Bing, Snyder back new plan for 3-mile light-rail line on Woodward

[gthomas]

Ase' !! I agree 100%

Establish LRT on Woodward. Develop strategic BRT. Concentrate investment. Move forward.

[casscorridor]

Detroit traded its city to have those relatively congestion-free roadways. I think the current situation has shown us that it wasn't such a great idea... And if the city gets rebuilt it would need mass transit options.

I think you are getting really close to the essence of Detroit's urban planning failure.

I would add that Detroit was, historically [[pre-WWII), very dense, albeit being composed primarily of single family or two-family residences. The homes were densely packed, within close walking distance to commercial districts and street cars.

But what if the freeways were still built, without acting as a substitute for street cars? If Detroit would have maintained its streetcar system throughout the 1950s and 60s, and then accepted federal funding for a subway/light-rail system in the 1970s, we would see a much different city than is here today, even with all the freeways still in tact.

Would Detroit not have been a vibrant destination city, a Midwestern Philadelphia [[Chicago being the Midwestern New York)?

[Hermod]

I think you are getting really close to the essence of Detroit's urban planning failure.

I would add that Detroit was, historically [[pre-WWII), very dense, albeit being composed primarily of single family or two-family residences. The homes were densely packed, within close walking distance to commercial districts and street cars.

But what if the freeways were still built, without acting as a substitute for street cars? If Detroit would have maintained its streetcar system throughout the 1950s and 60s, and then accepted federal funding for a subway/light-rail system in the 1970s, we would see a much different city than is here today, even with all the freeways still in tact.

Would Detroit not have been a vibrant destination city, a Midwestern Philadelphia [[Chicago being the Midwestern New York)?

C-C, did you ever ride a DSR streetcar? They were about the same speed as a bus. Crossing to the safety island was an adventure. With the safety island on each side, the tracks took up an inordinate amount of the space on the street. The overhead wire and the track maintenance [[plus the repaving of the street after the track maintenance) was expensive and time consuming. Even if you had the streetcars running up and down Woodward, Gratiot, and Grand River, all of the bad things that have happened in Detroit since 1967 would still have happened.

[Brian1979]

I've been behind this concept for a while. I've never understood why it hasn't been given more consideration. We have an already built ROW with stations serving every part of downtown. Scrap the automated system and rolling stock and just use the rails. Eliminate a few stations and have the People Mover line cross over Grand Circus and then go to grade. Saves construction costs downtown, dramatically increases the utility of the People Mover system and hopefully saves operating costs by combining the two entities. As Brian mentioned, this would work much the same way as the Chicago Loop. It could likely support another expansion line at some in the future as well [[Michigan perhaps). The loop rails in Chicago support 2-3 concurrent lines depending on the particular stretch and direction.

I sure am glad I'm not the only one that thought of this. This makes sense and would maximize ridership on the People Mover, basically all the People Mover does is takes visitors around the downtown area, as well as downtown workers and sports fans when something is going on at Comerica, Ford Field or the Joe. The loop in Chicago has the green line using part of the loop on the Wells and Lake Street sides and the orange, brown, pink and during rush hours the purple lines, the red and blue lines run in the subways downtown but it sounds like the perfect idea for Detroit to finally have a use for the People Mover rather than using it simply for the downtown area. I agree about having another branch like along Michigan or Grand River or Gratiot possibly all three at some point that would be the ideal mass transit system for Detroit. Ultimately the Michigan line could go all the way to Metro Airport and downtown Detroit would have a rail line connecting to the airport. Something needs to be done with the traffic situation in Detroit, there may have been some people leave the region over the last decade but the traffic situation has got worse I think. I love using the Chicago system as an example of how to do a mass transit system the right way, Even Cleveland, Ohio has a mass transit system and they have the same population density as Detroit but half the square mileage they only have 77 square miles in Cleveland. Detroit needs to get something going if they want to be a real major city again, they really need to do something to make it a major destination for people.

[Brian1979]

I think you are getting really close to the essence of Detroit's urban planning failure.

I would add that Detroit was, historically [[pre-WWII), very dense, albeit being composed primarily of single family or two-family residences. The homes were densely packed, within close walking distance to commercial districts and street cars.

