Where Detroit public transportation goes from here.

**Detroitnerd** · August-08-13, 04:21 PM

ghettopalmetto: People aren't stupid.

You're right. And bus service is bus service. There are things buses can do, and things buses can't do. Most people know this.

But it's a matter of goals. Looking at the intended projects, it seems to me that the goal here is to have a system of transit for poor people, while better-off people still use their cars.

The BRT plan involves a route out Woodward and a route on Hall Road. Who is going to take a bus on Hall Road? Are there any pedestrians on Hall Road? Is there any existing ridership on Hall Road? Why would anybody want to take a bus on Hall Road? You'd have to get off the bus and walk across a barren parking lot to a store, in cold, in rain, in snow. Half the passengers will have to walk to a crosswalk, spend several minutes waiting for lights or on medians, and then walk possible as much as a half-mile to their destination. This is not mode of choice. This is a loser cruiser. Everybody with any amount of intelligence looks at it and says, "I wouldn't take that bus unless I had to."

In short, it's exactly the kind of plan that will convince the majority of metro Detroiters that mass transit is for losers, and that it never works.

**dtowncitylover** · August-08-13, 04:54 PM

This really has nothing to do with anything right now, but I have cousins in the Waterloo region of Ontario [[Waterloo-Kitchener-Cambridge) and they're even getting a Light rail line! I mean, c'mon! A suburban paradise whose only connection to Toronto is GO's Kitchener stop and a freeway. And it looks like the process was streamlined and easy. Little to no fuss, everyone knew it's going to be good the community. And here we are, still moving slower than a sloth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_%28transit_system%29

**ghettopalmetto** · August-08-13, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

ghettopalmetto: People aren't stupid.

You're right. And bus service is bus service. There are things buses can do, and things buses can't do. Most people know this.

But it's a matter of goals. Looking at the intended projects, it seems to me that the goal here is to have a system of transit for poor people, while better-off people still use their cars.

The BRT plan involves a route out Woodward and a route on Hall Road. Who is going to take a bus on Hall Road? Are there any pedestrians on Hall Road? Is there any existing ridership on Hall Road? Why would anybody want to take a bus on Hall Road? You'd have to get off the bus and walk across a barren parking lot to a store, in cold, in rain, in snow. Half the passengers will have to walk to a crosswalk, spend several minutes waiting for lights or on medians, and then walk possible as much as a half-mile to their destination. This is not mode of choice. This is a loser cruiser. Everybody with any amount of intelligence looks at it and says, "I wouldn't take that bus unless I had to."

In short, it's exactly the kind of plan that will convince the majority of metro Detroiters that mass transit is for losers, and that it never works.

It's also a very cynical play to direct limited federal and state transit dollars to road contractors. As I stated above, this is why someone with transit experience OUTSIDE the region is helpful.

In the early 1980s, Cleveland had plans for a heavy rail subway from Public Square to University Circle [[which are still the two largest employment centers in the region). That was derided as "too expensive", and so became a light rail plan. With the advent of the pro-bus-"rapid"-transit Bush Adminstration, that light rail project became $250 million worth of curbs and flowers. Good job, guys! It only took 25 years to build curbs and plant flowers along 7 miles of Euclid Avenue.

Of course, the City and the RTA claim wild success and $4 billion of "new" investment--driven primarily by the Cleveland Clinic [[which has been growing nonstop for decades), the evolution of Cleveland State University into a residential campus, and the demand for residential real estate downtown--ALL of which had been taking place well before federal funding was even secured for the project.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. Poor people--fuck 'em.

**brizee** · August-09-13, 10:03 AM

What's stopping SMART/DDOT from implementing their "rapid" plan right now?

Paint the buses for Woodward/Gratiot/Michigan/Grand River. You have the blue, red, green, gold lines.

Stop at every tenth bus stop, for every mile and a half instead of every hundred feet. That's half the measures that give this BRT nonsense their "speed" right there.

Do you really need extra money for this?

They're doing exactly what I feared they would. Designing a transit system to appease the old and stubborn. Two of the "big 4" are about to be voted out and there's a very good chance the other retires or dies before the ground breaks on this project.

