Detroit Rail Transit, a Proposed Solution

[coracle]

It must really suck dealing with the rest of us.

Yes again.

[stasu1213]

Again, you are demonstrating your very limited knowledge of the subject with this sort of pulled-from-the-air ruminating.

First of all, I'd like to borrow your crystal ball. It is amazing that you can not only see what the future holds, but that you can also see alternate realities so you can judge what would have happened if Detroit had built the subways planned in 1919 and later.

In fact, other than early experimental subways, such as the pneumatic train under New York's Broadway from the 1870s, I can't think of a single subway system that ever closed. Maybe some of the anti-transit folks know of some? [[Paging Mr. Hermod.)

As for the People Mover, people on here bag on the People Mover and really it doesn't make sense as a transit system. But that's not what it was intended to be. It was intended to be part of a transit system, linking transit lines on downtown Detroit's radial thoroughfares. It still may perform that function one day. Until then, it is a boutique system that doesn't take you anywhere you can't walk in about 15 minutes. But, again, you don't seem to understand the history here, so that's why I joke about you not being entitled to your opinion.

Does Detroit need a subway? It's hard to say. Does Helsinki need a subway? Detroit has hundreds of thousands more people than Helsinki, and is about twice as dense as Helsinki, but they have a subway. Does Lille, in France, need a subway? Detroit has about three times Lille's population, and a comparable density, but Lille has a subway and Detroit has none. Does another French city, Renne, need a subway? Detroit has about three-and-a-half times as many people as Renne, is denser than Renne, but Renne has a subway and Detroit has none.

So, you see, what it really comes down to is priorities. When you put a priority on mass transit, you get mass transit. When mass transit isn't a priority, you don't get good transit.

And don't bring up money. Frankly, metro Detroit is still one of the wealthiest regions in the country, and we don't even blink when discussing a $2 billion expansion of I-94 -- that gets approved by brain-dead MDOT administrators still on autopilot from the 1960s. No, the problem isn't money. It's priorities.

That and people who spout off about transit without having the faintest idea what they're talking about...

Can you think of any rail system in any major city that was discontinued such as the rail system in Detroit had been? Detroit has gotten rid of it's reliable form of mass transit in the 50's thanks to you know who. Detroit was foolish to discontinue it's rail system that was one of the best in the country. Detroit would had been foolish to discontue it's subway system also. What does the cities such as Helsinki, Lille, and Renne have in common? All three didn't have GM and Ford to destroy their transporation system and sabatoge any plans for the ones that they have. Detroit had been guilty of both. I am pro light rail. I had also said on this site two years ago that it wasn't going to happen at the time that TRU, The Mayor and other had said the groundbreaking was going to happen. My opinion was spot on back then. The people mover should had never been built being that downtown detroit was in a rapid decline. Very shortsighted by elected leaders and planners at the time. A nice light rail system would do wonders for the region without digging a tunnel underneath. Go figure

[Jimaz]

It must really suck dealing with the rest of us.

Yes again.

Then why are you here? Is it masochism?

[canuck]

Way to go mtburb! Detroit will kick pants when it decides to pull together for a transit system all other cities will envy. Remember how impossible it seemed for Losange Jellies to get its subway and light rail going, and yet it keeps growing. Never mind the detractors.

[Hermod]

So far cities such as Seoul, Helsinki, and Lille have been mentioned as reasons for Detroit having a subway. There are crucial differences between Detroit and those cities.

Their populations are rising and their roads are getting clogged. Detroit's population is falling and the streets are getting empty.

Their city centers are like magnets and all of the population in their burbs wants or needs to go downtown with some frequency. As noted above, there is little reason for someone living in Detroit's burbs to want or need to go downtown.

Much of the rationale shown for Detroit transit is "build it and they will come" which is not much of a reason to shell out big [[and scarce) gigabucks for this.

[Zacha341]

Well just to weigh in for a bit here, I rode Detroit buses as a kid, a teen, in college and on occasion now when my car is in the shop. The bus specifically is not a preferred experience. Slow, unreliable, and often very rowdy and yes, sometimes you do get a weird, obnoxious person sitting next to you. And now possibly bed bugs too!

Um, with crime, justified lawlessness and the lack of general public decorum as it is now, no thanks to being a 'captive audience' if I can avoid it [[public transportation).

What the hell does that mean? You're afraid someone you may not care for sit next to you? Have you ever been on a subway? bus? airplane? train? The world is full of people; it takes all kind.