But what if the freeways were still built, without acting as a substitute for street cars? If Detroit would have maintained its streetcar system throughout the 1950s and 60s, and then accepted federal funding for a subway/light-rail system in the 1970s, we would see a much different city than is here today, even with all the freeways still in tact.

Would Detroit not have been a vibrant destination city, a Midwestern Philadelphia [[Chicago being the Midwestern New York)?

That's true. Look at cities that have had a subway system for over 100 years, NYC, Chicago and Boston are three perfect examples, Philly is another. Those four cities have population densities over 10,000. Detroit has a density around 5,000. I think Detroit could possibly still have 1.3 million people at least still living within the city limits today if they had done something about the mass transit problem in the 1960's and 70's.

[dtowncitylover]

Would Detroit not have been a vibrant destination city, a Midwestern Philadelphia [[Chicago being the Midwestern New York)?

*Homer Simpson drooling*

It just sounds so nice!

[iheartthed]

I think you are getting really close to the essence of Detroit's urban planning failure.

I would add that Detroit was, historically [[pre-WWII), very dense, albeit being composed primarily of single family or two-family residences. The homes were densely packed, within close walking distance to commercial districts and street cars.

But what if the freeways were still built, without acting as a substitute for street cars? If Detroit would have maintained its streetcar system throughout the 1950s and 60s, and then accepted federal funding for a subway/light-rail system in the 1970s, we would see a much different city than is here today, even with all the freeways still in tact.

Would Detroit not have been a vibrant destination city, a Midwestern Philadelphia [[Chicago being the Midwestern New York)?

Well, who knows what could have been... But I guess the closest test case for what you're saying would be Chicago. Chicago has a fairly extensive freeway network and also has a decent transit system. So I imagine that Detroit would look something like Chicago today if the region had put more resources into its public transit [[or public services in general)... Chicago is not perfect but its urban core has clearly rebounded better than any other city in the industrial Midwest.

Also, again who knows, Detroit may have even surpassed Chicago in population by now, since the region was well on its way to doing so before the shit hit the fan.

What is clear, though, is that Detroit's road network was a pretty bad investment in terms of economic development. There has been little economic expansion in Metro Detroit for nearly half a century.

[Gistok]

I recently asked a group of a dozen recently graduated metro Detroit students who went to WMU... and posed the question of why they would consider moving out of metro Detroit. Their major reasons included cold weather and finding jobs. When I posed the question of whether mass transit were a reason... I got this puzzled look, along with a universal "no" from the group.

So I think mass transit is more important a reason for folks on this forum that the public in general... but that's to be expected. Not everyone wants high density living.

[mwilbert]

I would say three things about this:

1) Of course they would say that, they are from Detroit and hence clueless about non-auto transportation.

2) Even if they don't care about public transit, they might like the ambiance which could be promoted by transit.

3) I doubt transit is the dominant factor in whether people come to or stay in Metro Detroit, but I certainly know some young'uns who were pretty peeved about the LRT being shelved, because they were looking forward to using it. I suspect you might get somewhat different answers from WSU students, past and present.

[bartock]

So then it would be a liability to the taxpayers if SteveJ's scenario [[or any number of scenarios that would lead to failure) plays out.

The point is if we're going to start something [[building an extensive mass transit system) we might as well start it off right. For the life of me, if the money to build it is there, I don't understand why they won't intially build this line all the way to 8 Mile. At least then more people would be willing to ride it, because more people would have access to it and it does travel a more reasonable distance.

What they're proposing now will likely be a waste of time and money [[everyone's money). We're essentially looking at the People Mover on steroids. No one's going to pay $2 or more to ride a 3 mile trolley when they reach the same destination just as fast by walking or automobile, or even bus if this one's going to be curbside. That's why the extension to 8 Mile was proposed in the first place.

Even assuming [[and it is a big assumption) that taxpayers would be on the hook for operating costs for the 3.4 mile line, the LRT cheerleaders have put that cost at less than 10 million a year. Costs for light rail out to 8 mile was pegged at 500 million plus the yearly operating costs. Don't ask me why half that distance financed by mostly private funds is now pegged at less than 150 million, but whatever it becomes a risk/reward proposition. As has been pointed out many times, where is there any evidence that folks would drive to 8 mile to take the train downtown, when you as a city resident know darn well the population density from the Boulevard to 8 mile along Woodward is...suspect [[not to mention half of another city that isn't Detroit). It is a bit crazy to me that people somehow think that the Grand Boulevard plan versus the 8 mile plan is that much different in terms of what it means and what it might be. Seems that people are knocking the current plan - and, more specifically, the people involved - without understanding a fundamental fact about WHO the people funding these proposal/plans are.