Every person I talk to about it has a similar reaction: "Another damn bus!?"

We're being setup to fail. And it doesn't need to be that way.

**j32885** · August-11-13, 08:46 PM

Was on my other message board, and saw they were talking about a new transportation service called Freshwater Transit & Railway Co. I must say the person who thought this up is a pure genius. ^_^

Freshwater Transit & Railway Co. would be a new transportation service based on commuter rail and have bus connections to where the rail network doesn't go. The bus connection routes would correspond with rail stations.

Overall, it basically makes use of the current rail network and combines it with new bus services. Again, I'm not certain with our current transit setup, that either DDOT or SMART wants another party taking their business away. I thought supposedly our NEW RTA was going the help out our current mass transit issues.

It's all imaginative thought, but the information there is really useful for creating a new transportation system and services for Southeast Michigan. Under this transit system, MCS would be used as a major transportation hub.

See All Links Below:

Freshwater Transit
http://fwtransit.org/

Freshwater Railway
http://www.fwrail.org/index.htm

Freshwater Transit/Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/fwrail

Freshwater Transit & Railway Co Project
http://project.fwrail.org/

“Mapping Detroit's future: Critical mass transit imagined”
http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/...ansit1211.aspx

“Who Did This? Freshwater Railway”
http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23078

“Very detailed fantasy Detroit transit system”
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=195076

Other Links:

SEMCOG Transit Report, November 28, 2008
http://www.semcog.org/uploadedFiles/...%2021%2008.pdf

Transportation Riders United, Regional Plan
http://www.detroittransit.org/cms.php?pageid=69

Detroit Transit.Org/DDOT-SMART Transit Map, 2010
http://www.detroittransit.org/UserFi...DOT%202010.pdf

John Good/Environmental & Urban Systems
http://pro.jpgnexus.com/detroit/

Detroit MobiliD Map
http://pro.jpgnexus.com/assets/portf...MobiliDMap.png

JWCONS.Blogspot
http://jwcons.blogspot.com/

New Metro Detroit Fantasy Map
http://thedetroitmetro.blogspot.com/...ntasy-map.html

Robert Camron Design-Detroit Transit Map
http://robertcamerondesign.com/detroittransitmap.html

“MoTown Commuter Rail”
http://www.railroadfan.com/phpbb/vie...p?f=24&t=26496

Enjoy!

**dtowncitylover** · August-12-13, 03:00 PM

Jack Lessenberry's take on Hertel.

http://www.michiganradio.org/post/re...oZv1A4.twitter

And what's that mentioned in the article? BUSES! Oh boy, buses that look like trains. Kinda like when you put lipstick on pig it becomes...oh wait, nothing, it's still a pig!

Wow, Hertel and the RTA you guys are true visionaries. If they could set their sights higher in order to get better federal funding and swoon the metro populous their way to vote for funding them. If they could just improve bus service with a consistent schedule and new buses and compliment it with streetcar/light rail service along busier corridors, and commuter rail to the important satellite cities of Ann Arbor, Toledo, and maybe even Flint, then we would have a competent RTA and RTA head. BUT NOOOOO...WE GET %^%^@$%^@$%^@$%^%$@#%@$&%^ BUSES.

**professorscott** · August-12-13, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

If they could set their sights higher in order to get better federal funding and swoon the metro populous their way to vote for funding them.

Here is the difficulty with Federal funding of transit capital projects: it requires a very significant local match. Uncle Sugar does not just send you a few billion dollars and say, hey, build out some awesome transit.

The communities building high-end transit systems today are the ones who have voted to pay for the systems sufficiently to meet the Federal government's match requirements. Metro Detroit has never voted for funding to support transit beyond the limited service provided by SMART, and many communities have chosen not to even participate in that.

As I have said repeatedly when these arguments come up, figure out a way to get the public to agree to pay for high end transit, and the planners will be happy to plan for it.

Regarding commuter rail: it has taken years and years to try to get the Ann Arbor to Detroit service up and running, and it still isn't running. Why? Two reasons. First, Detroit's freight rail lines are still quite active and the companies who own the lines are requiring modifications, which take time and money, before the service can commence. And second, there isn't any source of money to pay for the service. Commuter rail is a very efficient way to provide transit - the tracks already exist - but we don't have the abandoned trackage on major corridors the way most cities do. [[That's a good thing, it means we still have industry that needs to ship by rail.)