[canuck]

Well just to weigh in for a bit here, I rode Detroit buses as a kid, a teen, in college and on occasion now when my car is in the shop. The bus specifically is not a preferred experience. Slow, unreliable, and often very rowdy and yes, sometimes you do get a weird, obnoxious person sitting next to you. And now possibly bed bugs too!

Um, with crime, justified lawlessness and the lack of general public decorum as it is now, no thanks to being a 'captive audience' if I can avoid it [[public transportation).

That is as far-fetched an account of public transit as you can find. I think it is fairer to say that Detroit has suffered from a lack of industrial diversity, abandonment over the course of 50 years to suburban flight and of course a total reliance on the car for mobility. The result is derelict neighborhoods and the concomitant criminal activity.

Hermod. So far cities such as Seoul, Helsinki, and Lille have been mentioned as reasons for Detroit having a subway. There are crucial differences between Detroit and those cities.

Their populations are rising and their roads are getting clogged. Detroit's population is falling and the streets are getting empty.

Their city centers are like magnets and all of the population in their burbs wants or needs to go downtown with some frequency. As noted above, there is little reason for someone living in Detroit's burbs to want or need to go downtown.

Much of the rationale shown for Detroit transit is "build it and they will come" which is not much of a reason to shell out big [[and scarce) gigabucks for this.

So you are saying it is no use trying to save downtown or the rest of Detroit from blight. Might as well build the bridge elsewhere and put an "X" on Detroit and Windsor for that matter. If you could circumvent Detroit with that bridge access and make it a hygienic stepping stone to Birmingham or the far-flung suburbs, non-stop, then it would be OK. As others have said before, I can't understand the motivation behind this kind of thought process.

[Hermod]

So you are saying it is no use trying to save downtown or the rest of Detroit from blight. Might as well build the bridge elsewhere and put an "X" on Detroit and Windsor for that matter. If you could circumvent Detroit with that bridge access and make it a hygienic stepping stone to Birmingham or the far-flung suburbs, non-stop, then it would be OK. As others have said before, I can't understand the motivation behind this kind of thought process.

Ummm, the blight in downtown Detroit and in the Detroit neighborhoods is not caused by lack of access to the downtown. You could build out the entire network as proposed by the thread starter and it would probably serve to make the suburbs more desirable. The main benefit to Detroit is that it might improve the lot of those Detroiters who lack convenient access to jobs and shopping in the burbs. To a poor Detroiter living around Gratiot and 7 Mile. the plan would make it quite easy to get out to Lakeside or Great Kakes and to get back home with their shopping bags.

The "build it and they will come" philosophy postulates that running Nerd's magic choo choo from downtown to Pontiac will immediately fill up all of the vacant office space downtown plus create a demand for more [[yeah, let's rehab the MCS and fill up all of those offices).

[Hermod]

Well just to weigh in for a bit here, I rode Detroit buses as a kid, a teen, in college and on occasion now when my car is in the shop. The bus specifically is not a preferred experience. Slow, unreliable, and often very rowdy and yes, sometimes you do get a weird, obnoxious person sitting next to you. And now possibly bed bugs too!

Um, with crime, justified lawlessness and the lack of general public decorum as it is now, no thanks to being a 'captive audience' if I can avoid it [[public transportation).

But, but, but...........

Zacha, if the bus rode on steel wheels running on tracks instead of rubber tires running on asphalt, all would be sweetness and light on board with the passengers enjoying friendly chats or working on their mobile devices [[free wi-fi and power at every seat). Just the atmosphere of the rail car would cause all of the sociopaths and psychopaths to become model citizens.

[iheartthed]

So far cities such as Seoul, Helsinki, and Lille have been mentioned as reasons for Detroit having a subway. There are crucial differences between Detroit and those cities.

Their populations are rising and their roads are getting clogged. Detroit's population is falling and the streets are getting empty.

Their city centers are like magnets and all of the population in their burbs wants or needs to go downtown with some frequency. As noted above, there is little reason for someone living in Detroit's burbs to want or need to go downtown.

Much of the rationale shown for Detroit transit is "build it and they will come" which is not much of a reason to shell out big [[and scarce) gigabucks for this.

I don't know if Lille or Helsinki count as fast growing cities [[or even Seoul for that matter), but you're absolutely right about something: when Detroit was a fast growing city with congested streets the city would have been far better off if it had worried about building a subway system instead of a highway network.