[ThisIsForTheHeart]

Route?

I can go from SCS to Ann Arbor in rush hour in 1 hour... so curious people want to know?

Hoover-696 to 696-M5-I275-I96 Speeds are never constant and always slamming on the brakes to a complete stop every 300ft.

[laphoque]

Hoover-696 to 696-M5-I275-I96 Speeds are never constant and always slamming on the brakes to a complete stop every 300ft.

Do you know about traffic waves? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGFqfTCL2fs

[Jason]

Even assuming [[and it is a big assumption) that taxpayers would be on the hook for operating costs for the 3.4 mile line, the LRT cheerleaders have put that cost at less than 10 million a year. Costs for light rail out to 8 mile was pegged at 500 million plus the yearly operating costs. Don't ask me why half that distance financed by mostly private funds is now pegged at less than 150 million, but whatever it becomes a risk/reward proposition. As has been pointed out many times, where is there any evidence that folks would drive to 8 mile to take the train downtown, when you as a city resident know darn well the population density from the Boulevard to 8 mile along Woodward is...suspect [[not to mention half of another city that isn't Detroit). It is a bit crazy to me that people somehow think that the Grand Boulevard plan versus the 8 mile plan is that much different in terms of what it means and what it might be. Seems that people are knocking the current plan - and, more specifically, the people involved - without understanding a fundamental fact about WHO the people funding these proposal/plans are.

Despite the empty lots Detroit actually does have a relatively high population density. Detroit has an average density of 5,100 people per square mile, which would be higher along Woodward since there's no urban prairie or expansive industrial areas.

Portland has a density of 4,200. Phoenix is 3,000. San Diego is 4,000.


Aside from that, while there would be some park & ride happening [[I'm guessing mostly for touristy type stuff like baseball games), most of the people using it would be along the line. And having the extra length out to 8 Mile adds more value and worth to the system as a whole, since it connects way more people and places. And while the most desirable section of Woodward is between downtown and New Center, light rail has a big economic/developmental aspect which would have a big effect on Woodward beyond that.


I don't know exactly about the prices, but the line to New Center is almost exactly 3 miles, and because Woodward isn't perfectly North, the line to 8 Mile would actually be 9 miles long.



But anyway, the benefits of light rail and other transportation systems have been studied, and light rail has been shown to be popular with riders and has a surprisingly strong economic [[several times the construction/operating cost). It's a no-brainer, and even though it seems like most of the people involve want light rail built, the problem is finding the money [[it's a great investment but you still need a lot of money upfront), and deciding who and how will handle operating costs. The federal government and the private investors seem to have done most of the initial money finding work, but now an RTA is needed for operating costs, but in order for everyone in the would-be RTA to join in, they need to be serviced by the system, which needs the money needs to be spread thinner to reach all counties, so we have a lot of BRT instead of a solid chunk of light rail, which would be added to over time, to service all the counties.

[Tig3rzhark]

I don't believe anyone until I see shovels in the ground.

Well said. Especially since that hasn't happened yet. There's no telling when they will change their mind.

[Hermod]

Hoover-696 to 696-M5-I275-I96 Speeds are never constant and always slamming on the brakes to a complete stop every 300ft.

I don't think that the transit enthusiasts here on DetroitYes are planning for light rail on the I-696 corridor.

[Richard]

I would say three things about this:

1) Of course they would say that, they are from Detroit and hence clueless about non-auto transportation.

2) Even if they don't care about public transit, they might like the ambiance which could be promoted by transit.

3) I doubt transit is the dominant factor in whether people come to or stay in Metro Detroit, but I certainly know some young'uns who were pretty peeved about the LRT being shelved, because they were looking forward to using it. I suspect you might get somewhat different answers from WSU students, past and present.

Do not forget about us old people ,a high rise loft with no maintenance hassles and walk ability to coffee shops ,bingo,and restaurants shopping etc. like the rail also. So it is not just for young ones ,drunks and one legged drunk tattooed hookers.