**DetroitPlanner** · August-12-13, 09:54 PM

Federal transit funding [[sections 5307, 5339) will fund only capital projects. It requires the local agency to pay 20 percent. With MAP 21 Section 5309 [[transit pork) went away and was replaced with 5339. 5339 is a formula program, which is a blessing in some ways, but makes it darn near impossible to fund a gigantic project.

Washington has only funded large projects through a program known as TIGER over the last several budgets. TIGER only contains $500 million which at first glance may seem like a lot, but considering that it is shared with Federal Highway, Michigan has diminishing pull in Washington, and no federal politician wants to be accused of helping to give Detroit money when it comes time for re-election, this won't be an easy project to fund.

That is why something like BRT is more attractive. It can be rolled out more slowly. Baby steps may not be what we want but it gets us in the direction we want to go.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-14-13, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by professorscott

Here is the difficulty with Federal funding of transit capital projects: it requires a very significant local match. Uncle Sugar does not just send you a few billion dollars and say, hey, build out some awesome transit.

The communities building high-end transit systems today are the ones who have voted to pay for the systems sufficiently to meet the Federal government's match requirements. Metro Detroit has never voted for funding to support transit beyond the limited service provided by SMART, and many communities have chosen not to even participate in that.

As I have said repeatedly when these arguments come up, figure out a way to get the public to agree to pay for high end transit, and the planners will be happy to plan for it.

Regarding commuter rail: it has taken years and years to try to get the Ann Arbor to Detroit service up and running, and it still isn't running. Why? Two reasons. First, Detroit's freight rail lines are still quite active and the companies who own the lines are requiring modifications, which take time and money, before the service can commence. And second, there isn't any source of money to pay for the service. Commuter rail is a very efficient way to provide transit - the tracks already exist - but we don't have the abandoned trackage on major corridors the way most cities do. [[That's a good thing, it means we still have industry that needs to ship by rail.)

How do you obtain funding when you don't know the cost of something? You can't expect the RTA to obtain funding for light rail or commuter rail if they're focused strictly on buses. Nor can you sell light rail or commuter rail to the voting public if you're only talking about buses.

What you propose, professorscott, is like complaining that Ruby Tuesday doesn't have foie gras on the menu. When you set your sights low, everything is impossible, isn't it?

I'd think if smaller regions like Norfolk and Salt Lake can find money for transit investment, certainly a huge metropolis like Detroit can do same.

**mwilbert** · August-14-13, 08:48 AM

I'd think if smaller regions like Norfolk and Salt Lake can find money for transit investment, certainly a huge metropolis like Detroit can do same.

Those places aren't stagnant and don't have metro Detroit's absurd politics, so I don't really see the comparison as meaningful. Much as I'd like to see a sensible regional transportation policy, I think the best we can hope for is the BRT baby steps.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-14-13, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

Those places aren't stagnant and don't have metro Detroit's absurd politics, so I don't really see the comparison as meaningful. Much as I'd like to see a sensible regional transportation policy, I think the best we can hope for is the BRT baby steps.

Detroit is stagnant because it chooses to be. Sitting in the La-Z-Boy of the Status Quo is a lot easier than doing the hard work necessary to grow the region again.

**Hermod** · August-14-13, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I'd think if smaller regions like Norfolk and Salt Lake can find money for transit investment, certainly a huge metropolis like Detroit can do same.

I am not sure about Salt lake, but Norfolk had the advantage that the former interurban tracks were still used for freight switching and so much of the trackbed and the right-of-way were preserved.

Our wonderful mayor, James Couzzens [[sp?) put the final nail in the coffin for the DUR interurban system when he forbade the interurban cars from using the DSR streetcar tracks to access downtown forcing the interurban passengers to get off the rail cars and board shuttle buses to access downtown. When the DUR owned both the interurbans and the streetcars, they used the same tracks in the city.

