Why Dan Gilbert is wrong about Curbside Rail

[jsmyers]

Michigan is 100' in the East "downtown" and about 75' in the West. [[The sidewalks are narrower now.) That would be a tight sqeeze.

|11.5'|11'|30'|11'|11.5'|

Sidewalks and travel lanes get squeezed by what is probably a much narrower than preferred platform.

I checked a couple of other ROW widths:

Gratoit @ Van Dyke is 115' as well.

It looks like Jefferson is 120' or at least more than 115' all the way to Alter.

[jsmyers]

Exactly. The lightrail in Minneapolis travels at 40 MPH outside downtown and arrives at a stop every 2-3 minutes. If stopping took 2-3 minutes, it wouldn't travel anywhere!

The point is average speeds. You are not going to get an LRT system that gets above a 25 mph average speed unless it is practically a subway [[some of the Boston green line branches for instance). If metro Detroit was able to build a 25 mph average LRT system from Detroit to Pontiac, the trip would take exactly an hour!

The Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis has an average speed of 18 mph according to wikipedia over a 12.3 mile route. If Woodward LRT was the same speed all the way to Pontiac, the trip would take about an 1:20

This example proves my point: You don't want to take LRT for a 25 mile trip. Other transit modes are better at those distances.

I did not say that a stop on a 40 mph line would incur a 2-3 minute penalty per stop. I said that a stop from 50 or 55 mph would do so, and in reality, I'm probably wrong about 3 minutes and it is closer to 2 minutes. At 40 mph, it might be closer to a minute and a half.

Try this experiment [[either in thought or with a friend on a lightly traveled road):

1. Both cars get going an even 50 mph right next to each other.
2. The car closer to the right gradually slows down to a stop. Don't slow down too fast, imagine somebody is standing up on your back seat and you don't want to knock them down.
3. After you come to a complete stop, do a Chinese fire-drill, except not at a frantic pace. Pretend your grandmother or a veteran in a wheelchair is a part of the process. You are going to be stopped for 20 seconds at an absolute minimum, and probably closer to 45 seconds.
4. Accelerate back up to speed at a gentle pace [[remember the standing person).
5. Now call your buddy in the car that didn't stop. Count off the seconds there are between the front and back car in passing some obvious landmark. I bet that the car in front is at least 1:30 ahead of the back car, and maybe more.

A car leisurely accelerating is going 0-50 mph in probably 15-20 seconds. That is actually really fast for a train with people standing in it.

25 seconds acceleration +
25 seconds deceleration +
45 seconds time loading and unloading =

95 seconds or 1:35.

Now what happens if you have a crush load train or if you have to load somebody with a wheel chair? [[Low floor LRT vehicles still have a ramp that has to come out and then go back in.) You need to schedule enough time that you aren't going to always be late at the end of the line.

[Gistok]

Thanks for all the extensive details jsmyers...

Being an eastern burb guy I rarely travel Michigan [[for obvious reasons)... but I did notice that on some weekends when I-94 was closed for maintenance on the west side, I took Michigan into town and got onto I-75 back to I-94. And that's when I noticed that in some areas Michigan Ave. was only 2 lanes [[plus turn and parking lanes)... which originally begged my question.

[jsmyers]

A few total line average speeds for US LRT systems:

Baltimore: 22 MPH over 30 miles [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Light_Rail)
Charlotte: 9.6 miles in 30 minutes = <20 MPH [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_Ra...ansit_Services) + timetable
Seattle Central Link: 15.6 miles in 36 minutes = 26 MPH, includes a subway [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Link#Travel_Times)
Portland MAX: 19.6 MPH [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAX_Yellow_Line)

[cramerro]

With center running LRT in a 120' ROW:

|12'|11'|11'|11'|30'|11'|11'|11'|12'|

and 100' ROW:

|12'|11'|11'|30'|11'|11'|12'|

-or-

|12'|11'|11'|30'|11'|11'|12'|

Alternatively, you can cut out one of the 11' lanes and put a bike lane on both sides. The side with the extra vehicle lane can alternate as the LRT moves back and forth across the ROW [[or the ROW moves under the LRT).

So yes, where there is a 100' ROW, there will either be no parking or there will only be 1 travel lane. In practice, usually there is 1 through travel lane with parking, and then at intersections, dedicated turn lanes are provided [[but no parking).

jsmyers,

A few thoughts on the laneage, especially parking lanes.