[Flintoid]

The 3.4 mile stretch is a great idea if and only if it is a part of a greater 110 mile BRT system and is run by the RTA planning to run that system. A downtown feeder connecting to a BRT system in the outer city and burbs is a great idea [[and if people can actually get downtown without their car thanks to the larger system, the people mover will seem more like the loop and less like an amusement park attraction). Combine M1 with BRT and this area can finally have a modern public transit system that will attract dollars and residents.

[rhythmc]

I'm lost on why the three mile run of the light rail plan is seen as such a bad idea. I'm sure the ultimate purpose is to create more reliable transit for the city and possibly region when and if they ever fully sign on. But there is potential for it to stimulate development along the shorter stretch. If successful, the city and state win and it will prove to have the stimulating impact that will make further expansion viable.

[detmsp]

I'm lost on why the three mile run of the light rail plan is seen as such a bad idea. I'm sure the ultimate purpose is to create more reliable transit for the city and possibly region when and if they ever fully sign on. But there is potential for it to stimulate development along the shorter stretch. If successful, the city and state win and it will prove to have the stimulating impact that will make further expansion viable.

Yes but the exact opposite could also be true. The shorter the line, the less points of interest it connects, the less residential areas it will serve and the less it will get used. If this short line doesn't get very good ridership, you'll likely hear "why would we pay millions to expand a system no one uses?"

[royce]

Does anyone know how much it costs per light-rail car vs. a bus? I would think that it's more expensive to maintain a bus considering that it needs fuel, oil, tires, shocks, etc.... A light rail car could be in service for years without major repairs. So, I guess my second question is, "Where does the bulk of the operating/maintenance costs for a light-rail system come from?

[Richard]

Does anyone know how much it costs per light-rail car vs. a bus? I would think that it's more expensive to maintain a bus considering that it needs fuel, oil, tires, shocks, etc.... A light rail car could be in service for years without major repairs. So, I guess my second question is, "Where does the bulk of the operating/maintenance costs for a light-rail system come from?

Street car runs approximately $130 per hour verses $85 per hour with bus ,those are rough estimates with out more specific salary numbers but that is the jist of it ,includes marketing ,administration etc so costs are total.

At this point streetcars run 35 to 50% higher then bus but vintage style cars actually run approximately 3 to 5 million less then the new style.

I posted this question sometime back you can kinda see why now

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/archive...p/t-8667.html?


So basically 1 alignment 3.8 miles long of 2 cars stopping at 15 minute intervals every 700 ft will run $2 to $3 million per year to run depending on hours of operation.

Fares cover 15% of operating costs other sources are advertising etc.
Property assesment for rail side roughly $20 per foot but have shown a $78 average gain in value and useable a 1.5 % market value tax assessment covers it .

It gets more involved but it would take up lots of space here

[Hermod]

Does anyone know how much it costs per light-rail car vs. a bus? I would think that it's more expensive to maintain a bus considering that it needs fuel, oil, tires, shocks, etc.... A light rail car could be in service for years without major repairs. So, I guess my second question is, "Where does the bulk of the operating/maintenance costs for a light-rail system come from?

Overhead and track. The old streetcars were almost maintenance free. The newer ones are more complicated and not built as ruggedly. They do require more maintenance. Overhead wire does need a lot of maintenance.

[ghettopalmetto]

I recently asked a group of a dozen recently graduated metro Detroit students who went to WMU... and posed the question of why they would consider moving out of metro Detroit. Their major reasons included cold weather and finding jobs. When I posed the question of whether mass transit were a reason... I got this puzzled look, along with a universal "no" from the group.

So I think mass transit is more important a reason for folks on this forum that the public in general... but that's to be expected. Not everyone wants high density living.

But does that mean NO ONE wants high-density living?

Even if your scientifically selected survey group can't enunciate the idea, if you dropped them in the middle of Chicago, I'm sure they could point out the qualitative differences from their suburban hometown or the City of Detroit.

Folks who don't want "high density" living already have that choice, in spades I might add. The ones who do, move to Chicago.

[bartock]

Despite the empty lots Detroit actually does have a relatively high population density. Detroit has an average density of 5,100 people per square mile, which would be higher along Woodward since there's no urban prairie or expansive industrial areas.