While everyone is blaming the eeeeeeevullllllllll car companies, big oil, and Goodyear for the loss of the Detroit streetcars, it might be well to notice the chain of events leading up to their demise:

1. DUR wanted to raise fares to upgrade the tracks. City gummint denied the request.

2. City gummint kept threatening a forced sale of the streetcars system to the city. DUR hesitated to commit funds to upgrade the tracks.

3. Mayor Couzzens forced the sale of the DUR streetcar system to the DSR for a very lowball price [[under the threat of not renewing the DUR charter).

4. DSR thus inherited a streetcar system with trackage that was on its last legs and needed major investments for upgrades.

5. Fares were immediately raised pissing off the public who had been told that DUR was "greedy" in wanting to raise fares.

6. DSR floated a bond issue that was narrowly approved. It was not enough. Couzzens then went back for another bite of the bond issue apple. It was turned down.

7. For decades, the Detroit mayors, gummint, and news media had campaigned against the DUR saying that it was greedy and pocketing large sums to give poor service. Now that the DSR was running the system, peole realized they had been had. They had to pay more for the same lousy service and the gummint still wanted more money because the streetcars weren't raking in the profits as they had been told. The streetcars were a money sink.

**professorscott** · August-14-13, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

How do you obtain funding when you don't know the cost of something? You can't expect the RTA to obtain funding for light rail or commuter rail if they're focused strictly on buses.

Commuter rail, on any kind of large scale, is off the table; the freight railways that own the tracks are using them and are not willing to consider allowing lots of passenger trains on their tracks, for many reasons. Commuter rail works best when you have railroad tracks that aren't used for freight anymore. Building new rail infrastructure away from streets, which would be required, is much more expensive than anything else we might do.

If it were possible for [[say) the State to purchase the necessary trackway from the freight railways, then it would be reasonable; but I can't imagine a scenario in which that happens.

Now, on the other hand, light rail has been extensively studied. I was one of the people who studied it. In fact if you look at the 2008 plan that the RTCC approved, it calls for light rail on Woodward and possibly also on Gratiot. The reason we are talking about buses right now is that it would not have been possible to get the RTA legislation enacted otherwise.

Why that is, would make an excellent book, but is too complicated for a blog post. I will say, though, if the City of Detroit had proposed light rail from downtown Detroit to downtown Royal Oak and had allowed for the possibility of someone else operating it, we'd likely still be pursuing that right now. But that isn't what happened. Keeping control and keeping it from crossing Eight Mile killed it, and set regional light rail back fifteen years.

For the record, I'm a big fan of light rail. But I do not work in a vacuum.

**Hermod** · August-14-13, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by professorscott

. I will say, though, if the City of Detroit had proposed light rail from downtown Detroit to downtown Royal Oak and had allowed for the possibility of someone else operating it, we'd likely still be pursuing that right now. But that isn't what happened. Keeping control and keeping it from crossing Eight Mile killed it, and set regional light rail back fifteen years.

Like I have maintained, if they had started the light rail in Pontiac and worked south down the old interurban right-of-way in the middle of Woodward, there would be a lot of political support for continuing its construction all the way into downtown Detroit.

I also think that if they run the route in Detroit a block east or west of Woodward, the traffic problems would go away and you could have side running with traffic signal override.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-14-13, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by professorscott

Now, on the other hand, light rail has been extensively studied. I was one of the people who studied it. In fact if you look at the 2008 plan that the RTCC approved, it calls for light rail on Woodward and possibly also on Gratiot. The reason we are talking about buses right now is that it would not have been possible to get the RTA legislation enacted otherwise.

Why that is, would make an excellent book, but is too complicated for a blog post. I will say, though, if the City of Detroit had proposed light rail from downtown Detroit to downtown Royal Oak and had allowed for the possibility of someone else operating it, we'd likely still be pursuing that right now. But that isn't what happened. Keeping control and keeping it from crossing Eight Mile killed it, and set regional light rail back fifteen years.

For the record, I'm a big fan of light rail. But I do not work in a vacuum.

The RTA has cross-boundary jurisdiction, does it not? In other words, is the RTA not capable of region-wide transit planning activities, as pertains to identifying capital needs?

Or is John Hertel just going to drudge up SEMCOG's Sexybus Plan from 10 years ago, disregarding that ain't no way no how that anyone is going to ride a bus on Hall Road?