I do think Detroit has largely missed the boat [[two, actually) on a meaningful rail-based transit system in most of our lifetimes. The red tape around rail transit construction in America today makes it an extremely daunting task for even the strongest of municipal governments, and virtually impossible for one like Detroit that is mired in dysfunction on every level. However, that doesn't mean Detroit couldn't/wouldn't be a better place if it had one.

[Hermod]

I don't know if Lille or Helsinki count as fast growing cities [[or even Seoul for that matter), but you're absolutely right about something: when Detroit was a fast growing city with congested streets the city would have been far better off if it had worried about building a subway system instead of a highway network.

At the time the freeway network was proposed, Detroit had a very complete rail transit system in the city [[suburban rail transit died with James Couzzens takeover of the city streetcars). The streetcars were slowly replaced by buses for economic reasons [[buses are lest costly to operate).

[A. Seiferlein]

Love all these great ideas! The thing that no one is mentioning is that FIRST we need a Metropolitan Transit Authority that would combine MDOT and DDOT, wouldn't be corrupt - and would preferably be able to print their own money, too.
Then all the abovementioned wonderful things could happen.

[iheartthed]

At the time the freeway network was proposed, Detroit had a very complete rail transit system in the city [[suburban rail transit died with James Couzzens takeover of the city streetcars). The streetcars were slowly replaced by buses for economic reasons [[buses are lest costly to operate).

Buses are not less costly to operate.

[Detroitnerd]

I don't know about complete systems closing. Right off the top of my head, i can think of Boston's Green Line as a complete line that has closed. The new York subways system has closed and abandoned a large number of formerly active stations that the trains just whiz by today. Cincinnati has an abandoned subway tunnel but I am not sure if it was ever active.

http://www.abandonedsubwaytunnels.co...on_thumbs.html

Well, it wasn't the whole Green Line that closed, it was the A-branch of the Green Line that was closed, and it doesn't appear to have been a subway -- that is to say, that section didn't seem to have any tunnels or underground sections.

As for the New York City subway system, I think the actual number of disused stations is not large. The trains used to be shorter. As trains got longer, they extended stations and stopped using smaller in between stations. I used to enjoy knowing a few of them. There was one on the IRT you could see heading south into Union Square. I hear it's a bar now!

Looking at the information about Cincinnati, I found out that Rochester, N.Y. had a "subway" [[two miles underground) that was discontinued. But these aren't really heavy-rail systems that run for miles underground.

The point is: When you build a serious mass transit system, it becomes the backbone of how a city is organized and invested in. You can talk about "improved bus service" until the cows come home. When you put in fixed-route systems, potential investors and developers take note. And when you really build a system, a subway system, it is almost unheard-of to discontinue subway service, and that's when developers really take note. You can't build Rockefeller Center unless there's a hole in the ground where 100,000 people an hour can appear out of.

I kind of enjoy sparring back and forth on all this, and I'm glad you participate in this board because of the stories you share, but at some point you have to acknowledge that good transit service is one of the primary drivers of development in today's cities. I know it's not how your generation feels, Hermod, but take some time to do a little research on how the millennials feel about the importance of transit, or how they simply don't have the passion for cars that prevailed among young people in the 1960s and 1970s. How is Detroit supposed to attract development and young people? It won't do it with outdated dreams of what people wanted in the past. And I think this whole unreasonable bias against smart rapid transit is a way of telling young people: Fuck you; we will never give you what you want; all you need is some split-level pad with a two-car garage out by the airport; if you want fancy choo-choo trains and bike paths, go move to some fancy city run by college-educated Marxists.

You know what? They do. And we lose that energy. Transit is just one part of it, but it's a vital part. I know from experience. I lived in New York for 11 years. Sure, I got mugged. Yeah, my rent was high. It was an expensive rat race much of the time. But you know what? I didn't have to have a fucking car for 11 years. And that was pretty awesome...

[Hermod]

Buses are not less costly to operate.

They are when you add in the cost of maintaining the track, the electric overhead lines, and the signalling and dispatch.

In 1954 dolllars [[from a DSR report of that year), streetcars cost 85 cents per mile and buses cost 55 cents per mile in operating costs. To rehab the 30 year old track for the streetcars would cost $1.65 million in capital costs while replacing the streetcars with buses would cost only $800 thousand in capital costs. This is from the cost study on converting the Jefferson line from streetcars to buses.

[jtf1972]

The new York subways system has closed and abandoned a large number of formerly active stations that the trains just whiz by today.