First, if it's going to be a true parking lane 100% of the time, you don't need a full 11' - you can acutally go as narrow as 8', but 9' is a better compromise. Similarly, you can reduce your travel lanes to 10.5 or 10' to pick up precious extra inches - these numbers were given the OK by MDOT along Michigan/Grand River in Lansing area, which is an MDOT route. Usually you need 4' from the curb minimum for a bike lane, usually 7' if it's between the parking lane and traffic to allow for doors opening. These small differences can sometimes allow the little extra space needed for bike lanes or parking where none is now but lanes are wide. I'd bet the lanes on MI Ave at least in Detroit are more like 13' or 14' right now... remember when the street was built in the first place it was just made how wide it is, not measured out to be optimal for x number of lanes.

Second is the idea of changeable lanes. The downtown line in Minneapolis uses this - during peak times, the parking lane is added as a true through lane. Other cities with more traffic e.g. Washington DC use parking lanes for traffic on many major streets. My dad and I were in Washington back when I was in college visiting the Washington Monument at the end of the day, and we didn't read the sign that said no parking after 5 - it was a $100 ticket. This treatment could be used during the AM/PM peaks to restore an extra lane to Michigan through downtown, if the businesses could stomach it.

[jsmyers]

First, if it's going to be a true parking lane 100% of the time, you don't need a full 11' - you can acutally go as narrow as 8', but 9' is a better compromise. Similarly, you can reduce your travel lanes to 10.5 or 10' to pick up precious extra inches - these numbers were given the OK by MDOT along Michigan/Grand River in Lansing area, which is an MDOT route. Usually you need 4' from the curb minimum for a bike lane, usually 7' if it's between the parking lane and traffic to allow for doors opening. These small differences can sometimes allow the little extra space needed for bike lanes or parking where none is now but lanes are wide. I'd bet the lanes on MI Ave at least in Detroit are more like 13' or 14' right now... remember when the street was built in the first place it was just made how wide it is, not measured out to be optimal for x number of lanes.

Second is the idea of changeable lanes. The downtown line in Minneapolis uses this - during peak times, the parking lane is added as a true through lane. Other cities with more traffic e.g. Washington DC use parking lanes for traffic on many major streets. My dad and I were in Washington back when I was in college visiting the Washington Monument at the end of the day, and we didn't read the sign that said no parking after 5 - it was a $100 ticket. This treatment could be used during the AM/PM peaks to restore an extra lane to Michigan through downtown, if the businesses could stomach it.

Thanks for adding details. I'm aware of these things numbers and practices, but I'm not sure that everybody else is. I was mostly trying to show how things are now as close as I could and then show how LRT can fit in with minimal changes.

[Gistok]

I remember driving down Michigan Ave. thru Dearborn many years ago [[again I'm an eastsider)... and saw that the middle lane was not a turning lane, but a changeable traffic lane, depending on morning or or afternoon rush hour. Is this still the case? This discussion jarred my memory....

[Detroitnerd]

I remember driving down Michigan Ave. thru Dearborn many years ago [[again I'm an eastsider)... and saw that the middle lane was not a turning lane, but a changeable traffic lane, depending on morning or or afternoon rush hour. Is this still the case? This discussion jarred my memory....

I'm not sure if it's still like that, but I remember it used to be that way. Actually, part of the day it was a turn lane. In the morning, the center lane was allocated for citybound traffic, and at the evening rush the center lane was allocated for westbound traffic. Now that you mention it, I don't think it's like that anymore.

[cramerro]

I remember driving down Michigan Ave. thru Dearborn many years ago [[again I'm an eastsider)... and saw that the middle lane was not a turning lane, but a changeable traffic lane, depending on morning or or afternoon rush hour. Is this still the case? This discussion jarred my memory....

Totally random but I was following the link and exploring the site from the DDOT is 37 Years Old thread and noticed on the page about Grand River's transit history that it was a big deal re: middle lanes.

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

Apparently [[before my time) the striped 2 middle lanes where the streetcars used to run were both changeable. So, 4 lanes worth of traffic went the heavy way at different times of the day. Interesting that those two were striped and the regular lanes weren't. I wonder if they had the same setup on Michigan after the streetcars were stopped. Apparently was a selling point for the rubber tire manufacturers/proponents that taking out the trains freed up so much more space for rubber err i mean cars.