**Eber Brock Ward** · August-14-13, 10:36 AM

profscott, are those reports public?

if not, why gratiot for a potential second light-rail line and not, say, jefferson, given the greater density up jefferson?

**professorscott** · August-14-13, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward

profscott, are those reports public?

if not, why gratiot for a potential second light-rail line and not, say, jefferson, given the greater density up jefferson?

Yes, they're buried somewhere in SEMCOG's web site. I'll try to find them later today and post a link.

Gratiot is a potential second light rail line and is identified as such in the report. At the time of the study, several years ago, existing bus ridership on Jefferson was insufficient to qualify for federal funding of light rail, but since then conditions have changed and the federal formula has also changed.

The RTA legislation requires the RTA to adopt the three-county 2008 regional transit plan and the AATA's most recent plan. They can be changed, of course, but they are de jure the starting point.

**antongast** · August-14-13, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward

profscott, are those reports public?

if not, why gratiot for a potential second light-rail line and not, say, jefferson, given the greater density up jefferson?

Gratiot has way higher transit ridership. Outside the city limits, Jefferson runs for miles and miles through an extremely wealthy area where there are no employment centers and all the residents have cars and half your potential ridership is in the lake. Jefferson is only a busy corridor in the city proper; Gratiot is a busy corridor all the way out to 23 Mile or so [[and even in the city Gratiot is much busier). Also, if you had light rail on both Gratiot and Jefferson running into Macomb County, both would end up in more or less the same place, but the Jefferson route would take a lot longer to get there.

Anyway, does Jefferson have higher density? It's not obvious to me that this is the case, but I'd be interested in your data/metrics if you have them.

**brizee** · August-14-13, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by professorscott

Yes, they're buried somewhere in SEMCOG's web site. I'll try to find them later today and post a link.

Gratiot is a potential second light rail line and is identified as such in the report. At the time of the study, several years ago, existing bus ridership on Jefferson was insufficient to qualify for federal funding of light rail, but since then conditions have changed and the federal formula has also changed.

The RTA legislation requires the RTA to adopt the three-county 2008 regional transit plan and the AATA's most recent plan. They can be changed, of course, but they are de jure the starting point.

You seem to be knowledgable so I have a few questions.

I'm really not trying to be negative, I just want this place to get better and I get angry when it looks like games are being played to prevent that.

What was the purpose of needing unanimous consent on rail options instead of a majority, or even super majority? Was it put in as a poison pill to make sure rail options are never put to the public for consideration.

There's a good chance both parts of the legislative and the executive branch might change in this state/some counties next year. Could the RTA package be modified during that time?

On the CEO choice. Was it predetermined? The guy might truly be the most qualified, I don't know. But it REALLY looks like the other interviews were a sham when the guy that gets chosen was also the guy that happened to be hip deep in so much of what has gone on in trasportation for years.

Just so I'm clear. Before an upgrade can happen. It has to be put to a vote, before that it has be approved by county election officials, before that the RTA board has to approve it [[unanimously in case of rail), but the CEO has to put it before the board?

Does any proposal have to pass in each county like the DIA millage? Or is it majority in aggregate?

Will any other routes/streets be evaluated besides the four already put forward?

**DetroitPlanner** · August-14-13, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Detroit is stagnant because it chooses to be. Sitting in the La-Z-Boy of the Status Quo is a lot easier than doing the hard work necessary to grow the region again.

Lazy boy is growing on our region:
http://www.monroenews.com/news/2013/...arter-details/

Maybe we should stop worrying about transit so much and worry about selling more Lazy-Boys? After all, Lazy Boy = Jobs = Need to Access the Jobs @ a location where the nuns are all environmentalists and would love buses.

Then again, Monroe, may be part of the region and SMART, but it is not part of the RTA.

**Eber Brock Ward** · August-14-13, 12:58 PM

thanks, all. totally forgot about extra-city portions of a route.

**antongast** · August-14-13, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Then again, Monroe, may be part of the region and SMART, but it is not part of the RTA.

Monroe County isn't part of SMART. Were you thinking of SEMCOG?

**professorscott** · August-14-13, 01:46 PM