The abandoned stations were not abandoned due to their not being used, but due to expansion of stations. For example: 91st St on the 1 line. When the trains were doubled in length the 96th St station was extended to the south to accommodate the longer trains. The south end of the 96th St. station was then two streets away from the north end of 91st St, so they closed 91st. Other stations that are no longer used were not able to be upgraded due to their design [[primarily being on curves where the trains turned around) or they were simply replaced with newer, better stations.

It is a working system and New York would not be as it is today without it.

The study here is very nice. A few cross-town routes would make a huge improvement. I would also look to change the lines that extend far out into the suburbs as either separate commuter lines, or have fewer stops on them.

In the city itself, I wouldn't necessarily cut the number of stops, but look to a NYC style of local/express trains. Let's say there was a 7 Mile crosstown line. If there were stops every half mile it would take forever to get across town. Have a local train that stops every stop and an express that stops every two miles. That would decrease travel time significantly.

[ghettopalmetto]

They are when you add in the cost of maintaining the track, the electric overhead lines, and the signalling and dispatch.

In 1954 dolllars [[from a DSR report of that year), streetcars cost 85 cents per mile and buses cost 55 cents per mile in operating costs. To rehab the 30 year old track for the streetcars would cost $1.65 million in capital costs while replacing the streetcars with buses would cost only $800 thousand in capital costs. This is from the cost study on converting the Jefferson line from streetcars to buses.

...and bread cost a nickel in 1954 too.

Does that 85 cents/mile figure include the cost of ripping out perfectly good rail infrastructure, which was well under-way in Detroit by 1954?

Someone has a severe case of nostalgia, and it sure isn't the people pushing for rail transit in Detroiit.

[jtf1972]

Oh... and here is the beautiful thing about public transit. If you don't want to use it you don't have to. Spend the money [[as we are currently forced to) and buy a car, pay gas & insurance and deal with the idiots on the road who don't care about anything outside of their own vehicle.

I actually saw a woman driving who had the cell phone up to her ear with one hand and her other over her opposite ear to hear better. Last week I watched a guy on the Lodge slow, pull onto the shoulder, back into traffic to block the left lane, then get out of his car. Good luck with them on the road.. I'll take a train and sit next to someone I don't know any day over driving.

Every time I fill my tank or have to drive somewhere I miss taking the train. Makes me want to move back.

By the way... As far as buses are concerned, they have many of the same problems as cars. They still have do deal with traffic and idiots on the road. Give me a subway any day.

[iheartthed]

They are when you add in the cost of maintaining the track, the electric overhead lines, and the signalling and dispatch.

In 1954 dolllars [[from a DSR report of that year), streetcars cost 85 cents per mile and buses cost 55 cents per mile in operating costs. To rehab the 30 year old track for the streetcars would cost $1.65 million in capital costs while replacing the streetcars with buses would cost only $800 thousand in capital costs. This is from the cost study on converting the Jefferson line from streetcars to buses.

Does this also take into account that it takes 3 buses to move the same number of passengers as one street car? How does the price of gas play into that? How much does it cost to maintain three buses for 20 years versus one street car for 40? How much does it cost to pay three bus drivers salary + health insurance costs? Plus all of the mechanics that you'll need to maintain those bus fleets?

[Hermod]

...and bread cost a nickel in 1954 too.

Bread cost 20-25 cents in 1954. You have to translate both prices to todays dollars.

Does that 85 cents/mile figure include the cost of ripping out perfectly good rail infrastructure, which was well under-way in Detroit by 1954?

It wasn't "ripped out" at all. It was just paved over. It wasn't "perfectly good rail" either. The rail was well over thirty years old. Detroit United Railways had quit putting money into city tracks during the long negotiations over the city renewal of the franchises or possible city confiscation of the tracks [[as happened). Mayor Couzens and his successors did not want any capital outlays to replace the track to call into question the city takeover. As a result, in the late 1940s, almost all of the DSR streetcar rails, ties, and roadbed badly needed replacement. The capital cost of buses was significantly less than the cost of replacing the track infrastructure.

For fun go to the library and see if they have or can obtain on inter-library loan:

Detroit Street Railways, Volume One, 1863-1922 by Jack E. Schramm and William H. Henning

Detroit Street Railways, Volume 2, 1922-1956 by Jack E. Schramm, William H. Henning, and Thomas J. Dworman

[ghettopalmetto]

Bread cost 20-25 cents in 1954. You have to translate both prices to todays dollars.



