KC.
If we go the streetcar route, the efficiency will not be there due to multiple stops and slower speeds among the streets. Then once its jam-packed, people will want to upgrade to a light-rail system that will be even more expensive to build 10 years from now to replace the smaller starter system.
Look ahead at where the growth potential and trends are occurring and make something happen!!!
…

[mwilbert]

In Boston and San Francisco, the on-street light rail is not the spine of the regional transit system. Both these cities have significant heavy-rail transit, and the streetcar is a second tier of service, operating just about like an electric bus on steel wheels.

This is pretty debatable.

BART is basically just one line through San Francisco--the Muni cars service the rest of the city. It may be a second-tier of service, but it is the only tier in most of the city. Similarly, the Green Line isn't a second tier of service either; it is the main east-west rail service in Boston. Even ignoring this and Ghettopalmetto's point about Green Line volume, I don't understand what this has to do with putting the tracks at the edge of the ROW vs. the center, unless someone was planning to put streetcars at the edge AND something faster in the center, which seems unlikely, or if you could run faster trains at the edge, which seems wrong.

[French777]

Has there been any update since May?

I thought I read that the M-1 Rail was going to have to wait to do an "environmental study". In order to not jeopardize future Federal Funding. Is that true?

Also, Wasn't the M-1 Team going to have a website up and running?

[bailey]

I hate to reach so far back on the thread to post something, but it was just bumped up today and as I was reading the thread, this statement caught my eye...

That one "second-tier" line carries 125% more riders on a daily basis than both the entire DDOT and SMART systems combined. In my opinion, that just demonstrates if you build the line properly and surround it with dense, walkable development, people are going to ride.

What came first, Bostons incredibly dense urban make up or the green line? Or, possibly did they grow up together? One thing is for certain, it wasn't a 1.5 mile loop retrofitted into a decimated and abandoned urban core after 50 years of sprawl...and then magically overnight 300,000 people moved in to the area.

The problem is not building the line. The problem is the "surrounding it with people" part and a reason for them to use it. A street level people mover, which goes from nowhere any major amount of people live to somewhere fewer and fewer people need to go [[except on game day or Auto Show season) is destined to fail. Light rail in such a small and irrelevant area [[in the SEM area) isn't going to prompt any massive move of people back into Detroit from the far flung exurbs...or inner ring. No one is packing up the family and moving into Detroit from Shelby township. just aint gonna happen. It's just going to make for smoother parking traffic on game days.

People around here don't choose not to live in Detroit because there is no mass transit, they don't live in detroit because it's a failed city. They don't live in Detroit because their job is in auburn hills, or southfield, or troy. They dont live in Detroit because their parents moved the family out to Farmington in 1970 and never looked back. They don't live in detroit because they can't send their kids to public schools. They dont live in detroit because they just don't like black people.... I mean the reasons are endless, but lack of a 8 mile or New center to downtown people mover line is not going to convince them othewise.

The problem is not a lack of functioning mass transit, the problem is a lack of a functioning City. Before we tackle the former, the latter needs to be addressed.

[ghettopalmetto]

The problem is not a lack of functioning mass transit, the problem is a lack of a functioning City. Before we tackle the former, the latter needs to be addressed.

One of the major issues facing the City of Detroit, from both a financial and a service-delivery perspective, is the sparse patterns of inhabitation that have evolved over the past 60 years. Given the declining tax base, the City simply cannot afford to service 139 square miles of territory in an effective manner.

Reconsider the Boston example. As a "walking city", Boston's density arrived before the Green Line "T". The same is true for pre-1920 Detroit. Do you propose that Detroit was born with shell-shocked blocks of abandoned houses and empty lots? The difference was that maintaining Boston's "T" did not necessitate demolition of block upon block in order to accommodate automobiles. Detroit ran in the other direction, tearing out the streetcar lines and demolishing buildings to accommodate automobiles--a policy that continues to this day.

No one is proposing the idea that a rail transit line will cause Mom and Pop and their 2.3 kids to pack up the SUV and sell their vinyl-sided paradise for a condo in downtown Detroit. But if you make Detroit an easier place to get around, you make it easier to conduct business. Anyone paying $3000 a year in car insurance will attest to this. If you make it easier to conduct business, people realize they can start making money in Detroit, and perhaps won't feel so compelled to flee to Chicago, the East Coast, or the South in order to make a buck.

[bailey]

Given the declining tax base, the City simply cannot afford to service 139 square miles of territory in an effective manner.

agreed. Personally I'm all for massive condemnation, massive relocation of whoever is left in theses urban prairies, massive bulldozing, and massive divestment of infrastructure to vast swaths of the city in order to right size it to what can reasonably be provided. somehow, I think that wouldn't fly though.

Do you propose that Detroit was born with shell-shocked blocks of abandoned houses and empty lots?

Of course I don't propose that. I'm simply looking to the reality of the situation. 50-60 years of sprawl are not going to be counteracted by a half assed light rail loop that goes virtually nowhere and offers to serve as hardly anything more than as a parking shuttle.

But if you make Detroit an easier place to get around, you make it easier to conduct business.

well, one could add more parking right? Business is conducting itself just fine most every where else in the Metro region.Well, as well as can be expected in this economy. It's going like gangbusters in Grand Rapids. vacancy rates are higher out on Big Beaver than at most times, but still far and away lower than in Detroit. "getting around" has less to do with conducting business than having an attractive business climate, rental rates in line with reality, an educated workforce, responsive city government, and effective city services.

Anyone paying $3000 a year in car insurance will attest to this.

People paying 3000 in car insurance don't need to move 500 miles away, they need to move 5 minutes away.

f you make it easier to conduct business, people realize they can start making money in Detroit, and perhaps won't feel so compelled to flee to Chicago, the East Coast, or the South in order to make a buck.

People don't flee to Chicago et al to make a buck, they flee to get a job..period. They flee because they want to live in a real, functioning city and not wait 50 years for detroit to get it's act together. A street level pointless people mover isn't going to stop that exodus.