Where Detroit public transportation goes from here.

[tkelly1986]

If you are in favor of light-rail and a tie in to the M-1 Project, I highly encourage you to voice your opinion at the SEMCOG community planning events [[tonight is Ferndale). As it stands, the light-rail project from Hart Plaza to 8 mile is scrapped. However, that doesn’t mean light-rail can’t be the mode choice for the Hart Plaza to Pontiac plan. In fact, I have been told there are a number of elected officials along the Woodward Corridor in Oakland County that would like to see this happen. The problem is the following:

• RTA legislation only allows the board to raise money to fund bussing projects, which BRT is a part of.
  
  • This legislation can be amended however to include light-rail, but that would take more work in Lansing. If it were amended, then the RTA could put light rail funding to a vote.
  
  
• It looks like the M-1 is moving forward. It also seems that the mode of transportation preferred by the government actors [[state/fed) is BRT. Therefore, the end product could be a BRT from Pontiac to New Center and then the rider would be required to change modes to complete the trip.
  
  • If this plan sounds as idiotic to you as it does to me, the only way to change what some consider a foregone conclusion is to voice your opinion….Tonight in Ferndale is a good start.

Like most folks on this board the fear is that Metro Detroit will go the cheap route and screw this up. It is now time for people to step up and tell the “leaders” what they want. And if that is a BRT/Street-Car hybrid, so be it.

http://www.woodwardanalysis.com/get_..._meetings.aspx

[brizee]

Rereading the bills.

Detroit gets two voting members on the board.

-1 picked by the county executive
-1 picked by the mayor

They can't currently be a politician or employee of the city/county/state or a public transportation agency.

They have to live in the city.

I have no idea who the candidate would be.

[j32885]

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!

[Al Publican]

I use to be a light rail supporter, but now I see buses as more practical and less expensive. A bus can alter its route with changing demographics and also stop on residential streets to pick up disabled and elderly folks. The Columbia River Crossing project here in Portland-Vancouver was recently cancelled largely over light rail arguments. A bus system could have dedicated lanes like in Ottawa, Canada and be powered on CNG. What are the arguments for light rail against buses?

[Detroitnerd]

I use to be a light rail supporter, but now I see buses as more practical and less expensive. A bus can alter its route with changing demographics and also stop on residential streets to pick up disabled and elderly folks. The Columbia River Crossing project here in Portland-Vancouver was recently cancelled largely over light rail arguments. A bus system could have dedicated lanes like in Ottawa, Canada and be powered on CNG. What are the arguments for light rail against buses?

One of the main arguments against buses is that "a bus can alter its route." When you put rails in the ground, that represents a capital improvement and a commitment to providing that transit service in perpetuity. That, in turn, convinces developers to shell out the tens of millions of dollars to build transit-oriented development in the vicinity.

Developers are smart folks, and used to hearing "promises" of bus service in an area, only to see it cut. Their eyes glaze over when they hear this talk. But putting rails in the ground and wires in the air gets their attention, and they do take out their checkbook when they see it.

[professorscott]

One of the main arguments against buses is that "a bus can alter its route." When you put rails in the ground, that represents a capital improvement and a commitment to providing that transit service in perpetuity. That, in turn, convinces developers to shell out the tens of millions of dollars to build transit-oriented development in the vicinity.

This is a good point which brings up an interesting question, and I'll just pose the question: what if you design a system in which a bus cannot easily alter its route? That is, you invest in fixed bus guideways, stations and so on, so that moving the route would involve abandonment of sunk capital.

[Detroitnerd]

This is a good point which brings up an interesting question, and I'll just pose the question: what if you design a system in which a bus cannot easily alter its route? That is, you invest in fixed bus guideways, stations and so on, so that moving the route would involve abandonment of sunk capital.

So, um, why not just built the MFing light rail?

Oh, because you can still cheap out on BRT systems so that they [[a) aren't rated well or [[b) aren't even mother-effin' BRT!

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...none-are-gold/

It isn't that gold standard BRT is impossible in the United States. Certainly it's possible. But it isn't built here because nobody really wants to build it.

The same community leaders who choose BRT over rail, because BRT is cheaper, then make the same choice when faced with other potential cost-cutting measures. They eliminate the most expensive features, until the gold standard that was promised isn't actually what's delivered.

That sort of feature cutting is called BRT creep, and so far it's happened to some extent on every major BRT project in American history.

[ghettopalmetto]

So, um, why not just built the MFing light rail?

Oh, because you can still cheap out on BRT systems so that they [[a) aren't rated well or [[b) aren't even mother-effin' BRT!

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...none-are-gold/

It isn't that gold standard BRT is impossible in the United States. Certainly it's possible. But it isn't built here because nobody really wants to build it.
The same community leaders who choose BRT over rail, because BRT is cheaper, then make the same choice when faced with other potential cost-cutting measures. They eliminate the most expensive features, until the gold standard that was promised isn't actually what's delivered.
That sort of feature cutting is called BRT creep, and so far it's happened to some extent on every major BRT project in American history.

If you just wish hard enough, dreams DO come true!!!

[Detroitnerd]

If you just wish hard enough, dreams DO come true!!!

Hahaha. Thanks for the laughs, GP.

For those unfamiliar with the differences between bus-based systems and light rail-based systems, see this informative website.

http://beyonddc.com/log/?p=1733

[mwilbert]

One of the main arguments against buses is that "a bus can alter its route." When you put rails in the ground, that represents a capital improvement and a commitment to providing that transit service in perpetuity. That, in turn, convinces developers to shell out the tens of millions of dollars to build transit-oriented development in the vicinity.