It wasn't "ripped out" at all. It was just paved over. It wasn't "perfectly good rail" either. The rail was well over thirty years old. Detroit United Railways had quit putting money into city tracks during the long negotiations over the city renewal of the franchises or possible city confiscation of the tracks [[as happened). Mayor Couzens and his successors did not want any capital outlays to replace the track to call into question the city takeover. As a result, in the late 1940s, almost all of the DSR streetcar rails, ties, and roadbed badly needed replacement. The capital cost of buses was significantly less than the cost of replacing the track infrastructure.

For fun go to the library and see if they have or can obtain on inter-library loan:

Detroit Street Railways, Volume One, 1863-1922 by Jack E. Schramm and William H. Henning

Detroit Street Railways, Volume 2, 1922-1956 by Jack E. Schramm, William H. Henning, and Thomas J. Dworman

That's lovely. Do you always make decisions based on a 60-year-old paradigm? Or is it just this one?

[Detroitnerd]

It wasn't "ripped out" at all. It was just paved over. It wasn't "perfectly good rail" either. The rail was well over thirty years old. Detroit United Railways had quit putting money into city tracks during the long negotiations over the city renewal of the franchises or possible city confiscation of the tracks [[as happened). Mayor Couzens and his successors did not want any capital outlays to replace the track to call into question the city takeover. As a result, in the late 1940s, almost all of the DSR streetcar rails, ties, and roadbed badly needed replacement. The capital cost of buses was significantly less than the cost of replacing the track infrastructure.

That is part of the story. But I don't think it takes into account the spirit of the era. Before gas buggies really took over, gas was very cheap. Until the automobile, gasoline was considered a difficult-to-use byproduct of oil refining. Almost as soon as the city bought the DUR's city holdings, it started a motor coach division. It's hard to believe today, but in an age where people actually called automobiles "a magic carpet for mankind" buses were considered modern -- and modern is always better, right?

It wasn't always stupid, of course. In the beginning, the bus' role as feeder mode was hashed out, as some lines with light capacity probably should have been bus lines, just as in any sensibly organized multi-modal system. Sometimes they would feed into a line, sometimes they would extend it without the added capital cost of extending a rail line. Not destructive, and actually kind of smart.

But it went so much further than that. The city could have invested in refurbishing the infrastructure early, and eventually it had to -- to accommodate the modern PCC cars after World War II. But more than money or numbers, it was about political will. When you look back on it, the DSR management sure seems to have been determined to end rail service, and did some sneaky things [[at least two lines were switched to buses during a strike). Was it a dollars-and-cents decision? Or was it an ideologically driven top-down decision? Look at the players. Fred Nolan headed up the DSR and evidently thought buses could do everything. He ensured that no new streetcars were purchased throughout the 1930s, and just kept buying buses and giving them traditionally heavy routes serving downtown. Candyman Cobo loved expressways, and the city ended streetcar service for good under his watch, even though, when asked in informal newspaper polls, Detroiters said they wanted the streetcars to remain.

So you can't discount the role of managers who saw buses as the mode of the future -- as well as wave after wave of propaganda that streetcars were outdated [[see General Motors' 1939 World's Fair Exhibit: Futurama) and private motorcars and motor coaches were the wave of the future. Under their direction, the DSR gradually became more and more a bus-oriented system. [[The exception would be World War II: Streetcar ridership spiked during the war; plans to convert lines to buses wouldn't work during wartime for a host of reasons.) So, in my opinion, despite Hermod's somewhat compelling arguments, getting rid of streetcar service was a top-down, management-driven, ideological decision.

For fun go to the library and see if they have or can obtain on inter-library loan:

Detroit Street Railways, Volume One, 1863-1922 by Jack E. Schramm and William H. Henning

Detroit Street Railways, Volume 2, 1922-1956 by Jack E. Schramm, William H. Henning, and Thomas J. Dworman

Those books are in the open stacks in the Burton Collection, one of the first shelves to the left of the large windows.

That said, have you seen Billie Henning lately? Yeesh...

[wolverine]

I truly don't get this kind of thinking. Spend money on gas, get stressed out by traffic/crazy drivers, but by golly I'm gonna drive everywhere!

I'm currently living in Incehon/Seoul, and it's amazing how efficient the transportation system here is. Granted it's one of the top 5 most populated cities in the world, but I can take the subway basically anywhere.

It's so convenient to be able to just walk one block to the subway station near my home, get on the subway, put on my music/read a book, and I'm i Seoul in 45 minutes. With a car, and all the traffic, it would take about an hour and a half.

And don't get me started on the bus system. Bus stops have screens so you can tell which buses are arriving, and the buses go EVERYWHERE.

It would be awesome to have express buses in Detroit that go to Ann Arbor and back.