[Gistok]

WOW!!!

Thanks Cramerro!!

All these years we've been duped into thinking that the streetcars were eliminated due to the lobbying by the automakers... when the truth be told... all the automakers did was make autos affordable to more people... and it was the drivers themselves who did the lobbying about eliminating the streetcars for more auto lanes.

Cramerro.... that one post and link alone is worthy of an entire new thread about the cause and effect of the elimination of the Detroit streetcars....

Thanks much for illuminating this fact!!

So now when folks on this forum say that it's the automakers fault that Detroit's streetcar system was eliminated... we can enlighten them with the facts!!

[Detroitnerd]

WOW!!!

Thanks Cramerro!!

All these years we've been duped into thinking that the streetcars were eliminated due to the lobbying by the automakers... when the truth be told... all the automakers did was make autos affordable to more people... and it was the drivers themselves who did the lobbying about eliminating the streetcars for more auto lanes.

Cramerro.... that one post and link alone is worthy of an entire new thread about the cause and effect of the elimination of the Detroit streetcars....

Thanks much for illuminating this fact!!

So now when folks on this forum say that it's the automakers fault that Detroit's streetcar system was eliminated... we can enlighten them with the facts!!

Well, in a narrow sense, it's true. National City Lines was not involved in the conversion of the DSR to bus. NCL could only buy private streetcar companies. DSR was a public department. But the influence of the rubber-auto-oil lobby wasn't nowhere to be found in Detroit, especially in the upper echelons of DSR and City Hall. I beg to differ: The public did like the streetcars. An informal newspaper poll in 1956 found that Detroiters wanted to keep their streetcars by a majority.

I mean, are you being sarcastic? Why seize on this morsel and see it as proof that sweeps far beyond its narrow thesis?

It's funny. If anybody brings up NCL, there are all these doubts, problems, legal decisions, etc. etc. etc. to prove that NCL was a benign organization that never intended to sweep away streetcars. But this one tidbit PROVES that Detroiters didn't want streetcars? You must be joking, methinks...

[Gistok]

Ummm.... if you go back to reread what I said... I said DRIVERS.... not DETROITERS....

[jsmyers]

More commentary on Transport Michigan:

http://www.transportmichigan.org/201...-to-bring.html

[cramerro]

I think it's also been well documented that the rubber tire industry and the auto industry have been in bed together since Henry Ford and Mr. Firestone were best buddies, and the ads in that link were paid for by an axle company. There's a great documentary I saw in my college sociology class that details all the different industries that were part of the conspiracy to dismantle the streetcars - can't ever remember what it was called, I should try and find it.

I'm sure, as you hypothesize, that there were plenty of right-minded engineers and planners who really beleived that phasing out the streetcar lines was the best thing to do, if for nothing else than in the name of progress. Just like those who thought tearing out 400-1,000' swaths of developed neighborhoods to build the freeways would catapult the city even higher into the stratosphere.

[j to the jeremy]

I think it's also been well documented that the rubber tire industry and the auto industry have been in bed together since Henry Ford and Mr. Firestone were best buddies, and the ads in that link were paid for by an axle company. There's a great documentary I saw in my college sociology class that details all the different industries that were part of the conspiracy to dismantle the streetcars - can't ever remember what it was called, I should try and find it.

I'm sure, as you hypothesize, that there were plenty of right-minded engineers and planners who really beleived that phasing out the streetcar lines was the best thing to do, if for nothing else than in the name of progress. Just like those who thought tearing out 400-1,000' swaths of developed neighborhoods to build the freeways would catapult the city even higher into the stratosphere.

The film is called "Taken for a Ride", and details the creation of National City Bus Lines by GM et. al, which bought up streetcars in many major cities and systematically ran them into the ground so they could implement new, "efficient" bus systems.

[cramerro]

The film is called "Taken for a Ride", and details the creation of National City Bus Lines by GM et. al, which bought up streetcars in many major cities and systematically ran them into the ground so they could implement new, "efficient" bus systems.

Yes - thank you. I think it's on YouTube somewheres... very interesting IMO.

[jsmyers]

Even more on Transport Michigan:

http://www.transportmichigan.org/201...-detroits.html