Developers are smart folks, and used to hearing "promises" of bus service in an area, only to see it cut. Their eyes glaze over when they hear this talk. But putting rails in the ground and wires in the air gets their attention, and they do take out their checkbook when they see it.

People say this all the time, but I feel compelled to point out that it makes no sense. The routes that are candidates for LRT are routes that have a lot of passengers anyway. There is no reasonable likelihood that Woodward and Gratiot are going to lose bus service.

What I think is actually true is that people have a somewhat [[not entirely, but more than is justified by the relative merits of the modes) irrational preference for trains over buses, and developers both share that preference and are aware of it on the part of their potential customers. I doubt it has much to do with possibly shifting routes.

[professorscott]

What I think is actually true is that people have a somewhat [[not entirely, but more than is justified by the relative merits of the modes) irrational preference for trains over buses, and developers both share that preference and are aware of it on the part of their potential customers.

The first part of that is well known in the transit community, and the second part is certainly a reasonable speculation.

[DetroitPlanner]

One of the main arguments against buses is that "a bus can alter its route." When you put rails in the ground, that represents a capital improvement and a commitment to providing that transit service in perpetuity. That, in turn, convinces developers to shell out the tens of millions of dollars to build transit-oriented development in the vicinity.

Developers are smart folks, and used to hearing "promises" of bus service in an area, only to see it cut. Their eyes glaze over when they hear this talk. But putting rails in the ground and wires in the air gets their attention, and they do take out their checkbook when they see it.

Weak argument. What is wrong with altering routes anyways? Say a bus gets used during the peak hour to get folks downtown, then it also gets used to bring people to a basketball game at the Palace during off peak hours? What if after starting a BRT route there is a huge development that goes in 4 blocks away, would it not make better sense to move that bus towards it a few blocks so it serves riders better?

Is it not better to save tens of millions in capital costs so you can use those dollars to operate service?

[wolverine]

Weak argument. What is wrong with altering routes anyways? Say a bus gets used during the peak hour to get folks downtown, then it also gets used to bring people to a basketball game at the Palace during off peak hours? What if after starting a BRT route there is a huge development that goes in 4 blocks away, would it not make better sense to move that bus towards it a few blocks so it serves riders better?

Is it not better to save tens of millions in capital costs so you can use those dollars to operate service?

No it wouldn't make sense to move that bus toward that development because that's not the way transit agencies plan or operate routes. Transit first, development follows. 4 blocks isn't that much of a walk either. So it would be outlandish to modify a route to serve one big development even if it had up to 3000 residents. But who would build that? Part of the marketability of a development is being as close to a transit line as possible.

Also a route that changes on peak needs or runs a non-linear path is extremely inefficient and will lose riders because of the small detour.

[Hermod]

Also a route that changes on peak needs or runs a non-linear path is extremely inefficient and will lose riders because of the small detour.

Ever seen a route map of the old DSR streetcar system? It was just full of detours. Only The radial lines followed more or less straight routes.

[professorscott]

Ever seen a route map of the old DSR streetcar system? It was just full of detours. Only The radial lines followed more or less straight routes.

Well, Detroit never had rapid transit, and in any local service situation, buses or streetcars, you design the service to go where people need to go. So the routes can vary from quite straight-line [[Woodward, Seven Mile) to quite circuitous [[Clairmount).

For a rapid or express service, though, a reasonably direct path is necessary, otherwise the speed isn't there. So we're talking about two completely different levels of service.

As a matter of fact, one level of service the region could use once there's some kind of rapid-ish transit - and has never had - is neighborhood circulators to connect people to the rapid-ish transit stations. Imagine, for instance, you live at 13 and Crooks in Royal Oak; you have no decent access to transit. Now a rapid bus system starts operating on Woodward, and there's a station at Woodward and 12 mile. Well, perhaps there's a small bus that just runs from that station, up around the neighborhoods of northwest RO, and back to the station. One little bus, just doing about a 20 minute round trip loop, all day. Well, now you have an option you didn't have before.

My friend Neil Greenberg has said the most important thing in any transportation system is the person. When we discuss transit, we should be discussing people: where are they, where do they need to get to and when? And then design a system that solves the transportation problem for as many people, and as efficiently, as possible. This is going to require local bus service such as we have now, though completely redesigned from the ground up; but it will also require different modes, be they bus rapid transit, M1 Rail, neighborhood circulators, jitneys, Detroit Bus Company or whatever. Think holistic.

[DetroitPlanner]

Also a route that changes on peak needs or runs a non-linear path is extremely inefficient and will lose riders because of the small detour.

Ever ride a CTA bus?? http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...ap/200806N.htm

[Detroitnerd]

Weak argument. What is wrong with altering routes anyways?

I just told you what's wrong with altering routes. Developers look at routes that can be easily altered and say, "NFW am I investing $20 million to build transit-oriented development here. NEXT!"

Is it not better to save tens of millions in capital costs so you can use those dollars to operate service?

One of the serious problems with metro Detroit transit planning is this mentality: Doing it on the cheap. Do it on the cheap and you'll get lousy results that don't attract riders of choice, don't earn the respect to get proper funding, and end up being loser cruisers. Keep at it, you "experts!"

[Eber Brock Ward]

One of the serious problems with metro Detroit transit planning is this mentality: Doing it on the cheap. Do it on the cheap and you'll get lousy results that don't attract riders of choice, don't earn the respect to get proper funding, and end up being loser cruisers. Keep at it, you "experts!"

Agreed completely, if not said in such an inflammatory manner. Better one or two good lines and a regionwide system of crap.

[Hypestyles]

geez, so the law is already pre-fixed not to deal with light rail at all, and needs a formal amendment to do so. Figures. one step forward, 12 steps backward.