But one thing that is different here, is there is no over the top dangerous crime to worry about. I don't have to worry about being robbed while waiting for the bus or the subway late at night.

Very good post. Yes, crime can be an issue. In a recent survey on Chicago's system, people fretted about having their electronics stolen. Seems like every week you read an article of an iphone being snatched, though in many cases the thieves get caught. But this bothers people alot more than say sitting next to someone or being on a crowded train.

My belief is transit systems are population generators OR 'population reshufflers' for lack of a better word. There's areas that are a no brainer for transit in Detroit like along Woodward or Jefferson. But the rest of the avenues are challenges. I've only looked at lines that have population growth potential. There's many areas in Detroit that are losing population and rapid transit wouldn't be able to provide much assistance as an amenity against greater forces of decline.

They could pass on through to better areas and just skip over those residents which is why on the map I think a ton of stops could be eliminated. Here in Chicago some of the stations that closed on the green line were the final nail in the coffin for some neighborhoods. Entire commercial streets were bulldozed because they were so incredibly useless. The majority of residents nearby that were renters and had the means to move..did..to areas better served by transit. As a result, you see population densities reshuffled.

Another point about stations is they are costly. When you take the total cost of subway construction, the stations make up a significant chunk of that. Typically construction of stations requires cut and cover techniques which are extremely costly and you'll need all the stairways, escalators, elevators, mezzanines, equipment, and platforms. Heck...just one farecard dispenser machine costs $40,000!!!!!

A tunnel is just a tunnel with trackage, drainage, lights and an occasional egress stair or cross-over switch. They'll require significantly less labor to build and construction is relatively automated with boring machines and redundant design and construction.

For neighborhoods further out, I'd probably recommend aerial structures instead of tunnels. The sections can be pre-built and delivered on site, then raised in place quickly. Many people think of at grade rail as the cheapest, but that's not really the case. They require new complex drainage systems, curbing, switching and signaling. It would be a pain to maintain all that equipment when trains are moving at the same level as traffic. Aerial structures would be far less complex.

I like these transit maps that people create for the means of discussion. We've had a few other posters that have done this, and they shouldn't feel like they are being overly criticized. It's nice to get people's input as to what a well developed system in Detroit could look like.

[Zacha341]

Hmm, that does sound appealing! I could park my car sometimes and opt for a ride with full out amenities as you describe when convenient. Think of the work I could get done while in transit! Ah to dream.....

But, but, but...........

Zacha, if the bus rode on steel wheels running on tracks instead of rubber tires running on asphalt, all would be sweetness and light on board with the passengers enjoying friendly chats or working on their mobile devices [[free wi-fi and power at every seat). Just the atmosphere of the rail car would cause all of the sociopaths and psychopaths to become model citizens.

[wolverine]

Oh... and here is the beautiful thing about public transit. If you don't want to use it you don't have to. Spend the money [[as we are currently forced to) and buy a car, pay gas & insurance and deal with the idiots on the road who don't care about anything outside of their own vehicle.

I actually saw a woman driving who had the cell phone up to her ear with one hand and her other over her opposite ear to hear better. Last week I watched a guy on the Lodge slow, pull onto the shoulder, back into traffic to block the left lane, then get out of his car. Good luck with them on the road.. I'll take a train and sit next to someone I don't know any day over driving.

Every time I fill my tank or have to drive somewhere I miss taking the train. Makes me want to move back.

By the way... As far as buses are concerned, they have many of the same problems as cars. They still have do deal with traffic and idiots on the road. Give me a subway any day.

Completely agree. And commuter rail is even better. I love just blazing by at 65 mph and seeing everyone stuck in traffic. I took MetraRail from downtown to Wisconsin last week...just $7 round trip.

We ordered Tacos and grabbed some alcohol and mixers before boarding. Another group had beer and pizza. Conductors are cool with that as long as you aren't disruptive. We shared with the other passengers and did have some conversations. Model citizens, yes!! People who didn't want to hear the conversation and smell the food could go to the "quiet car" where eating, cell phones, and talking are prohibited.

Really, the folks who commute in from the suburbs to downtown have it nice taking Metra. Frequent service, they don't get stuck in traffic, they can eat breakfast and check the news on their phone...or just catch up on some work.

My commute to work is about 2 miles. I could take the bus or train but normally avoid it because there's too many people. But it's there for me when I need it.

Otherwise, just bike to work if you are close. [[Pssssss..hey! The federal government will PAY YOU $20/month to do it)