Portland has a density of 4,200. Phoenix is 3,000. San Diego is 4,000.


Aside from that, while there would be some park & ride happening [[I'm guessing mostly for touristy type stuff like baseball games), most of the people using it would be along the line. And having the extra length out to 8 Mile adds more value and worth to the system as a whole, since it connects way more people and places. And while the most desirable section of Woodward is between downtown and New Center, light rail has a big economic/developmental aspect which would have a big effect on Woodward beyond that.


I don't know exactly about the prices, but the line to New Center is almost exactly 3 miles, and because Woodward isn't perfectly North, the line to 8 Mile would actually be 9 miles long.



But anyway, the benefits of light rail and other transportation systems have been studied, and light rail has been shown to be popular with riders and has a surprisingly strong economic [[several times the construction/operating cost). It's a no-brainer, and even though it seems like most of the people involve want light rail built, the problem is finding the money [[it's a great investment but you still need a lot of money upfront), and deciding who and how will handle operating costs. The federal government and the private investors seem to have done most of the initial money finding work, but now an RTA is needed for operating costs, but in order for everyone in the would-be RTA to join in, they need to be serviced by the system, which needs the money needs to be spread thinner to reach all counties, so we have a lot of BRT instead of a solid chunk of light rail, which would be added to over time, to service all the counties.

I think it is something like 3.4 miles, with more stops than the other 5.7 miles, but whatever.

The density bit always comes up, but the area between Grand Blvd. and 8 Mile is really not that dense. It consists mostly of Highland Park, followed by [[on the Detroit side) two miles of Palmer Park, including a golf course, a wealthy neighborhood with light density, and a cemetery. Oh, and it ends at a completely pedestrian-unfriendly juncture. There has been a TON written on these boards with respect to the idea of infrastructure of LRT leading to more businesses, density, etc. I submit that this is exactly why the initial line of 3.4 miles funded by private investors is a great idea. The BRT really deals with a different issue, and hits the areas of higher density. If both work out, it would follow that the LRT would likely expand. In the meantime, the feds are forking in a lot for the BRT, some LRT is getting built, and hopefully real transit options become available. Those who complain about the "what if it doesn't work" should look at it from both sides and figure they went with the lessor risk.

[ghettopalmetto]

I think it is something like 3.4 miles, with more stops than the other 5.7 miles, but whatever.

The density bit always comes up, but the area between Grand Blvd. and 8 Mile is really not that dense. It consists mostly of Highland Park, followed by [[on the Detroit side) two miles of Palmer Park, including a golf course, a wealthy neighborhood with light density, and a cemetery. Oh, and it ends at a completely pedestrian-unfriendly juncture. There has been a TON written on these boards with respect to the idea of infrastructure of LRT leading to more businesses, density, etc. I submit that this is exactly why the initial line of 3.4 miles funded by private investors is a great idea. The BRT really deals with a different issue, and hits the areas of higher density. If both work out, it would follow that the LRT would likely expand. In the meantime, the feds are forking in a lot for the BRT, some LRT is getting built, and hopefully real transit options become available. Those who complain about the "what if it doesn't work" should look at it from both sides and figure they went with the lessor risk.

Here are a few ideas, off the top of my head, why the stillborn light rail line to New Center is a terrible idea:

1. We were told there wasn't money to fund operation of the line to 8 Mile. Who pays for operation of the line to New Center?

2. The Fairgrounds area would have been a logical location to construct a storage and maintenance facility. Where, between downtown and New Center, do you build a car barn?

3. Construction of the line to Eight Mile could have saved money by eliminating the duplicative 53 Woodward bus and replacing it with electrically-powered rail. Now, you need to maintain service on the 53 as well, either for the full route, or involving a goofy and time-consuming transfer to rail at New Center. If the latter, then you have to construct a transfer facility with ample waiting area, and bays for both buses and railcars.

4. It goes without saying that a shorter rail route would have lower ridership. We would hear complaints that "no one" rides it because "it doesn't go anywhere". There is a nonlinear relationship between the extent and redundancy of a transportation network and its usage, i.e. construction of half the route would result in less than half the ridership. The anti-transit folks would say, "See--we told you so!", and no transit system will be built in Detroit for at least 100 years.

5. There is no long-term plan for transit expansion beyond New Center. Roll all of the above together, and you have People Mover II.